AAAAI Position Statements,Work Group Reports, and Systematic Reviews are not to be considered to reflect current AAAAI standards or policy after five years from the date of publication. The statement below is not to be construed as dictating an exclusive course of action nor is it intended to replace the medical judgment of healthcare professionals. The unique circumstances of individual patients and environments are to be taken into account in any diagnosis and treatment plan. The statement reflects clinical and scientific advances as of the date of publication and is subject to change. For reference only. Weather and climate change are constant and ever-changing processes that affect allergy and asthma. The purpose of this report is to provide information since the last climate change review with a focus on asthmatic disease. PubMed and Internet searches for topics included climate and weather change, air pollution, particulates, greenhouse gasses, traffic, insect habitat, and mitigation in addition to references contributed by the individual authors. Changes in patterns of outdoor aeroallergens caused by increasing temperatures and amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are major factors linked to increased duration of pollen seasons, increased pollen production, and possibly increased allergenicity of pollen. Indoor air pollution

Purpose of Review This paper offers a comprehensive review of interactive mobile allergy and asthma smartphone applications available within the USA in 2018, with an emphasis on interactive asthma apps. Recent Findings Primary care and specialty clinicians interested in introducing digital health apps into their practices will soon have more choices, for Apple® and major electronic medical record software companies are investing heavily in the mobile medical marketplace, guaranteeing personal health information and access to care will always be immediately available in one’s digital hand . Summary Interactive mobile asthma applications are valuable assets for patients and caregivers alike, for they offer immediate communications between patients and those responsible for providing for their needs. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s11882-019-0840-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

OBJECTIVE When arthritis patients expressed an interest in finding an easier way to communicate how they were feeling, we developed a simple patient-reported outcomes instrument to assess their clinical status. Here we present the novel Arthritis Measurement Test TM and confirm its equivalence to two other validated arthritis monitoring tools. METHODS One-hundred rheumatoid arthritis patients volunteered to answer three arthritis outcomes measures during clinic appointments: the Arthritis Measurement Test (AMT), Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3) and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI). Patients completed these three instruments as board certified rheumatologists performed 28-joint assessments to assess each patient’s disease activity. Disease categories proposed in the AMT were compared to categories in the RAPID3 and CDAI using Pearson, Spearman and Goodman-Kruskal gamma statistics. RESULTS Patients completed the five-question AMT within 90 seconds without difficulty. The internal reliability of the AMT, RAPID3 and CDAI are acceptable with Cronbach's alpha values of 0.88 (95% CI: 0.84 to 0.92), 0.89 (95% CI: 0.85 to 0.93) and 0.94 (95% CI: 0.92 to 0.96), respectively. When comparing AMT vs. RAPID3 responses, the 95% Pearson confidence intervals are between 0.865 to 0.936 and 0.7465 to 0.8561 for AMT vs. CDAI. Spearman correlations and Goodman-Kruskal gamma analysis also document strong correlations between the AMT and the other measures, where the AMT and RAPID3 are nearly identical (95% CI: 0.8202 to 0.906). Goodman-Kruskal gamma analysis also establishes equivalence between the AMT and RAPID3 with 95% confidence intervals of 0.9545 to 1. The sensitivity and specificity of the AMT are equivalent to RAPID3 and CDAI outcomes measures with areas under the curve (AUC) of 0.9637 (95% CI: 0.9314, 0.9961) and 0.9261 (95% CI: 0.8777, 0.9745), respectively, where sensitivity is the rate of correctly diagnosed out-of-control patients, and specificity is the rate of correctly diagnosed in-control patients. Likewise, the AMT accurately reflects levels of arthritis activity as compared to both the RAPID3 and CDAI. CONCLUSIONS In this cross-sectional pilot study, the Arthritis Measurement Test is statistically validated to be comparable to the RAPID3 and CDAI as a measure of rheumatoid arthritis activity.