Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Rhinitis and Chronic Rhinosinusitis.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) are valuable in the assessment and management of rhinitis and chronic rhinosinusitis [CRS]. They measure outcomes which may include symptoms, disease control, well-being, and health-related quality of life (QOL). PROMS for rhinitis and rhinosinusitis are often used before and after an intervention, e.g., medication, therapeutic procedure or, in allergic rhinitis (AR), allergen immunotherapy. Although widely used in clinical trials for AR and conjunctivitis, symptom score PROMs are less validated than disease control or QOL measures. The best validated PROM for AR is the RQLQ (Rhinitis Quality of Life Questionnaire), but there is no universally accepted criterion standard for symptom and disease control PROMs. For CRS, at least 15 different criteria have been used to assess disease control in clinical studies, but what CRS disease control means and how it should be measured are concepts in evolution. The most used QOL measure for CRS is the SNOT-22 Sinonasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22). The use of PROMs to support clinical decisions and for shared decision making for rhinitis and rhinosinusitis still has many challenges, including selection of the preferred instrument, when and how to administer, the impact of co-morbidities, and questionnaire fatigue for both patient and provider.

Concepts for the development of person-centred, digitally-enabled, Artificial Intelligence-assisted ARIA care pathways (ARIA 2024).

The traditional healthcare model is focused on diseases (medicine and natural science) and does not acknowledge patients' resources and abilities to be experts in their own life based on their lived experiences. Improving healthcare safety, quality and coordination, as well as quality of life, are important aims in the care of patients with chronic conditions. Person-centred care needs to ensure that people's values and preferences guide clinical decisions. This paper reviews current knowledge to develop (i) digital care pathways for rhinitis and asthma multimorbidity and (ii) digitally-enabled person-centred care (1). It combines all relevant research evidence, including the so-called real-world evidence, with the ultimate goal to develop digitally-enabled, patient-centred care. The paper includes (i) Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA), a two-decade journey, (ii) Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE), the evidence-based model of guidelines in airway diseases, (iii) mHealth impact on airway diseases, (iv) from guidelines to digital care pathways, (v) embedding Planetary Health, (vi) novel classification of rhinitis and asthma, (vi) embedding real-life data with population-based studies, (vii) the ARIA-EAACI strategy for the management of airway diseases using digital biomarkers, (viii) Artificial Intelligence, (ix) the development of digitally-enabled ARIA Person-Centred Care and (x) the political agenda. The ultimate goal is to propose ARIA 2024 guidelines centred around the patient in order to make them more applicable and sustainable.

Differentiation of COVID-19 signs and symptoms from allergic rhinitis and common cold: An ARIA-EAACI-GA2 LEN consensus.

BACKGROUND: Although there are many asymptomatic patients, one of the problems of COVID-19 is early recognition of the disease. COVID-19 symptoms are polymorphic and may include upper respiratory symptoms. However, COVID-19 symptoms may be mistaken with the common cold or allergic rhinitis. An ARIA-EAACI study group attempted to differentiate upper respiratory symptoms between the three diseases. METHODS: A modified Delphi process was used. The ARIA members who were seeing COVID-19 patients were asked to fill in a questionnaire on the upper airway symptoms of COVID-19, common cold and allergic rhinitis. RESULTS: Among the 192 ARIA members who were invited to respond to the questionnaire, 89 responded and 87 questionnaires were analysed. The consensus was then reported. A two-way ANOVA revealed significant differences in the symptom intensity between the three diseases (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: This modified Delphi approach enabled the differentiation of upper respiratory symptoms between COVID-19, the common cold and allergic rhinitis. An electronic algorithm will be devised using the questionnaire.

Rhinitis 2020: A practice parameter update.

