Background: Allergic diseases—rhinitis and asthma—are the most common chronic conditions affecting adults. Traditional approaches to allergy diagnosis and treatment do not meet the health needs of all patients. Treatment adherence remains a challenge for physicians. The ubiquity of Internet access paired with limited in‐person contact with medical personnel in the course of the COVID‐19 pandemic demonstrated the potential of mHealth in communicating health information.Body: The abundance of new applications dedicated to various medical specialties encourages reflection on the informed use of such tools. The paper takes a closer look at the potential of mHealth and presents conclusions of selected studies focusing on the use of good apps. The strength weakness opportunities threats analysis was used to illustrate the strengths of the mHealth strategy, as well as its advantages, limitations and areas in need of further development.Conclusion: The strength of mHealth depends on the quality and quantity of the collected patient data, its reliable processing, as well as publication of outcomes and conclusions from analyses. Therefore, it is necessary to promote the use of validated applications among patients, physicians and medical staff.

Background: Monitoring adherence in chronic diseases remains a significant challenge. Allergic rhinitis (AR), one of the most common chronic conditions, serves as an excellent model for studying determinants of app use in monitoring adherence and health assessment during treatment. The Mask‐air® app supports clinical decision‐making by involving patients in symptom observation and promoting adherence to therapy. This study aimed to identify the defining characteristics of Mask‐air® users, describe their disease phenotype and satisfaction with the app, and explore reasons for discontinuation.Materials and Methods: Adult patients 20–44 years old suffering from AR (n = 198) receiving care at an allergy outpatient clinic were invited to participate in a trial using the Mask‐air® app. Investigators collected data on symptoms, administered treatments, and clinical evaluation results through questionnaires. At a follow‐up visit (n = 163), these were compared, and patients were questioned about their satisfaction with the app. Patients presented their app records, and those who declined or stopped using the app were asked to provide reasons in a questionnaire.Results: No distinguishing characteristics of Mask‐air® users (n = 131) were identified compared with those who declined the app (n = 67). App readiness was analyzed according to age, socioeconomic status, disease severity, comorbidities, and therapeutic modality. Respondents were categorized into: those who did not install the app (17.7%), those who installed but did not use it (16.2%), and those who installed and evaluated it (66.2%), with 15.6% failing to produce symptom monitoring records. Overall, satisfaction ratings were high though patients were critical of the app's therapeutic aspect.Conclusions: The study found no specific features distinguishing Mask‐air® users, suggesting that it can be recommended to all patients regardless of gender, socioeconomic or educational status, or disease phenotype. However, with a dropout rate of nearly 50%, it is essential for clinicians to emphasize the app's benefits to improve adherence and engagement.

Background/Objectives: Histamine intolerance is becoming a critical medical problem across numerous clinical specialties, due to the absence of a standardized diagnostic and therapeutic strategy to manage patients with a suspicion of or diagnosis of this condition. Histamine intolerance is a type of non-immune food hypersensitivity, characterized by heterogenous etiologies and a very broad range of symptoms. The condition is the result of an imbalance between the amount of histamine accumulated within the body and the body’s systemic ability to degrade it. In regard to the diagnostics of histamine intolerance, the need to preliminarily exclude other potential conditions associated with increased histamine levels in the blood has been highlighted. The co-occurrence of allergies and histamine intolerance is not uncommon, and the similarity of the clinical manifestations can lead to diagnostic, as well as therapeutic, difficulties. This paper details the diagnostic and clinical workflow for a patient with histamine intolerance and polyvalent allergy comorbidity, with the aim being to help outline a protocol that may be helpful to clinicians managing patients with histamine intolerance. Case Presentation: This article presents the case of a 30-year-old patient with a polyvalent allergy and multimorbidity (allergic rhinitis, asthma, a food allergy, and eosinophilic esophagitis), with comorbid histamine intolerance. Due to the violent and severe symptoms, including facial erythema, urticaria, pruritus, abdominal pain, and tachycardia, experienced after meals, the patient received intramuscular epinephrine injections three times a week. The diagnostic protocol and the course of therapeutic management are presented. Conclusions: The diagnosis of histamine intolerance is difficult due to the high variability and heterogeneity of clinical symptoms in individual patients. Many studies on the issue recommend ruling out an allergic background in terms of the complaint. However, the possibility of the symptoms of an IgE-dependent allergy overlapping with those of histamine intolerance should be taken into account in every case. This is particularly important in patients presenting with an atypical and severe course of allergic diseases. The clinical case presented herein may be helpful for the daily practice of allergologists and physicians with other specialties, as an example of multimorbidity with both allergic and non-allergic backgrounds.

Background: Monitoring patients and achieving adherence in chronic diseases is an important problem. Allergic rhinitis (AR) happens to be one of the most common chronic and lifelong conditions of today. As such, it proves to be an excellent model for identifying the determinants of app use in the monitoring of adherence to treatment and assessment of health status during treatment. The use of Mask-air® app supports clinical decision-making by actively involving the patient in the process of observing symptoms and by promoting adherence to therapy. The main objective of the study was to identify the defining characteristics of a Mask-air® user, describe their disease phenotype, satisfaction with app use, as well as potential reasons for abandoning it. Material and Methods: The study included adult patients receiving care in an allergy outpatient clinic. In the course of a routine visit they were offered to participate in a trial involving the Mask-air® app. By means of surveys/questionnaires investigators collected data regarding their symptoms, administered treatment and clinical evaluation results. At a follow-up visit, these were compared, and patients was queried about their satisfaction with app use. Additionally, patients presented and discussed their app records. Those who refused to install or utilize the app were asked to indicate their reasons in a questionnaire. Results: The study found no distinguishing characteristics of Mask-air® app users, compared to those who refused the app. Readiness to use software was analyzed according to age, economic status, disease advancement and severity, presence of allergic comorbidities and therapeutic modality used. Respondents fell into the following categories in the context of app use: those who did not install the app (11.6%), those who installed it, but did not use it (22.2%), and those who installed and evaluated it (66.2%), but did not produce symptom monitoring records (15.6%). Satisfaction ratings for app use were high, but patients were critical of the therapeutic aspect included in the app. Conclusions: No distinguishing features of the Mask -air ® user were identified, suggesting that the Mask -air ® app can be recommended to all patients regardless of gender, economic and educational status, or disease phenotype.