Treatment of allergic rhinitis using mobile technology with real-world data: The MASK observational pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Large observational implementation studies are needed to triangulate the findings from randomized control trials as they reflect "real-world" everyday practice. In a pilot study, we attempted to provide additional and complementary insights on the real-life treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR) using mobile technology. METHODS: A mobile phone app (Allergy Diary, freely available in Google Play and Apple App stores) collects the data of daily visual analog scales (VAS) for (i) overall allergic symptoms, (ii) nasal, ocular, and asthma symptoms, (iii) work, as well as (iv) medication use using a treatment scroll list including all medications (prescribed and over the counter (OTC)) for rhinitis customized for 15 countries. RESULTS: A total of 2871 users filled in 17 091 days of VAS in 2015 and 2016. Medications were reported for 9634 days. The assessment of days appeared to be more informative than the course of the treatment as, in real life, patients do not necessarily use treatment on a daily basis; rather, they appear to increase treatment use with the loss of symptom control. The Allergy Diary allowed differentiation between treatments within or between classes (intranasal corticosteroid use containing medications and oral H1-antihistamines). The control of days differed between no [best control], single, or multiple treatments (worst control). CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the usefulness of the Allergy Diary in accessing and assessing everyday use and practice in AR. This pilot observational study uses a very simple assessment (VAS) on a mobile phone, shows novel findings, and generates new hypotheses.

Pilot study of mobile phone technology in allergic rhinitis in European countries: the MASK-rhinitis study.

BACKGROUND: The use of Apps running on smartphones and tablets profoundly affects medicine. The MASK-rhinitis (MACVIA-ARIA Sentinel NetworK for allergic rhinitis) App (Allergy Diary) assesses allergic rhinitis symptoms, disease control and impact on patients' lives. It is freely available in 20 countries (iOS and Android platforms). AIMS: To assess in a pilot study whether (i) Allergy Diary users were able to properly provide baseline characteristics (ii) simple phenotypic characteristics based upon data captured by the Allergy Diary could be identified and (iii) information gathered by this study could suggest novel research questions. METHODS: The Allergy Diary users were classified into six groups according to the baseline data that they entered into the App: (i) asymptomatic; (ii) nasal symptoms excluding rhinorrhea; (iii) rhinorrhea; (iv) rhinorrhea plus 1-2 nasal/ocular symptoms; (v) rhinorrhea plus ≥3 nasal/ocular symptoms; and (vi) rhinorrhea plus all nasal/ocular symptoms. RESULTS: By 1 June 2016, 3260 users had registered with the Allergy Diary and 2710 had completed the baseline questionnaire. Troublesome symptoms were found mainly in the users with the most symptoms. Around 50% of users with troublesome rhinitis and/or ocular symptoms suffered work impairment. Sleep was impaired by troublesome symptoms and nasal obstruction. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first App (iOS and Android) to have tested for allergic rhinitis and conjunctivitis. A simple questionnaire administered by cell phones enables the identification of phenotypic differences between a priori defined rhinitis groups. The results suggest novel concepts and research questions in allergic rhinitis that may not be identified using classical methods.

Work productivity in rhinitis using cell phones: The MASK pilot study.

Allergic rhinitis often impairs social life and performance. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to use cell phone data to assess the impact on work productivity of uncontrolled rhinitis assessed by visual analogue scale (VAS). A mobile phone app (Allergy Diary, Google Play Store and Apple App Store) collects data from daily visual analogue scales (VAS) for overall allergic symptoms (VAS-global measured), nasal (VAS-nasal), ocular (VAS-ocular) and asthma symptoms (VAS-asthma) as well as work (VAS-work). A combined nasal-ocular score is calculated. The Allergy Diary is available in 21 countries. The app includes the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Allergic Specific Questionnaire (WPAI:AS) in six EU countries. All consecutive users who completed the VAS-work from 1 June to 31 October 2016 were included in the study. A total of 1136 users filled in 5818 days of VAS-work. Symptoms of allergic rhinitis were controlled (VAS-global <20) in approximately 60% of the days. In users with uncontrolled rhinitis, approximately 90% had some work impairment and over 50% had severe work impairment (VAS-work >50). There was a significant correlation between VAS-global calculated and VAS-work (Rho=0.83, P<0.00001, Spearman's rank test). In 144 users, there was a significant correlation between VAS-work and WPAI:AS (Rho=0.53, P<0.0001). This pilot study provides not only proof-of-concept data on the work impairment collected with the app but also data on the app itself, especially the distribution of responses for the VAS. This supports the interpretation that persons with rhinitis report both the presence and the absence of symptoms.

Validation of a questionnaire (CARAT10) to assess rhinitis and asthma in patients with asthma.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The Control of Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma Test (CARAT) was developed to be used in the concurrent management of these diseases, as recommended by the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines. However, it was necessary to statistically identify and remove redundant questions and to evaluate the new version's factor structure, internal consistency and concurrent validity. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study 193 adults with allergic rhinitis and asthma from 15 outpatient clinics in Portugal were included. The CARAT questionnaire was reduced using descriptive analysis, exploratory factor analysis and internal consistency. Spearman's correlations were used to compare the CARAT scores with a medical evaluation and other measures of control, including the Asthma Control Questionnaire and symptoms' visual analogue scales. The performance against physician rating of control was summarized using the area under the curve (AUC) from receiver operating characteristic analysis. In addition, CARAT was compared with the physician's decision to reduce, maintain or increase treatment. RESULTS: The reduced version has 10 questions and 2 factors (CARAT10). The Cronbach's alpha was 0.85. All correlation coefficients of CARAT10 and factors with the different measures of control met the a priori predictions, ranging from 0.58 to 0.79. The AUC was 0.82. For the physician's decision groups of reduce, maintain or increase treatment, the mean (IC95%) scores of CARAT10 were 24 (21.4;26.6), 21 (19.4;21.9) and 15 (13.6;16.5), respectively. CONCLUSION: CARAT10 has high internal consistency and good concurrent validity, making it useful to compare groups in clinical studies.