Rhinitis associated with asthma is distinct from rhinitis alone: The ARIA-MeDALL hypothesis.

Asthma, rhinitis, and atopic dermatitis (AD) are interrelated clinical phenotypes that partly overlap in the human interactome. The concept of "one-airway-one-disease," coined over 20 years ago, is a simplistic approach of the links between upper- and lower-airway allergic diseases. With new data, it is time to reassess the concept. This article reviews (i) the clinical observations that led to Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA), (ii) new insights into polysensitization and multimorbidity, (iii) advances in mHealth for novel phenotype definitions, (iv) confirmation in canonical epidemiologic studies, (v) genomic findings, (vi) treatment approaches, and (vii) novel concepts on the onset of rhinitis and multimorbidity. One recent concept, bringing together upper- and lower-airway allergic diseases with skin, gut, and neuropsychiatric multimorbidities, is the "Epithelial Barrier Hypothesis." This review determined that the "one-airway-one-disease" concept does not always hold true and that several phenotypes of disease can be defined. These phenotypes include an extreme "allergic" (asthma) phenotype combining asthma, rhinitis, and conjunctivitis. Rhinitis alone and rhinitis and asthma multimorbidity represent two distinct diseases with the following differences: (i) genomic and transcriptomic background (Toll-Like Receptors and IL-17 for rhinitis alone as a local disease; IL-33 and IL-5 for allergic and non-allergic multimorbidity as a systemic disease), (ii) allergen sensitization patterns (mono- or pauci-sensitization versus polysensitization), (iii) severity of symptoms, and (iv) treatment response. In conclusion, rhinitis alone (local disease) and rhinitis with asthma multimorbidity (systemic disease) should be considered as two distinct diseases, possibly modulated by the microbiome, and may be a model for understanding the epidemics of chronic and autoimmune diseases.

The Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) score of allergic rhinitis using mobile technology correlates with quality of life: The MASK study.

Mobile technology has been used to appraise allergic rhinitis control, but more data are needed. To better assess the importance of mobile technologies in rhinitis control, the ARIA (Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma) score ranging from 0 to 4 of the Allergy Diary was compared with EQ-5D (EuroQuol) and WPAI-AS (Work Productivity and Activity Impairment in allergy) in 1288 users in 18 countries. This study showed that quality-of-life data (EQ-5D visual analogue scale and WPA-IS Question 9) are similar in users without rhinitis and in those with mild rhinitis (scores 0-2). Users with a score of 3 or 4 had a significant impairment in quality-of-life questionnaires.

Transfer of innovation on allergic rhinitis and asthma multimorbidity in the elderly (MACVIA-ARIA) - EIP on AHA Twinning Reference Site (GARD research demonstration project).

The overarching goals of the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing (EIP on AHA) are to enable European citizens to lead healthy, active and independent lives whilst ageing. The EIP on AHA includes 74 Reference Sites. The aim of this study was to transfer innovation from an app developed by the MACVIA-France EIP on AHA reference site (Allergy Diary) to other reference sites. The phenotypic characteristics of rhinitis and asthma multimorbidity in adults and the elderly will be compared using validated information and communication technology (ICT) tools (i.e. the Allergy Diary and CARAT: Control of Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma Test) in 22 Reference Sites or regions across Europe. This will improve the understanding, assessment of burden, diagnosis and management of rhinitis in the elderly by comparison with an adult population. Specific objectives will be: (i) to assess the percentage of adults and elderly who are able to use the Allergy Diary, (ii) to study the phenotypic characteristics and treatment over a 1-year period of rhinitis and asthma multimorbidity at baseline (cross-sectional study) and (iii) to follow-up using visual analogue scale (VAS). This part of the study may provide some insight into the differences between the elderly and adults in terms of response to treatment and practice. Finally (iv) work productivity will be examined in adults.

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.

Adherence to inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting ß2-agonists in asthma: A MASK-air study.