This comprehensive practice parameter for allergic rhinitis (AR) and nonallergic rhinitis (NAR) provides updated guidance on diagnosis, assessment, selection of monotherapy and combination pharmacologic options, and allergen immunotherapy for AR. Newer information about local AR is reviewed. Cough is emphasized as a common symptom in both AR and NAR. Food allergy testing is not recommended in the routine evaluation of rhinitis. Intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) remain the preferred monotherapy for persistent AR, but additional studies support the additive benefit of combination treatment with INCS and intranasal antihistamines in both AR and NAR. Either intranasal antihistamines or INCS may be offered as first-line monotherapy for NAR. Montelukast should only be used for AR if there has been an inadequate response or intolerance to alternative therapies. Depot parenteral corticosteroids are not recommended for treatment of AR due to potential risks. While intranasal decongestants generally should be limited to short-term use to prevent rebound congestion, in limited circumstances, patients receiving regimens that include an INCS may be offered, in addition, an intranasal decongestant for up to 4 weeks. Neither acupuncture nor herbal products have adequate studies to support their use for AR. Oral decongestants should be avoided during the first trimester of pregnancy. Recommendations for use of subcutaneous and sublingual tablet allergen immunotherapy in AR are provided. Algorithms based on a combination of evidence and expert opinion are provided to guide in the selection of pharmacologic options for intermittent and persistent AR and NAR.

Next-generation Allergic Rhinitis and Its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines for allergic rhinitis based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) and real-world evidence

The selection of pharmacotherapy for patients with allergic rhinitis aims to control the disease and depends on many factors. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines have considerably improved the treatment of allergic rhinitis. However, there is an increasing trend toward use of real-world evidence to inform clinical practice, especially because randomized controlled trials are often limited with regard to the applicability of results. The Contre les Maladies Chroniques pour un Vieillissement Actif (MACVIA) algorithm has proposed an allergic rhinitis treatment by a consensus group. This simple algorithm can be used to step up or step down allergic rhinitis treatment. Next-generation guidelines for the pharmacologic treatment of allergic rhinitis were developed by using existing GRADE-based guidelines for the disease, real-world evidence provided by mobile technology, and additive studies (allergen chamber studies) to refine the MACVIA algorithm.

Next-generation Allergic Rhinitis and Its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines for allergic rhinitis based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) and real-world evidence.

The selection of pharmacotherapy for patients with allergic rhinitis aims to control the disease and depends on many factors. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines have considerably improved the treatment of allergic rhinitis. However, there is an increasing trend toward use of real-world evidence to inform clinical practice, especially because randomized controlled trials are often limited with regard to the applicability of results. The Contre les Maladies Chroniques pour un Vieillissement Actif (MACVIA) algorithm has proposed an allergic rhinitis treatment by a consensus group. This simple algorithm can be used to step up or step down allergic rhinitis treatment. Next-generation guidelines for the pharmacologic treatment of allergic rhinitis were developed by using existing GRADE-based guidelines for the disease, real-world evidence provided by mobile technology, and additive studies (allergen chamber studies) to refine the MACVIA algorithm.

Optimizing Value in the Evaluation of Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) affects approximately 1% of the general population. The cost-effectiveness of routine laboratory testing for secondary causes of CSU has not been formally evaluated. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the cost-effectiveness of routine laboratory screening in adults with CSU. METHODS: A Markov model using cohort analysis and microsimulations was created for adult patients aged 20 years, over a 10-year time horizon, randomized to receive screening laboratory testing or a no-testing approach. Laboratory results were derived from a previously published retrospective analysis of adult patients with CSU. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated at a willingness to pay threshold of $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in patients with untreated CSU, and patients treated with antihistamines, cyclosporine, or omalizumab. RESULTS: Average laboratory costs per simulated patient with CSU were $573 (standard deviation [SD], $41), with only 0.16% (SD, 3.99%) of tests resulting in improved clinical outcomes. Testing costs per laboratory-associated positive outcome were $358,052 (no therapy), $357,576 (antihistamine therapy), $354,115 (cyclosporine), and $262,121 (omalizumab). Screening tests were not cost-effective, with ICERs of $856,905 (no therapy), $855,764 (antihistamine therapy), $847,483 (cyclosporine), and $627,318 (omalizumab). In the omalizumab-treated subgroup, testing could be cost-effective below $220 or if it resulted in a 0.73% rate of CSU resolution. From a simulated US population perspective, nation-wide screening costs could reach $941,750,741 to $1,833,501,483. CONCLUSIONS: In CSU, the likelihood of clinical improvement from laboratory testing is very low, and testing is not cost-effective. These data support recommendations to not routinely perform laboratory testing in patients with CSU with otherwise normal histories and physical evaluations.

