Background: Co-medication is common among patients with allergic rhinitis (AR), but its dimension and patterns are unknown. This is particularly relevant since AR is understood differently across European countries, as reflected by rhinitis-related search patterns in Google Trends. This study aims to assess AR co-medication and its regional patterns in Europe, using real-world data. Methods:We analysed 2015-2020 MASK-air ® European data. We compared days under no medication, monotherapy and co-medication using the visual analogue scale (VAS) levels for overall allergic symptoms ('VAS Global Symptoms') and impact of AR on work. We assessed the monthly use of different medication schemes, performing separate analyses by region (defined geographically or by Google Trends patterns). We estimated the average number of different drugs reported per patient within 1 year. Results:We analysed 222,024 days (13,122 users), including 63,887 days (28.8%) under monotherapy and 38,315 (17.3%) under co-medication. The median 'VAS Global Symptoms' was 7 for no medication days, 14 for monotherapy and 21 for co-medication (p < .001). Medication use peaked during the spring, with similar patterns across different European regions (defined geographically or by Google Trends). Oral H 1 -antihistamines were the most common medication in single and co-medication. Each patient reported using an annual average of 2.7 drugs, with 80% reporting two or more.Conclusions: Allergic rhinitis medication patterns are similar across European regions.One third of treatment days involved co-medication. These findings suggest that patients treat themselves according to their symptoms (irrespective of how they understand AR) and that co-medication use is driven by symptom severity.

Background Evidence regarding the effectiveness of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) on allergic rhinitis has been provided mostly by randomised controlled trials, with little data from real‐life studies. Objective To compare the reported control of allergic rhinitis symptoms in three groups of users of the MASK‐air® app: those receiving sublingual AIT (SLIT), those receiving subcutaneous AIT (SCIT), and those receiving no AIT. Methods We assessed the MASK‐air® data of European users with self‐reported grass pollen allergy, comparing the data reported by patients receiving SLIT, SCIT and no AIT. Outcome variables included the daily impact of allergy symptoms globally and on work (measured by visual analogue scales—VASs), and a combined symptom‐medication score (CSMS). We applied Bayesian mixed‐effects models, with clustering by patient, country and pollen season. Results We analysed a total of 42,756 days from 1,093 grass allergy patients, including 18,479 days of users under AIT. Compared to no AIT, SCIT was associated with similar VAS levels and CSMS. Compared to no AIT, SLIT‐tablet was associated with lower values of VAS global allergy symptoms (average difference = 7.5 units out of 100; 95% credible interval [95%CrI] = −12.1;−2.8), lower VAS Work (average difference = 5.0; 95%CrI = −8.5;−1.5), and a lower CSMS (average difference = 3.7; 95%CrI = −9.3;2.2). When compared to SCIT, SLIT‐tablet was associated with lower VAS global allergy symptoms (average difference = 10.2; 95%CrI = −17.2;−2.8), lower VAS Work (average difference = 7.8; 95%CrI = −15.1;0.2), and a lower CSMS (average difference = 9.3; 95%CrI = −18.5;0.2). Conclusion In patients with grass pollen allergy, SLIT‐tablet, when compared to no AIT and to SCIT, is associated with lower reported symptom severity. Future longitudinal studies following internationally‐harmonised standards for performing and reporting real‐world data in AIT are needed to better understand its ‘real‐world’ effectiveness.

Background Different treatments exist for allergic rhinitis (AR), including pharmacotherapy and allergen immunotherapy (AIT), but they have not been compared using direct patient data (i.e., “real‐world data”). We aimed to compare AR pharmacological treatments on (i) daily symptoms, (ii) frequency of use in co‐medication, (iii) visual analogue scales (VASs) on allergy symptom control considering the minimal important difference (MID) and (iv) the effect of AIT. Methods We assessed the MASK‐air® app data (May 2015–December 2020) by users self‐reporting AR (16–90 years). We compared eight AR medication schemes on reported VAS of allergy symptoms, clustering data by the patient and controlling for confounding factors. We compared (i) allergy symptoms between patients with and without AIT and (ii) different drug classes used in co‐medication. Results We analysed 269,837 days from 10,860 users. Most days (52.7%) involved medication use. Median VAS levels were significantly higher in co‐medication than in monotherapy (including the fixed combination azelastine‐fluticasone) schemes. In adjusted models, azelastine‐fluticasone was associated with lower average VAS global allergy symptoms than all other medication schemes, while the contrary was observed for oral corticosteroids. AIT was associated with a decrease in allergy symptoms in some medication schemes. A difference larger than the MID compared to no treatment was observed for oral steroids. Azelastine‐fluticasone was the drug class with the lowest chance of being used in co‐medication (adjusted OR = 0.75; 95% CI = 0.71–0.80). Conclusion Median VAS levels were higher in co‐medication than in monotherapy. Patients with more severe symptoms report a higher treatment, which is currently not reflected in guidelines.