INTRODUCTION: Adherence to controller medication is a major problem in asthma management, being difficult to assess and tackle. mHealth apps can be used to assess adherence. We aimed to assess the adherence to inhaled corticosteroids+long-acting ß2-agonists (ICS+LABA) in users of the MASK-air® app, comparing the adherence to ICS+formoterol (ICS+F) with that to ICS+other LABA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analysed complete weeks of MASK-air® data (2015-2022; 27 countries) from patients with self-reported asthma and ICS+LABA use. We compared patients reporting ICS+F versus ICS+other LABA on adherence levels, symptoms and symptom-medication scores. We built regression models to assess whether adherence to ICS+LABA was associated with asthma control or short-acting beta-agonist (SABA) use. Sensitivity analyses were performed considering the weeks with no more than one missing day. RESULTS: In 2598 ICS+LABA users, 621 (23.9%) reported 4824 complete weeks and 866 (33.3%) reported weeks with at most one missing day. Higher adherence (use of medication ≥80% of weekly days) was observed for ICS+other LABA (75.1%) when compared to ICS+F (59.3%), despite both groups displaying similar asthma control and work productivity. The ICS+other LABA group was associated with more days of SABA use than the ICS+F group (median=71.4% versus 57.1% days). Each additional weekly day of ICS+F use was associated with a 4.1% less risk in weekly SABA use (95%CI=-6.5;-1.6%;p=0.001). For ICS+other LABA, the percentage was 8.2 (95%CI=-11.6;-5.0%;p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In asthma patients adherent to the MASK-air app, adherence to ICS+LABA was high. ICS+F users reported lower adherence but also a lower SABA use and a similar level of control.

Identification by cluster analysis of patients with asthma and nasal symptoms using the MASK-air® mHealth app.

BACKGROUND: The self-reporting of asthma frequently leads to patient misidentification in epidemiological studies. Strategies combining the triangulation of data sources may help to improve the identification of people with asthma. We aimed to combine information from the self-reporting of asthma, medication use and symptoms to identify asthma patterns in the users of an mHealth app. METHODS: We studied MASK-air® users who reported their daily asthma symptoms (assessed by a 0-100 visual analogue scale - "VAS Asthma") at least three times (either in three different months or in any period). K-means cluster analysis methods were applied to identify asthma patterns based on: (i) whether the user self-reported asthma; (ii) whether the user reported asthma medication use and (iii) VAS asthma. Clusters were compared by the number of medications used, VAS asthma levels and Control of Asthma and Allergic Rhinitis Test (CARAT) levels. FINDINGS: We assessed a total of 8,075 MASK-air® users. The main clustering approach resulted in the identification of seven groups. These groups were interpreted as probable: (i) severe/uncontrolled asthma despite treatment (11.9-16.1% of MASK-air® users); (ii) treated and partly-controlled asthma (6.3-9.7%); (iii) treated and controlled asthma (4.6-5.5%); (iv) untreated uncontrolled asthma (18.2-20.5%); (v) untreated partly-controlled asthma (10.1-10.7%); (vi) untreated controlled asthma (6.7-8.5%) and (vii) no evidence of asthma (33.0-40.2%). This classification was validated in a study of 192 patients enrolled by physicians. INTERPRETATION: We identified seven profiles based on the probability of having asthma and on its level of control. mHealth tools are hypothesis-generating and complement classical epidemiological approaches in identifying patients with asthma.

Identifying patient-specific beliefs and behaviours for conversations about adherence in asthma.

BACKGROUND: Asthma guidelines advise addressing adherence at every visit, but no simple tools exist to assist clinicians in identifying key adherence-related beliefs or behaviours for individual patients. AIMS: To identify potentially modifiable beliefs and behaviours that predict electronically recorded adherence with controller therapy. METHODS: Patients aged ≥ 14 years with doctor-diagnosed asthma who were prescribed inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß(2)-agonist (ICS/LABA) completed questionnaires on medication beliefs/behaviours, side-effects, Morisky adherence behaviour score and Asthma Control Test (ACT), and recorded spirometry. Adherence with ICS/LABA was measured electronically over 8 weeks. Predictors of adherence were identified by univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: 99/100 patients completed the study (57 female; forced expiratory volume in 1 s mean ± standard deviation 83 ± 23% predicted; ACT 19.9 ± 3.8). Mean electronically recorded adherence (n= 85) was 75% ± 25, and mean self-reported adherence was 85% ± 26%. Factor analysis of questionnaire items significantly associated with poor adherence identified seven themes: perceived necessity, safety concerns, acceptance of asthma chronicity/medication effectiveness, advice from friends/family, motivation/routine, ease of use and satisfaction with asthma management. Morisky score was moderately associated with actual adherence (r=-0.45, P < 0.0001). In regression analysis, 10 items independently predicted adherence (adjusted R(2) = 0.67; P < 0.001). Opinions of friends/family about the patient's medication use were strongly associated with poor adherence. Global concerns about ICS/LABA therapy were more predictive of poor adherence than were specific side-effects; the one-third of patients who reported experiencing side-effects from their steroid inhaler had lower adherence than others (mean 62% vs 81%; P= 0.015). CONCLUSIONS: This study identified several specific beliefs and behaviours which clinicians could use for initiating patient-centred conversations about medication adherence in asthma.

