Search

BACKGROUND: Validated questionnaires are used to assess asthma control over the past 1-4 weeks from reporting. However, they do not adequately capture asthma control in patients with fluctuating symptoms. Using the Mobile Airways Sentinel Network for airway diseases (MASK-air) app, we developed and validated an electronic daily asthma control score (e-DASTHMA).METHODS: We used MASK-air data (freely available to users in 27 countries) to develop and assess different daily control scores for asthma. Data-driven control scores were developed based on asthma symptoms reported by a visual analogue scale (VAS) and self-reported asthma medication use. We included the daily monitoring data from all MASK-air users aged 16-90 years (or older than 13 years to 90 years in countries with a lower age of digital consent) who had used the app in at least 3 different calendar months and had reported at least 1 day of asthma medication use. For each score, we assessed construct validity, test-retest reliability, responsiveness, and accuracy. We used VASs on dyspnoea and work disturbance, EQ-5D-VAS, Control of Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma Test (CARAT), CARAT asthma, and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment: Allergy Specific (WPAI:AS) questionnaires as comparators. We performed an internal validation using MASK-air data from Jan 1 to Oct 12, 2022, and an external validation using a cohort of patients with physician-diagnosed asthma (the INSPIRERS cohort) who had had their diagnosis and control (Global Initiative for Asthma [GINA] classification) of asthma ascertained by a physician.FINDINGS: We studied 135 635 days of MASK-air data from 1662 users from May 21, 2015, to Dec 31, 2021. The scores were strongly correlated with VAS dyspnoea (Spearman correlation coefficient range 0·68-0·82) and moderately correlated with work comparators and quality-of-life-related comparators (for WPAI:AS work, we observed Spearman correlation coefficients of 0·59-0·68). They also displayed high test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients range 0·79-0·95) and moderate-to-high responsiveness (correlation coefficient range 0·69-0·79; effect size measures range 0·57-0·99 in the comparison with VAS dyspnoea). The best-performing score displayed a strong correlation with the effect of asthma on work and school activities in the INSPIRERS cohort (Spearman correlation coefficients 0·70; 95% CI 0·61-0·78) and good accuracy for the identification of patients with uncontrolled or partly controlled asthma according to GINA (area under the receiver operating curve 0·73; 95% CI 0·68-0·78).INTERPRETATION: e-DASTHMA is a good tool for the daily assessment of asthma control. This tool can be used as an endpoint in clinical trials as well as in clinical practice to assess fluctuations in asthma control and guide treatment optimisation.FUNDING: None.

Biomarkers for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients with rhinitis and/or asthma are urgently needed. Although some biologic biomarkers exist in specialist care for asthma, they cannot be largely used in primary care. There are no validated biomarkers in rhinitis or allergen immunotherapy (AIT) that can be used in clinical practice. The digital transformation of health and health care (including mHealth) places the patient at the center of the health system and is likely to optimize the practice of allergy. Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) and EAACI (European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology) developed a Task Force aimed at proposing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) as digital biomarkers that can be easily used for different purposes in rhinitis and asthma. It first defined control digital biomarkers that should make a bridge between clinical practice, randomized controlled trials, observational real-life studies and allergen challenges. Using the MASK-air app as a model, a daily electronic combined symptom-medication score for allergic diseases (CSMS) or for asthma (e-DASTHMA), combined with a monthly control questionnaire, was embedded in a strategy similar to the diabetes approach for disease control. To mimic real-life, it secondly proposed quality-of-life digital biomarkers including daily EQ-5D visual analogue scales and the bi-weekly RhinAsthma Patient Perspective (RAAP). The potential implications for the management of allergic respiratory diseases were proposed.

