The role of mobile health technologies in allergy care: An EAACI position paper.

Mobile health (mHealth) uses mobile communication devices such as smartphones and tablet computers to support and improve health-related services, data and information flow, patient self-management, surveillance, and disease management from the moment of first diagnosis to an optimized treatment. The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology created a task force to assess the state of the art and future potential of mHealth in allergology. The task force endorsed the "Be He@lthy, Be Mobile" WHO initiative and debated the quality, usability, efficiency, advantages, limitations, and risks of mobile solutions for allergic diseases. The results are summarized in this position paper, analyzing also the regulatory background with regard to the "General Data Protection Regulation" and Medical Directives of the European Community. The task force assessed the design, user engagement, content, potential of inducing behavioral change, credibility/accountability, and privacy policies of mHealth products. The perspectives of healthcare professionals and allergic patients are discussed, underlining the need of thorough investigation for an effective design of mHealth technologies as auxiliary tools to improve quality of care. Within the context of precision medicine, these could facilitate the change in perspective from clinician- to patient-centered care. The current and future potential of mHealth is then examined for specific areas of allergology, including allergic rhinitis, aerobiology, allergen immunotherapy, asthma, dermatological diseases, food allergies, anaphylaxis, insect venom, and drug allergy. The impact of mobile technologies and associated big data sets are outlined. Facts and recommendations for future mHealth initiatives within EAACI are listed.

[A comparative study of the ocular tolerance after administration of anti-allergic eye drops with or without a preservative]. / Etude comparative de la survenue d'effets indésirables suite à l'administration de collyres anti-allergiques sans ou avec conservateur.

AIM: The aim of the study was to evaluate the occurrence of ocular adverse effects observed after administration of anti-allergic eye drops with and without a preservative in patients with allergic conjunctivitis. METHODS: A total of 3090 patients with allergic conjunctivitis and treated with anti-allergic eye drops were included in an open nonrandomised prospective study by 507 general practitioners located throughout France. The symptoms of discomfort and pain experienced during instillations as well as the characteristics of the patients and of their allergic pathology were recorded. RESULTS: Two groups of patients (eyedrops without preservative [n = 2712] and with preservative [n = 121]) were identified. Sixty percent and 15% of the cases of allergic conjunctivitis were associated with rhinitis and asthma, respectively, and for 70% of the occurrences, an identifiable factor (pollen, dusts, animals etc.) was responsible for the appearance of the symptoms. Compliance was significantly higher for anti-allergic eye drops without preservative than for those with a preservative (average number of instillations 3.5 vs 2.9/day, p < 0.001; number of instillations omitted 3.6 vs 4.2, p = 0.01). The proportion of patients experiencing at least one adverse drug reaction was 24% for eye drops with no preservative and 89% for eye drops with a preservative (p < 0.001). The most frequently notified symptom was a sensation of prickling and burning (10% and 47%, respectively, for eye drops with no preservative and eye drops with a preservative; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The prescription of eye drops with no preservative allows a significant decrease in ocular adverse drug reactions and a greater acceptance by the patient regarding his/her anti-allergic treatment.

Morning and evening efficacy evaluation of rupatadine (10 and 20 mg), compared with cetirizine 10 mg in perennial allergic rhinitis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: A circadian rhythm of symptoms has been reported in allergic rhinitis (AR). Severity of all major symptoms of AR, including runny nose, sneezing, and nasal congestion, is typically at its peak in the morning. The objective of this study was to explore the efficacy of the antihistamine and platelet activating factor (PAF) antagonist rupatadine in the morning and evening and to evaluate whether rupatadine provides effective symptom relief throughout the 24-hour dosing interval. METHODS: A total of 308 patients ≥18 years of age with PAR was randomly assigned to once-daily rupatadine 10 mg, rupatadine 20 mg, or cetirizine 10 mg for 4 weeks in a placebo-controlled, double-blind study. The main outcome was the morning/evening reflective total symptom score (5TSS) over the treatment period. Secondary endpoints included morning/evening reflective nasal total symptom score (4NTSS), individual symptoms, Pdmax1 as percentage of days with daily severest symptom score ≤1, and subject/investigator evaluation of therapeutic response. RESULTS: All active groups were significantly more effective than placebo in improving morning and evening evaluations of 5TSS (P < 0.001) and 4NTSS (P < 0.001) at 2 or 4 weeks. At morning evaluation, there was a significant reduction from baseline for 5TSS with rupatadine 10 mg (-36.8%, P < 0.01) and 20 mg (-46.3%, P < 0.01) compared with placebo. Similarly, 4NTSS was reduced significantly more with rupatadine 10 mg (-34%, P < 0.05) and 20 mg (-41%, P < 0.01) compared with placebo. In the cetirizine 10 mg group, the reduction was -32.7% and -32.2% for 5TSS and 4NTSS, respectively, but this reduction was not significant compared with placebo. The percentage reduction was greater at evening than at morning evaluation. 5TSS reduction with rupatadine 10 mg (-40.7%, P < 0.05) and 20 mg (-49.9%, P < 0.01) and cetirizine 10 mg (-40.1%, P < 0.05) was significantly better than with placebo. 4NTSS values for active groups were also significantly improved versus placebo. When individual symptoms were assessed, statistically significant differences for rhinorrhea (P < 0.01), nasal itching (P < 0.01), and sneezing (P < 0.01) were shown in all active groups compared with placebo at morning and evening evaluations. Pdmax1 index was significantly improved for all active groups and the overall efficacy assessed by patients or investigators showed a significant improvement (P < 0.01) versus placebo at 2 and 4 weeks. The incidence of somnolence was significantly greater in all active groups versus placebo. CONCLUSION: The sustained 24-hour action of rupatadine 10 mg provides an effective control of morning and evening symptoms in patients with PAR treated for up to 4 weeks.