Healthcare professional versus patient goal setting in intermittent allergic rhinitis.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of healthcare professional versus patient goal setting for the self-management of intermittent allergic rhinitis (AR) on symptom severity and quality of life. METHODS: This was a 6 week, parallel group study. Group A participants, with pharmacist facilitation, nominated personally relevant goals and strategies relating to their AR. Group B participants had their goals and strategies set by the pharmacist. The main outcome measures used included perceived symptom severity and quality of life. In addition, goals and strategies data from participants of both groups were collected and analysed. RESULTS: Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in symptom severity and quality of life scores however Group B symptom severity scores improved more. Group B set a greater number of goals and strategies which were better structured and more task specific. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to investigate the impact of goal setting on patient behaviour in a chronic yet episodic illness. Our results suggest that self-management goals set by the healthcare professional which are clinically indicated but tailored to the patient's nominated symptoms yields better outcomes than goals nominated by the patient. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: A brief, structured intervention, tailored to patient symptoms, can enhance self-management of intermittent allergic rhinitis.

CHRODIS criteria applied to the MASK (MACVIA-ARIA Sentinel NetworK) Good Practice in allergic rhinitis: a SUNFRAIL report.

A Good Practice is a practice that works well, produces good results, and is recommended as a model. MACVIA-ARIA Sentinel Network (MASK), the new Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) initiative, is an example of a Good Practice focusing on the implementation of multi-sectoral care pathways using emerging technologies with real life data in rhinitis and asthma multi-morbidity. The European Union Joint Action on Chronic Diseases and Promoting Healthy Ageing across the Life Cycle (JA-CHRODIS) has developed a checklist of 28 items for the evaluation of Good Practices. SUNFRAIL (Reference Sites Network for Prevention and Care of Frailty and Chronic Conditions in community dwelling persons of EU Countries), a European Union project, assessed whether MASK is in line with the 28 items of JA-CHRODIS. A short summary was proposed for each item and 18 experts, all members of ARIA and SUNFRAIL from 12 countries, assessed the 28 items using a Survey Monkey-based questionnaire. A visual analogue scale (VAS) from 0 (strongly disagree) to 100 (strongly agree) was used. Agreement equal or over 75% was observed for 14 items (50%). MASK is following the JA-CHRODIS recommendations for the evaluation of Good Practices.

Inhaler competence in asthma: common errors, barriers to use and recommended solutions.

Whilst the inhaled route is the first line administration method in the management of asthma, it is well documented that patients can have problems adopting the correct inhaler technique and thus receiving adequate medication. This applies equally to metered dose inhalers and dry powder inhalers and leads to poor disease control and increased healthcare costs. Reviews have highlighted these problems and the recent European Consensus Statement developed a call to action to seek solutions. This review takes forward the challenge of inhaler competence by highlighting the issues and suggesting potential solutions to these problems. The opportunity for technological innovation and educational interventions to reduce errors is highlighted, as well as the specific challenges faced by children. This review is intended as a policy document, as most issues faced by patients have not changed for half a century, and this situation should not be allowed to continue any longer. Future direction with respect to research, policy needs and practice, together with education requirements in inhaler technique are described.

