No abstract

Background The analysis of mobile health (mHealth) data has generated innovative insights into improving allergic rhinitis control, but additive information is needed. A cross-sectional real-world observational study was undertaken in 17 European countries during and outside the estimated pollen season. The aim was to collect novel information including the phenotypic characteristics of the users. Methods The Allergy Diary–MASK-air–mobile phone app, freely available via Google Play and App, was used to collect the data of daily visual analogue scales (VASs) for overall allergic symptoms and medication use. Fluticasone Furoate (FF), Mometasone Furoate (MF), Azelastine Fluticasone Proprionate combination (MPAzeFlu) and eight oral H1-antihistamines were studied. Phenotypic characteristics were recorded at entry. The ARIA severity score was derived from entry data. This was an a priori planned analysis. Results 9037 users filled in 70,286 days of VAS in 2016, 2017 and 2018. The ARIA severity score was lower outside than during the pollen season. Severity was similar for all treatment groups during the pollen season, and lower in the MPAzeFlu group outside the pollen season. Days with MPAzeFlu had lower VAS levels and a higher frequency of monotherapy than the other treatments during the season. Outside the season, days with MPAzeFlu also had a higher frequency of monotherapy. The number of reported days was significantly higher with MPAzeFlu during and outside the season than with MF, FF or oral H1-antihistamines. Conclusions This study shows that the overall efficacy of treatments is similar during and outside the pollen season and indicates that medications are similarly effective during the year.

Background: In allergic rhinitis, a relevant outcome providing information on the effectiveness of interventions is needed. In MASK-air (Mobile Airways Sentinel Network), a visual analogue scale (VAS) for work is used as a relevant outcome. This study aimed to assess the performance of the work VAS work by comparing VAS work with other VAS measurements and symptom-medication scores obtained concurrently. Methods: All consecutive MASK-air users in 23 countries from 1 June 2016 to 31 October 2018 were included (14 189 users; 205 904 days). Geolocalized users selfassessed daily symptom control using the touchscreen functionality on their smart phone to click on VAS scores (ranging from 0 to 100) for overall symptoms (global), nose, eyes, asthma and work. Two symptom-medication scores were used: the modified EAACI CSMS score and the MASK control score for rhinitis. To assess data quality, the intra-individual response variability (IRV) index was calculated. Results: A strong correlation was observed between VAS work and other VAS. The highest levels for correlation with VAS work and variance explained in VAS work were found with VAS global, followed by VAS nose, eye and asthma. In comparison with VAS global, the mCSMS and MASK control score showed a lower correlation with VAS work. Results are unlikely to be explained by a low quality of data arising from repeated VAS measures. Conclusions: VAS work correlates with other outcomes (VAS global, nose, eye and asthma) but less well with a symptom-medication score. VAS work should be considered as a potentially useful AR outcome in intervention studies.

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: Google Trends (GT) searches trends of specific queries in Google, which potentially reflect the real-life epidemiology of allergic rhinitis. We compared GT terms related to ragweed pollen allergy in American and European Union countries with a known ragweed pollen season. Our aim was to assess seasonality and the terms needed to perform the GT searches and to compare these during the spring and summer pollen seasons. Methods: We examined GT queries from January 1, 2011, to January 4, 2017. We included 15 countries with a known ragweed pollen season and used the standard 5-year GT graphs. We used the GT translation for all countries and the untranslated native terms for each country. Results: The results of “pollen,” “ragweed,” and “allergy” searches differed between countries, but “ragweed” was clearly identified in 12 of the 15 countries. There was considerable heterogeneity of findings when the GT translation was used. For Croatia, Hungary, Romania, Serbia, and Slovenia, the GT translation was inappropriate. The country patterns of “pollen,” “hay fever,” and “allergy” differed in 8 of the 11 countries with identified “ragweed” queries during the spring and the summer, indicating that the perception of tree and grass pollen allergy differs from that of ragweed pollen. Conclusions: To investigate ragweed pollen allergy using GT, the term “ragweed” as a plant is required and the translation of “ragweed” in the native language needed.