Digital anamorphosis is used to define a distorted image of health and care that may be viewed correctly using digital tools and strategies. MASK digital anamorphosis represents the process used by MASK to develop the digital transformation of health and care in rhinitis. It strengthens the ARIA change management strategy in the prevention and management of airway disease. The MASK strategy is based on validated digital tools. Using the MASK digital tool and the CARAT online enhanced clinical framework, solutions for practical steps of digital enhancement of care are proposed.

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.

Patients with allergic rhinitis often trivialise their condition, self-manage inappropriately, and would benefit from health care intervention. The primary point of health care contact for these self-managing allergic rhinitis patients is the community pharmacy. With the majority of allergic rhinitis treatments being available for purchase over the counter, without health care professional contact, we know little about how the patients self-manage. This study aims to identify the burden of allergic rhinitis in the community pharmacy and to identify key opportunity for intervention. Pharmacy customers, who purchased nasal treatment in a community pharmacy, were approached with a research-administered questionnaire that collected data on medical history, symptoms and products purchased for the treatment of nasal symptoms. Of the 296 participants, 69.9% self-managed with over-the-counter medications; with 68% experiencing allergic rhinitis symptoms and only 44.3% of this subgroup had a doctor’s diagnosis. Nasal congestion (73.6%) was most commonly experienced and oral antihistamines were most commonly purchased (44.3%), indicating a pattern of suboptimal management. A third of participants (36.5%) experienced moderate-severe symptoms, persistently, which impacted on their daily living. Medication selection was mainly based on pharmacy customers’ perceptions of medication effectiveness (47.6%). A majority of participants that self-selected over-the-counter medications have symptoms consistent with allergic rhinitis, with almost half not having received a diagnosis. Medication purchasing patterns suggest that sub-optimal therapeutic decisions made by participants, even when they are experiencing significant symptoms. This study uncovers the hidden burden of allergic rhinitis in the community pharmacy and a missed opportunity to intervene and refer if necessary. Patients need to be guided through appropriate treatment as this study showed that many should be referred to a medical practitioner.

Factors influencing pharmacy students’ attitudes towards pharmacy practice research and strategies for promoting research interest in pharmacy practice

The paradigm of how we manage allergic rhinitis is shifting with a growing understanding that it is a complex process, requiring a coordinated effort from healthcare providers and patients. Pharmacists are key members of these integrated care pathways resolving medication-related problems, optimizing regimens, improving adherence and recommending therapies while establishing liaisons between patients and physicians. Community pharmacists are the most accessible healthcare professionals to the public and allergic rhinitis is one of the most common diseases managed by pharmacists. Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines developed over the past 20 years have improved the care of allergic rhinitis patients through an evidence-based, integrated care approach. In this paper, we propose an integrated approach to allergic rhinitis management in community pharmacy following the 2019 ARIA in the pharmacy guidelines.

New therapeutic options for severe asthma have recently emerged, mostly in the form of monoclonal antibodies (“biologicals”) targeting relevant inflammatory pathways. Currently available agents target different aspects of “Type 2” immunity, and their indications often include overlapping patient groups. We present a round‐table discussion that took place during the Annual Meeting of the Respiratory Effectiveness Group (REG), on the reasoning behind the use of different add‐on medications for severe asthma, and crucially, on selection strategies. The proposed rational is based on current evidence, including real‐life studies, as well as on the appreciation of the relevant complexities. Direct head‐to‐head comparisons of biologicals are lacking; therefore, algorithms for initial choice and potential switch between agents should be based on understanding the key characteristics of different options and the development of a clear plan with predefined targets and shared decision‐making, in a structured way.