The work productivity and activity impairment allergic specific (WPAI-AS) questionnaire using mobile technology: the MASK study

No disponible

Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines: 2016 revision

BACKGROUND: Allergic rhinitis (AR) affects 10% to 40% of the population. It reduces quality of life and school and work performance and is a frequent reason for office visits in general practice. Medical costs are large, but avoidable costs associated with lost work productivity are even larger than those incurred by asthma. New evidence has accumulated since the last revision of the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines in 2010, prompting its update. OBJECTIVE: We sought to provide a targeted update of the ARIA guidelines. METHODS: The ARIA guideline panel identified new clinical questions and selected questions requiring an update. We performed systematic reviews of health effects and the evidence about patients' values and preferences and resource requirements (up to June 2016). We followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) evidence-to-decision frameworks to develop recommendations. RESULTS: The 2016 revision of the ARIA guidelines provides both updated and new recommendations about the pharmacologic treatment of AR. Specifically, it addresses the relative merits of using oral H1-antihistamines, intranasal H1-antihistamines, intranasal corticosteroids, and leukotriene receptor antagonists either alone or in combination. The ARIA guideline panel provides specific recommendations for the choice of treatment and the rationale for the choice and discusses specific considerations that clinicians and patients might want to review to choose the management most appropriate for an individual patient. CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate treatment of AR might improve patients' quality of life and school and work productivity. ARIA recommendations support patients, their caregivers, and health care providers in choosing the optimal treatment.

Role of community pharmacists in asthma - Australian research highlighting pathways for future primary care models.

Asthma is one of the most common chronic conditions affecting the Australian population. Amongst primary healthcare professionals, pharmacists are the most accessible and this places pharmacists in an excellent position to play a role in the management of asthma. Globally, trials of many community pharmacy-based asthma care models have provided evidence that pharmacist delivered interventions can improve clinical, humanistic and economic outcomes for asthma patients. In Australia, a decade of coordinated research efforts, in various aspects of asthma care, has culminated in the implementation trial of the Pharmacy Asthma Management Service (PAMS), a comprehensive disease management model.There has been research investigating asthma medication adherence through data mining, ways in which usual asthma care can be improved. Our research has focused on self-management education, inhaler technique interventions, spirometry trials, interprofessional models of care, and regional trials addressing the particular needs of rural communities. We have determined that inhaler technique education is a necessity and should be repeated if correct technique is to be maintained. We have identified this effectiveness of health promotion and health education, conducted within and outside the confines of the pharmacy, in public for a and settings such as schools, and established that this outreach role is particularly well received and increases the opportunity for people with asthma to engage in their asthma management.Our research has identified that asthma patients have needs which pharmacists delivering specialized models of care, can address. There is a lot of evidence for the effectiveness of asthma care by pharmacists, the future must involve integration of this role into primary care.

Double blind randomised controlled trial of two different breathing techniques in the management of asthma.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that breathing techniques reduce short acting beta(2) agonist use and improve quality of life (QoL) in asthma. The primary aim of this double blind study was to compare the effects of breathing exercises focusing on shallow nasal breathing with those of non-specific upper body exercises on asthma symptoms, QoL, other measures of disease control, and inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) dose. This study also assessed the effect of peak flow monitoring on outcomes in patients using breathing techniques. METHODS: After a 2 week run in period, 57 subjects were randomised to one of two breathing techniques learned from instructional videos. During the following 30 weeks subjects practised their exercises twice daily and as needed for relief of symptoms. After week 16, two successive ICS downtitration steps were attempted. The primary outcome variables were QoL score and daily symptom score at week 12. RESULTS: Overall there were no clinically important differences between the groups in primary or secondary outcomes at weeks 12 or 28. The QoL score remained unchanged (0.7 at baseline v 0.5 at week 28, p = 0.11 both groups combined), as did lung function and airway responsiveness. However, across both groups, reliever use decreased by 86% (p<0.0001) and ICS dose was reduced by 50% (p<0.0001; p>0.10 between groups). Peak flow monitoring did not have a detrimental effect on asthma outcomes. CONCLUSION: Breathing techniques may be useful in the management of patients with mild asthma symptoms who use a reliever frequently, but there is no evidence to favour shallow nasal breathing over non-specific upper body exercises.