Background: Allergic rhinitis (AR) impacts quality of life, work and school productivity. Over the last years, an important body of evidence resulting from mHealth data has led to a better understanding of AR. Such advances have motivated an EAACI‐endorsed update of the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines (ARIA 2024–2025). This manuscript presents the ARIA 2024–2025 recommendations for intranasal treatments, one of the mainstays for AR management. Methods: The ARIA 2024–2025 guideline panel issued recommendations following the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) evidence‐to‐decision framework. Several sources of evidence were used to inform panel judgments and recommendations, including systematic reviews, evaluation of mHealth and pharmacovigilance data, as well as a survey of experts on costs. Results: Eleven guideline questions concerning intranasal treatments for AR were prioritized, leading to recommendations. Overall, these questions concern the choice between different classes of intranasal medications—most notably, intranasal corticosteroids (INCS), antihistamines (INAH), fixed combinations of INAH+INCS and decongestants—or between different individual medications within each class. Four questions had not been evaluated in previous ARIA guidelines, while for the other three there was a change in the strength or directionality of recommendations. Overall, recommendations point to the suggested use of INAH+INCS over INAH or INCS and INCS over INAH. Conclusion: This ARIA 2024–2025 article supports patients, their caregivers, and healthcare professionals in choosing an intranasal treatment. However, decisions on AR treatment should consider the clinical variability of the disease, patients' values, and the affordability of medications.

Introduction: MASK-air® is an app whose aim is to reduce the global burden of allergic rhinitis and asthma. A transfer of innovative practices was performed to disseminate and implement MASK-air® in European regions. The aim of the study was to examine the implementation of the MASK-air® app in older adults of the Puglia TWINNING in order to investigate (i) the rate of acceptance in this population, (ii) the reasons for refusal and (iii) the evaluation of the app after its use. Methods: All consecutive geriatric patients aged between 65 and 90 years were included by the outpatient clinic of the Bari Geriatric Immunoallergology Unit. After a 1-h training session, older adults used the app for 6 months. A 6-item questionnaire was developed by our unit to evaluate the impact of the app on the management of the disease and its treatment. Results: Among the 174 recruited patients, 102 accepted to use the app (mean age, SD: 72.4 ± 4.6 years), 6 were lost to follow-up, and 63 had a low education level. The reasons given not to use the app included lack of interest (11%), lack of access to a smartphone or tablet (53%), low computer literacy (28%), and distrust (8%). At follow-up, the overall satisfaction was high (89%), the patient considered MASK-air® “advantageous” (95%), compliance to treatment was improved (81%), and the rate of loss to follow-up had decreased to 6%. Conclusion: Older adults with a low level of education can use the MASK-air® app after a short training session.

Background: Oral and ocular medications are frequently used in the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR). As part of the update of the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA)‐EAACI guidelines, this manuscript presents the ARIA‐EAACI 2024–2025 recommendations for oral and ocular treatments. Methods: The ARIA‐EAACI 2024–2025 guideline panel issued recommendations following the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) evidence‐to‐decision framework. Several sources of evidence were used to inform panel judgements and recommendations, including systematic reviews, mHealth and pharmacovigilance data as well as a survey on costs. Results: Eight guideline questions concerning oral treatments for AR and three questions concerning ocular treatments were addressed. These questions led to the recommendations. Overall, these questions concern the choice between different classes of medication. They also discuss the role of oral antihistamines (OAH), leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA), ocular antihistamines (OcAH) and ocular mast cell stabilisers. Four questions had not been previously evaluated in ARIA guidelines, while, for the other four, there was a change in the strength or directionality of the recommendations. Overall, these guidelines recommend using intranasal corticosteroids over OAH and using OAH over LTRA. Moreover, they suggest using OAH over OcAH and suggest being against adding LTRA to OAH. Finally, considerations for choosing between different individual OAHs are presented. Conclusion: This ARIA‐EAACI 2024–2025 article supports patients, their caregivers and healthcare professionals in choosing oral and ocular treatments for AR. Decisions on treatment should consider the clinical variability of the disease, patients' values and the affordability of medications.