Drug Hypersensitivity Reactions.

Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) may be classified based on timing (immediate vs delayed), mechanisms, and pattern of clinical manifestations. Management may include selection of alternative, non-cross reactive agents, drug allergy testing, graded challenge and/or desensitization. Immediate skin testing only identifies risk for immediate-type allergic DHR and has a negative predictive value for only a limited number of drugs (eg, penicillin). Desensitization induces a temporary state of tolerance that is maintained only so long as the drug is continued. This article discusses special considerations about antibiotics, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, anesthetic agents, aspirin and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, radiocontrast media, and chemotherapeutic agents.

2019 ARIA Care pathways for allergen immunotherapy.

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is a proven therapeutic option for the treatment of allergic rhinitis and/or asthma. Many guidelines or national practice guidelines have been produced but the evidence-based method varies, many are complex and none propose care pathways. This paper reviews care pathways for AIT using strict criteria and provides simple recommendations that can be used by all stakeholders including healthcare professionals. The decision to prescribe AIT for the patient should be individualized and based on the relevance of the allergens, the persistence of symptoms despite appropriate medications according to guidelines as well as the availability of good-quality and efficacious extracts. Allergen extracts cannot be regarded as generics. Immunotherapy is selected by specialists for stratified patients. There are no currently available validated biomarkers that can predict AIT success. In adolescents and adults, AIT should be reserved for patients with moderate/severe rhinitis or for those with moderate asthma who, despite appropriate pharmacotherapy and adherence, continue to exhibit exacerbations that appear to be related to allergen exposure, except in some specific cases. Immunotherapy may be even more advantageous in patients with multimorbidity. In children, AIT may prevent asthma onset in patients with rhinitis. mHealth tools are promising for the stratification and follow-up of patients.

Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) Phase 4 (2018): Change management in allergic rhinitis and asthma multimorbidity using mobile technology.

Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) has evolved from a guideline by using the best approach to integrated care pathways using mobile technology in patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) and asthma multimorbidity. The proposed next phase of ARIA is change management, with the aim of providing an active and healthy life to patients with rhinitis and to those with asthma multimorbidity across the lifecycle irrespective of their sex or socioeconomic status to reduce health and social inequities incurred by the disease. ARIA has followed the 8-step model of Kotter to assess and implement the effect of rhinitis on asthma multimorbidity and to propose multimorbid guidelines. A second change management strategy is proposed by ARIA Phase 4 to increase self-medication and shared decision making in rhinitis and asthma multimorbidity. An innovation of ARIA has been the development and validation of information technology evidence-based tools (Mobile Airways Sentinel Network [MASK]) that can inform patient decisions on the basis of a self-care plan proposed by the health care professional.

ARIA pharmacy 2018 "Allergic rhinitis care pathways for community pharmacy": AIRWAYS ICPs initiative (European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing, DG CONNECT and DG Santé) POLLAR (Impact of Air POLLution on Asthma and Rhinitis) GARD Demonstration project.

Pharmacists are trusted health care professionals. Many patients use over-the-counter (OTC) medications and are seen by pharmacists who are the initial point of contact for allergic rhinitis management in most countries. The role of pharmacists in integrated care pathways (ICPs) for allergic diseases is important. This paper builds on existing studies and provides tools intended to help pharmacists provide optimal advice/interventions/strategies to patients with rhinitis. The Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA)-pharmacy ICP includes a diagnostic questionnaire specifically focusing attention on key symptoms and markers of the disease, a systematic Diagnosis Guide (including differential diagnoses), and a simple flowchart with proposed treatment for rhinitis and asthma multimorbidity. Key prompts for referral within the ICP are included. The use of technology is critical to enhance the management of allergic rhinitis. However, the ARIA-pharmacy ICP should be adapted to local healthcare environments/situations as regional (national) differences exist in pharmacy care.

Allergic fungal rhinosinusitis.

