Comparison of rhinitis treatments using MASK-air® data and considering the minimal important difference.
allergen immunotherapy
allergic rhinitis
co-medication
multivariable mixed-effects model
real-world data
Journal
Allergy
ISSN: 1398-9995
Titre abrégé: Allergy
Pays: Denmark
ID NLM: 7804028
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2022
10 2022
Historique:
revised:
31
03
2022
received:
15
02
2022
accepted:
12
04
2022
pubmed:
15
5
2022
medline:
1
10
2022
entrez:
14
5
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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). 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.
Sections du résumé
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.
Substances chimiques
Adrenal Cortex Hormones
0
Fluticasone
CUT2W21N7U
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
3002-3014Informations de copyright
© 2022 European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Bousquet J, Anto JM, Bachert C, et al. Allergic rhinitis. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2020;6(1):95.
Portnoy JM, Van Osdol T, Williams PB. Evidence-based strategies for treatment of allergic rhinitis. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2004;4(6):439-446.
Bousquet J, Devillier P, Arnavielhe S, et al. Treatment of allergic rhinitis using mobile technology with real-world data: the MASK observational pilot study. Allergy. 2018;73(9):1763-1774.
Bedard A, Basagana X, Anto JM, et al. Mobile technology offers novel insights into the control and treatment of allergic rhinitis: the MASK study. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2019;144(1):135-143 e136.
Bedard A, Basagana X, Anto JM, et al. Treatment of allergic rhinitis during and outside the pollen season using mobile technology. A MASK Study. Clin Transl Allergy. 2020;10(1):62.
Bousquet J, Anto JM, Bachert C, et al. ARIA digital anamorphosis: digital transformation of health and care in airway diseases from research to practice. Allergy. 2021;76(1):168-190.
Bousquet J, Meltzer EO, Couroux P, et al. Onset of action of the fixed combination intranasal azelastine-fluticasone propionate in an allergen exposure chamber. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2018;6(5):1726-1732 e1726.
Patel P, Salapatek AM, Tantry SK. Effect of olopatadine-mometasone combination nasal spray on seasonal allergic rhinitis symptoms in an environmental exposure chamber study. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2019;122(2):160-166 e161.
Bousquet J, Schunemann HJ, Togias A, et al. 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. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020;145(1):70-80 e73.
Bousquet J, Bewick M, Arnavielhe S, et al. Work productivity in rhinitis using cell phones: the MASK pilot study. Allergy. 2017;72(10):1475-1484.
Laune D, Arnavielhe S, Viart F, et al. Adaptation of the general data protection regulation (GDPR) to a smartphone app for rhinitis and asthma (MASK-air[R]). Rev mal Respir. 2019;36(9):1019-1031.
Samreth D, Arnavielhe S, Ingenrieth F, et al. Geolocation with respect to personal privacy for the allergy diary app - a MASK study. World Allergy Organ J. 2018;11(1):15.
Kopp-Kubel S. International nonproprietary names (INN) for pharmaceutical substances. Bull World Health Organ. 1995;73(3):275-279.
Harrison XA, Donaldson L, Correa-Cano ME, et al. A brief introduction to mixed effects modelling and multi-model inference in ecology. PeerJ. 2018;6:e4794.
Mouelhi Y, Jouve E, Castelli C, Gentile S. How is the minimal clinically important difference established in health-related quality of life instruments? Review of anchors and methods. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2020;18(1):136.
Schunemann HJ, Guyatt GH. Commentary--goodbye M(C)ID! Hello MID, where do you come from? Health Serv Res. 2005;40(2):593-597.
Pfaar O, Sousa-Pinto B, Devillier P, et al. Effects of allergen immunotherapy in the MASK-air study: a proof-of-concept analysis. Allergy. 2021;76(10):3212-3214.
Burte E, Leynaert B, Marcon A, et al. Long-term air pollution exposure is associated with increased severity of rhinitis in 2 European cohorts. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020;145(3):834-842 e836.
Hampel FC, Ratner PH, Van Bavel J, et al. Double-blind, placebo-controlled study of azelastine and fluticasone in a single nasal spray delivery device. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2010;105(2):168-173.
Cook CE. Clinimetrics corner: the minimal clinically important change score (MCID): a necessary pretense. J Man Manip Ther. 2008;16(4):E82-E83.
Menditto E, Costa E, Midao L, et al. Adherence to treatment in allergic rhinitis using mobile technology. The MASK Study. Clin Exp Allergy. 2019;49(4):442-460.
Bousquet J, Devillier P, Anto JM, et al. Daily allergic multimorbidity in rhinitis using mobile technology: a novel concept of the MASK study. Allergy. 2018;73(8):1622-1631.
Bedard A, Anto JM, Fonseca JA, et al. Correlation between work impairment, scores of rhinitis severity and asthma using the MASK-air([R]) app. Allergy. 2020;75(7):1672-1688.
Bedard A, Sofiev M, Arnavielhe S, et al. Interactions between air pollution and pollen season for rhinitis using Mobile technology: a MASK-POLLAR study. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2020;8(3):1063-1073 e1064.
Sousa-Pinto B, Eklund P, Pfaar O, et al. Validity, reliability and responsiveness of daily monitoring visual analogue scales in MASK-air®. Clin Transl Allergy. 2021;11(7):e12062.
Bousquet PJ, Combescure C, Klossek JM, Daures JP, Bousquet J. Change in visual analog scale score in a pragmatic randomized cluster trial of allergic rhinitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2009;123(6):1349-1354.