Funding Information: IA reports personal fees from Roxall, Menarini, UCB, Faes Farma, Sanofi, Bial, Amgen, Abbott, Bayer, Organon. SBA reports grants from TEVA, personal fees from TEVA, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Sanofi, Mylan. JB reports personal fees from Chiesi, Cipla, Hikma, Menarini, Mundipharma, Mylan, Novartis, Sanofi‐Aventis, Takeda, Teva, Uriach, other from KYomed‐Innov, personal fees from Purina, other from MASK‐air. VC reports personal fees from Thermofisher. PCM reports personal fees from Abbvie, AZ, Bial, GSK, Mylan, Medinfar, Novartis, Sanofi. LC reports personal fees from Malesci, Menarini, Astra Zeneca, Novartis. AC reports grants and personal fees from Astrazeneca, GSK, Sanofi, personal fees from Boehringer‐Ingelheim, Chiesi, Glenmark, Novartis, personal fees from Mylan, Abdi‐Ibrahim. PD reports personal fees and non‐financial support from Stallergenes Greer, ALK‐Abello, Astra Zeneca, CHIESI, MYLAN/Meda Pharma, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi, IQVIA personal fees from MENARINI. JAFonseca reports participation in SME that has mHealth technologies for patients with asthma. JCI reports personal fees from Abbott Ecuador, Bago Bolivia, Faes Farma, Laboratorios Casasco, Sanofi. LK reports grants and personal fees from Allergopharma, LETI Pharma,MEDA/Mylan, Sanofi, personal fees from HAL Allergie, Allergy Therapeut., Cassella med, grants from ALK Abelló, Stallergenes, Quintiles, ASIT biotech, Lofarma, AstraZeneca, GSK, Inmunotk, and Membership: AeDA, DGHNO, Deutsche Akademie für Allergologie und klinische Immunologie, HNO‐BV, GPA, EAACI. VK reports other from Norameda, BerlinCHemie Menarini. PK reports personal fees from Adamed, AstraZeneca, Berlin Chemie Menarini, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GSK, Novartis, Polpharma. DLL reports personal fees from Allakos, Amstrong, Astrazeneca, Chiesi, DBV Technologies, Grunenthal, GSK, Mylan/Viatris, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Siegfried, UCB, Alakos, Gossamer, Carnot, grants from Sanofi, Astrazeneca, Novartis, Circassia, UCB, GSK, Purina institute, Abvvie, Lilly, Pfizer. BL reports grants and personal fees from Meda, personal fees from Glenamrk. RL reports grants and personal fees from GSK, AZ, Chiesi, personal fees from Novartis, Sanofi. MM reports personal fees from Novartis, Gsk, Menarini, Az, Chiesi, Sanofi, Pfizer. RM reports personal fees from Angelini Pharma ALK, Allergopharma, Allergy Therapeutics, Friulchem, Hexal, Servier, Klosterfrau, Bayer, FAES, GSK, MSD, Johnson&Johnson, Meda, Stada, UCB, Nuvo, Menarini, Mundipharma, Pohl‐Boskamp, Laboratoire de la Mer, Sidroga, Lek, PRO‐AdWise, grants and personal fees from Bencard, Stallergenes, Ursapharm, HAL BV, grants from Leti, Optima, BitopAG, Hulka, Inmunotek, Cassella‐med GmbH & Co. KG, ASIT biotech, grants, personal fees and non‐financial support from Lofarma, non‐financial support from Roxall, Atmos, Bionorica, Otonomy, Ferrero, personal fees and non‐financial support from Novartis. OP reports grants and personal fees from ALK‐Abelló, Allergopharma, Stallergenes Greer HAL Allergy Holding B.V./HAL Allergie GmbH, Bencard Allergie GmbH/Allergy Therapeutics, Lofarma, ASIT Biotech Tools S.A., Laboratorios LETI/LETI Pharma, Anergis S.A., GlaxoSmithKline, personal fees from MEDA Pharma/MYLAN, Mobile Chamber Experts (a GA2LEN Partner), Indoor Biotechnologies, Astellas Pharma Global, EUFOREA, ROXALL Medizin, Novartis, Sanofi‐Aventis and Sanofi‐Genzyme, Med Update Europe GmbH, streamedup! GmbH, John Wiley and Sons, AS, Paul‐Martini‐Stiftung (PMS), Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc., RG Aerztefortbildung, Institut für Disease Management, Springer GmbH, AstraZeneca, IQVIA Commercial, Ingress Health, grants from Pohl‐Boskamp, Inmunotek S.L., Biomay, Circassia. NGPapadopoulos reports personal fees from Novartis, Nutricia, HAL, MENARINI/FAES FARMA, SANOFI, MYLAN/MEDA, BIOMAY, AstraZeneca, GSK, MSD, ASIT BIOTECH, Boehringer Ingelheim, grants from Gerolymatos International SA, Capricare. ATB reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, Novartis, IQVIA/Abbvie, Mylan, Bial, Leti, grants and personal fees from Teva. STS reports personal fees from ERT, Roche products, Novartis, Sanofi Pharma, AstraZeneca, ALK‐ Abelló grants from Glaxo Smith Kline. IT reports grants from GSK, Boehringer Ingelheim, AZ, personal fees from Novartis, Astra Zeneca, Chiesi, TZ reports Organizational affiliations: Committee member: WHO‐Initiative “Allergic Rhinitis and Its Impact on Asthma” (ARIA); Member of the Board: German Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI); Head: European Centre for Allergy Research Foundation (ECARF). President: Global Allergy and Asthma European Network (GA2LEN); Member: Committee on Allergy Diagnosis and Molecular Allergology, World Allergy Organization (WAO). Funding Information: MASK‐air® has been supported by EU grants (POLLAR, EIT Health; Structural and Development Funds, Twinning, EIP on AHA and H2020) and educational grants from Mylan‐Viatris, ALK, GSK, Novartis and Uriach 1 1 Publisher Copyright: © 2022 European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 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. publishersversion published