Background: Co‐medication is common among patients with allergic rhinitis (AR), but its dimension and patterns are unknown. This is particularly relevant since AR is understood differently across European countries, as reflected by rhinitis‐related search patterns in Google Trends. This study aims to assess AR co‐medication and its regional patterns in Europe, using real‐world data.Methods: We analysed 2015–2020 MASK‐air^® European data. We compared days under no medication, monotherapy and co‐medication using the visual analogue scale (VAS) levels for overall allergic symptoms (‘VAS Global Symptoms’) and impact of AR on work. We assessed the monthly use of different medication schemes, performing separate analyses by region (defined geographically or by Google Trends patterns). We estimated the average number of different drugs reported per patient within 1 year.Results: We analysed 222,024 days (13,122 users), including 63,887 days (28.8%) under monotherapy and 38,315 (17.3%) under co‐medication. The median ‘VAS Global Symptoms’ was 7 for no medication days, 14 for monotherapy and 21 for co‐medication (p < .001). Medication use peaked during the spring, with similar patterns across different European regions (defined geographically or by Google Trends). Oral H₁‐antihistamines were the most common medication in single and co‐medication. Each patient reported using an annual average of 2.7 drugs, with 80% reporting two or more.Conclusions: Allergic rhinitis medication patterns are similar across European regions. One third of treatment days involved co‐medication. These findings suggest that patients treat themselves according to their symptoms (irrespective of how they understand AR) and that co‐medication use is driven by symptom severity.

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.

Background: Poor medication adherence is a major challenge in asthma, and objective assessment of inhaler adherence is needed. The InspirerMundi app aims to monitor adherence while providing a positive experience through gamification and social support. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of the InspirerMundi app to monitor medication adherence in adolescents and adults with persistent asthma (treated with daily inhaled medication). Methods: A 1-month mixed method multicenter observational study was conducted in 26 secondary care centers from Portugal and Spain. During an initial face-to-face visit, physicians reported patients’ asthma therapeutic plan in a structured questionnaire. During the visits, patients were invited to use the app daily to register their asthma medication intakes. A scheduled intake was considered taken when patients registered the intake (inhaler, blister, or other drug formulation) by using the image-based medication detection tool. At 1 month, patients were interviewed by phone, and app satisfaction was assessed on a 1 (low) to 5 (high) scale. Patients were also asked to point out the most and least preferred app features and make suggestions for future app improvements. Results: A total of 107 patients (median 27 [P25-P75 14-40] years) were invited, 92.5% (99/107) installed the app, and 73.8% (79/107) completed the 1-month interview. Patients interacted with the app a median of 9 (P25-P75 1-24) days. At least one medication was registered in the app by 78% (77/99) of patients. A total of 53% (52/99) of participants registered all prescribed inhalers, and 34% (34/99) registered the complete asthma therapeutic plan. Median medication adherence was 75% (P25-P75 25%-90%) for inhalers and 82% (P25-P75 50%-94%) for other drug formulations. Patients were globally satisfied with the app, with 75% (59/79) scoring ≥4,; adherence monitoring, symptom monitoring, and gamification features being the most highly scored components; and the medication detection tool among the lowest scored. A total of 53% (42/79) of the patients stated that the app had motivated them to improve adherence to inhaled medication and 77% (61/79) would recommend the app to other patients. Patient feedback was reflected in 4 major themes: medication-related features (67/79, 85%), gamification and social network (33/79, 42%), symptom monitoring and physician communication (21/79, 27%), and other aspects (16/79, 20%). Conclusions: The InspirerMundi app was feasible and acceptable to monitor medication adherence in patients with asthma. Based on patient feedback and to increase the registering of medications, the therapeutic plan registration and medication detection tool were redesigned. Our results highlight the importance of patient participation to produce a patient-centered and engaging mHealth asthma app.

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.

Background: Control of Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma Test for Children (CARATKids) is the first questionnaire that assesses simultaneously allergic rhinitis and asthma control in children. It was recently developed, but redundancy of questions and its psychometric properties were not assessed. This study aimed to (i) establish the final version of the CARATKids questionnaire and (ii) evaluate its reliability, responsiveness, cross‐sectional validity, and longitudinal validity.Methods: A prospective observational study was conducted in 11 Portuguese centers. During two visits separated by 6 wk, CARATKids, visual analog scale scales and childhood asthma control test were completed, and participant's asthma and rhinitis were evaluated by his/her physician without knowing the questionnaires’ results. Data‐driven item reduction was conducted, and internal consistency, responsiveness analysis, and associations with external measures of disease status were assessed.Results: Of the 113 children included, 101 completed both visits. After item reduction, the final version of the questionnaire has 13 items, eight to be answered by the child and five by the caregiver. Its Cronbach's alpha was 0.80, the Guyatt's responsiveness index was −1.51, and a significant (p < 0.001) within‐patient change of CARATKids score in clinical unstable patients was observed. Regarding cross‐sectional validity, correlation coefficients of CARATKids with the external measures of control were between 0.45 and −0.69 and met the a priori predictions. In the longitudinal validity assessment, the correlation coefficients between the score changes of CARATKids and those of external measures of control ranged from 0.34 to 0.46.Conclusion: CARATKids showed adequate psychometric properties and is ready to be used in clinical practice.