Allergic fungal rhinosinusitis (AFRS) is a subset of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) characterized by antifungal IgE sensitivity, eosinophil-rich mucus (ie, allergic mucin), and characteristic computed tomographic and magnetic resonance imaging findings in paranasal sinuses. AFRS develops in immunocompetent patients, with occurrence influenced by climate, geography, and several identified host factors. Molecular pathways and immune responses driving AFRS are still being delineated, but prominent adaptive and more recently recognized innate type 2 immune responses are important, many similar to those established in patients with other forms of CRSwNP. It is unclear whether AFRS represents merely a more extreme expression of pathways important in patients with CRSwNP or whether there are other disordered immune responses that would define a distinct endotype or endotypes. Although AFRS and allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis share some analogous immune mechanisms, the 2 conditions do not occur commonly in the same patient. Treatment of AFRS almost always requires surgical debridement of the involved sinuses. Oral corticosteroids decrease recurrence after surgery, but other adjunctive pharmacologic agents, including topical and oral antifungal agents, do not have a firm evidence basis for use. There is good rationale for use of biologic agents that target eosinophilic inflammation or other type 2 responses, but studies in patients with AFRS are required.

Monocyte chemotactic protein-induced protein 1 controls allergic airway inflammation by suppressing IL-5-producing TH2 cells through the Notch/Gata3 pathway.

BACKGROUND: Asthmatic and allergic inflammation is mediated by TH2 cytokines (IL-4, IL-5, and IL-13). Although we have learned much about how TH2 cells are differentiated, the TH2 checkpoint mechanisms remain elusive. OBJECTIVES: In this study we investigate how monocyte chemotactic protein-induced protein 1 (MCPIP1; encoded by the Zc3h12a gene) regulates IL-5-producing TH2 cell differentiation and TH2-mediated inflammation. METHODS: The functions of Zc3h12a-/- CD4 T cells were evaluated by checking the expression of TH2 cytokines and transcription factors in vivo and in vitro. Allergic airway inflammation of Zc3h12a-/- mice was examined with murine asthma models. In addition, antigen-specific CD4 T cells deficient in MCPIP1 were transferred to wild-type recipient mice, challenged with ovalbumin (OVA) or house dust mite (HDM), and accessed for TH2 inflammation. RESULTS: Zc3h12a-/- mice have spontaneous severe lung inflammation, with an increase in mainly IL-5- and IL-13-producing but not IL-4-producing TH2 cells in the lung. Mechanistically, differentiation of IL-5-producing Zc3h12a-/- TH2 cells is mediated through Notch signaling and Gata3 independent of IL-4. Gata3 mRNA is stabilized in Zc3h12a-/- TH2 cells. MCPIP1 promotes Gata3 mRNA decay through the RNase domain. Furthermore, deletion of MCPIP1 in OVA- or HDM-specific T cells leads to significantly increased TH2-mediated airway inflammation in OVA or HDM murine models of asthma. CONCLUSIONS: Our study reveals that MCPIP1 regulates the development and function of IL-5-producing TH2 cells through the Notch/Gata3 pathway. MCPIP1 represents a new and promising target for the treatment of asthma and other TH2-mediated diseases.

Pharmacologic Treatment of Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis: Synopsis of Guidance From the 2017 Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters.

DESCRIPTION: The Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters, which comprises representatives of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (AAAAI) and the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (ACAAI), formed a workgroup to review evidence and provide guidance to health care providers on the initial pharmacologic treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis in patients aged 12 years or older. METHODS: To update a prior systematic review, the workgroup searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 18 July 2012 to 29 July 2016 to identify studies that addressed efficacy and adverse effects of single or combination pharmacotherapy for seasonal allergic rhinitis. In conjunction with the Joint Task Force, the workgroup reviewed the evidence and developed recommendations about initial treatment approaches by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Members of the AAAAI, the ACAAI, and the general public provided feedback on the draft document, which the Joint Task Force reviewed before finalizing the guideline. RECOMMENDATION 1: For initial treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis in persons aged 12 years or older, routinely prescribe monotherapy with an intranasal corticosteroid rather than an intranasal corticosteroid in combination with an oral antihistamine. (Strong recommendation). RECOMMENDATION 2: For initial treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis in persons aged 15 years or older, recommend an intranasal corticosteroid over a leukotriene receptor antagonist. (Strong recommendation). RECOMMENDATION 3: For treatment of moderate to severe seasonal allergic rhinitis in persons aged 12 years or older, the clinician may recommend the combination of an intranasal corticosteroid and an intranasal antihistamine for initial treatment. (Weak recommendation).