Eight million Ukrainians have taken refuge in the European Union. Many have asthma and/or allergic rhinitis and/or urticaria, and around 100,000 may have a severe disease. Cultural and language barriers are a major obstacle to appropriate management. Two widely available mHealth apps, MASK‐air® (Mobile Airways Sentinel NetworK) for the management of rhinitis and asthma and CRUSE® (Chronic Urticaria Self Evaluation) for patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria, were updated to include Ukrainian versions that make the documented information available to treating physicians in their own language. The Ukrainian patients fill in the questionnaires and daily symptom‐medication scores for asthma, rhinitis (MASK‐air) or urticaria (CRUSE) in Ukrainian. Then, following the GDPR, patients grant their physician access to the app by scanning a QR code displayed on the physician's computer enabling the physician to read the app contents in his/her own language. This service is available freely. It takes less than a minute to show patient data to the physician in the physician's web browser. UCRAID—developed by ARIA (Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma) and UCARE (Urticaria Centers of Reference and Excellence)—is under the auspices of the Ukraine Ministry of Health as well as European (European Academy of Allergy and Clinical immunology, EAACI, European Respiratory Society, ERS, European Society of Dermatologic Research, ESDR) and national societies.

The Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines produced their first edition in 1999, with subsequent revisions in 2008, 2010, 2016 and 2019. A new iteration of ARIA—ARIA 2024–2025—in collaboration with EAACI is currently being developed, focusing on the management of allergic rhinitis. ARIA 2024–2025 follows the GRADE framework and is endorsed by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI). A set of approaches has been used to develop guideline questions, including surveying key opinion leaders and using artificial intelligence (AI)‐based tools to analyse web searches on allergic rhinitis and to generate questions. Each prioritised guideline question is assessed through an Evidence‐to‐Decision (EtD) framework. EtDs support the systematic and transparent formulation of recommendations, comprising 12 criteria for which the best available evidence should be sought. In the context of ARIA‐EAACI 2024–2025, such evidence is derived not only from randomised controlled trials but also—among others—from patient‐generated data sources that better reflect the affected individuals' perspectives. Moreover, ARIA‐EAACI 2024–2025 incorporates evidence on planetary health. Developed guideline recommendations will support the creation of digitalised decision algorithms and care pathways. This paper describes the methodology used to develop the person‐centred, digitally enabled and AI‐assisted ARIA‐EAACI 2024–2025. Among others, it describes (i) the development and prioritisation of guideline questions, (ii) sources of evidence for EtDs and (iii) the development of digitalised decision algorithms and care pathways.

Discovering novel risk and prognostic factors for COVID-19 may help not only in reducing severity and mortality but also in creating targeted therapies considering patients’ individual features. Liver fibrosis is considered a complication in Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD), it is a feature of steatohepatitis (NASH), and it has already been related to an increased risk for a wide range of diseases. Here, we aimed to define if any parameter assessing metabolic status has predictive power in identifying inpatients at risk for poorer prognosis and an increased mortality from COVID-19. This retrospective study was conducted at the Sub-Intensive Medicine Care Unit of the Presidio Maxi-Emergenze Fiera del Levante, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Policlinico di Bari, Italy. We evaluated 271 inpatients with moderate-to-severe SARS-CoV-2-related respiratory failure by comparing biochemical features and non-invasive liver fibrosis scores among discharged, transferred to Intensive Care Units (ICU) and non-survivor patients. Moreover, by performing ROC curves, we defined cut-off values to predict mortality and disease severity for each score. We found that non-invasive scores of liver fibrosis, obtained at day of admission, such as AAR (p < 0.001), FIB-4 and mFIB-4, FORNS, and AARPRI (p < 0.05) strongly predict not only in-hospital mortality but also the length of hospitalization and eventual admission to ICU. FIB-4 was the best score to identify non-survivor patients (sensitivity of 80% and specificity of 63%) and predict the need for ICU or mortality (71% of sensitivity and 65% of specificity), with a cut-off value of 1.94. Therefore, we present the predictive power and the cut-off values of several liver fibrosis scores here for disease severity and mortality in SARS-CoV-2 in-patients and we proposed the use of the present scores to identify ab initio the clinical therapeutic and diagnostic protocols for high-risk patients.