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.

Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis: A focused systematic review and practice parameter update.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The review compares and contrasts seven major United States and international allergic rhinitis guidelines from 2008 to 2017. RECENT FINDINGS: Despite many treatment options for allergic rhinitis, patients often report lack of therapeutic control and a reduced quality of life. Guidelines intended to improve allergic rhinitis care have been evolving into evidence based, systematic reviews, with less reliance on consensus of expert opinion characteristic of more traditional guidelines. The first Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation-based guideline developed in the United States for seasonal allergic rhinitis was first published in 2017. SUMMARY: When critically analyzing the allergic rhinitis guidelines that use the rigorous Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology, different groups of expert authors, using the same reference articles, will, at times, reach different conclusions regarding the quality of the evidence and the strength of the recommendation. Factors potentially contributing to these divergent determinations include: lack of objective primary outcome measures in allergic rhinitis, poorly defined Minimal Clinically Important Difference, failure to include all interested parties in guideline development, for example, patients, and subjectivity inherent in the expert panel.

Health care resource use and associated costs among patients with seasonal versus perennial allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Health care resource use (HRU) and costs among patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) and perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR) have not been widely studied. OBJECTIVE: To develop an algorithm to classify patients with SAR and patients with PAR, and to evaluate treatment patterns, HRU, and costs among these patients. METHODS: Patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) were identified retrospectively by using electronic medical records and administrative claims data, with an index date as the earlier of the date of AR diagnosis or allergy medication use. Patients with AR were followed-up from 12 months before the index date through 12 months after the index date (follow-up) and were classified as SAR or PAR based on medication patterns during follow-up. AR-related HRU, allergy immunotherapy administration, and costs per patient per year during follow-up were compared between patients with SAR and those with PAR, with analyses stratified by asthma diagnosis before the index date and by physician specialty (primary care physician versus specialist). RESULTS: Approximately 23% of patients with AR were classified as having PAR and 77% as having SAR. During follow-up, the patients with PAR had more allergy medication prescriptions versus the patients with SAR (8.0 versus 2.4 prescriptions), higher prescription medication costs ($1551 versus $313), higher allergy immunotherapy cost ($180 versus. $118), and higher total AR-related costs ($1944 versus $643); all with p < 0.001. Patients with asthma had higher costs than those without asthma. Patients seen by a specialist has higher costs than those treated by a primary care physician. CONCLUSION: Patients with PAR experienced more AR-related prescription drug use and higher health care costs than patients with SAR, with prescription drug costs being the main cost driver. Treatments that reduce the need for ongoing prescription medication use have the potential to be cost saving.

Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) in Allergic Rhinitis: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality or Anchor-Based Thresholds?

BACKGROUND: In 2013, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) recommended that allergic rhinitis (AR) studies calculate a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) based on an estimated threshold equal to 30% of the maximum total nasal symptom score. Applying this threshold, their data showed no differences between well-established treatments, and a subsequent analysis using prescribing information found no differences between active treatments and placebo controls. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to demonstrate the application of an evidence-based model to determine MCIDs for AR studies, with an absolute value for an anchor-based threshold and validated methods for calculating distribution-based thresholds. METHODS: Using the same studies as the AHRQ report, anchor- and distribution-based MCID thresholds were determined for 3 clinical comparisons identified by the AHRQ: (1) oral antihistamine+intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) versus INCS, (2) montelukast versus INCS, and (3) intranasal antihistamine+INCS in a single device versus the monotherapies. The outcomes were compared with those reported using the AHRQ threshold. RESULTS: No treatment comparison met the AHRQ-defined MCID threshold; all treatments were determined to be equivalent for all 3 queries. In contrast, the evidence-based model revealed some differences between treatments: INCS > montelukast; intranasal antihistamine+INCS > either monotherapy. No clinically relevant benefit was observed for adding an oral antihistamine to INCS, but some studies were not optimal choices for quantitative determination of MCIDs. Updating the literature search revealed no additional studies that met the AHRQ inclusion criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence-based threshold for MCID determination for AR studies should supersede the threshold recommended in the AHRQ report.