| 1. |
- Agache, Ioana, et al.
(author)
-
Prioritizing research challenges and funding for allergy and asthma and the need for translational research—The European Strategic Forum on Allergic Diseases
- 2019
-
In: Allergy: European Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. - : Wiley. - 0105-4538. ; 74:11, s. 2064-2076
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) organized the first European Strategic Forum on Allergic Diseases and Asthma. The main aim was to bring together all relevant stakeholders and decision-makers in the field of allergy, asthma and clinical Immunology around an open debate on contemporary challenges and potential solutions for the next decade. The Strategic Forum was an upscaling of the EAACI White Paper aiming to integrate the Academy's output with the perspective offered by EAACI's partners. This collaboration is fundamental for adapting and integrating allergy and asthma care into the context of real-world problems. The Strategic Forum on Allergic Diseases brought together all partners who have the drive and the influence to make positive change: national and international societies, patients’ organizations, regulatory bodies and industry representatives. An open debate with a special focus on drug development and biomedical engineering, big data and information technology and allergic diseases and asthma in the context of environmental health concluded that connecting science with the transformation of care and a joint agreement between all partners on priorities and needs are essential to ensure a better management of allergic diseases and asthma in the advent of precision medicine together with global access to innovative and affordable diagnostics and therapeutics.
|
|
| 2. |
- Sampath, Vanitha, et al.
(author)
-
Vaccines and allergic reactions : The past, the current COVID-19 pandemic, and future perspectives
- 2021
-
In: Allergy: European Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. - : Wiley. - 0105-4538. ; 76:6, s. 1640-1660
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Vaccines are essential public health tools with a favorable safety profile and prophylactic effectiveness that have historically played significant roles in reducing infectious disease burden in populations, when the majority of individuals are vaccinated. The COVID-19 vaccines are expected to have similar positive impacts on health across the globe. While serious allergic reactions to vaccines are rare, their underlying mechanisms and implications for clinical management should be considered to provide individuals with the safest care possible. In this review, we provide an overview of different types of allergic adverse reactions that can potentially occur after vaccination and individual vaccine components capable of causing the allergic adverse reactions. We present the incidence of allergic adverse reactions during clinical studies and through post-authorization and post-marketing surveillance and provide plausible causes of these reactions based on potential allergenic components present in several common vaccines. Additionally, we review implications for individual diagnosis and management and vaccine manufacturing overall. Finally, we suggest areas for future research.
|
|
| 3. |
- Sousa-Pinto, Bernardo, et al.
(author)
-
Comparison of rhinitis treatments using MASK-air® data and considering the minimal important difference
- 2022
-
In: Allergy. European Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. - : John Wiley & Sons. - 0105-4538 .- 1398-9995. ; 77:10, s. 3002-3014
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- 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.
|
|
| 4. |
- Sousa-Pinto, Bernardo, et al.
(author)
-
Consistent trajectories of rhinitis control and treatment in 16,177 weeks : the MASK-air® longitudinal study
- 2023
-
In: Allergy. European Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. - : John Wiley & Sons. - 0105-4538 .- 1398-9995. ; 78:4, s. 968-983
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Introduction: Data from mHealth apps can provide valuable information on rhinitis control and treatment patterns. However, in MASK-air®, these data have only been analyzed cross-sectionally, without considering the changes of symptoms over time. We analyzed data from MASK-air® longitudinally, clustering weeks according to reported rhinitis symptoms. Methods: We analyzed MASK-air® data, assessing the weeks for which patients had answered a rhinitis daily questionnaire on all 7 days. We firstly used k-means clustering algorithms for longitudinal data to define clusters of weeks according to the trajectories of reported daily rhinitis symptoms. Clustering was applied separately for weeks when medication was reported or not. We compared obtained clusters on symptoms and rhinitis medication patterns. We then used the latent class mixture model to assess the robustness of results. Results: We analyzed 113,239 days (16,177 complete weeks) from 2590 patients (mean age ± SD = 39.1 ± 13.7 years). The first clustering algorithm identified ten clusters among weeks with medication use: seven with low variability in rhinitis control during the week and three with highly-variable control. Clusters with poorly-controlled rhinitis displayed a higher frequency of rhinitis co-medication, a more frequent change of medication schemes and more pronounced seasonal patterns. Six clusters were identified in weeks when no rhinitis medication was used, displaying similar control patterns. The second clustering method provided similar results. Moreover, patients displayed consistent levels of rhinitis control, reporting several weeks with similar levels of control. Conclusions: We identified 16 patterns of weekly rhinitis control. Co-medication and medication change schemes were common in uncontrolled weeks, reinforcing the hypothesis that patients treat themselves according to their symptoms.
|
|
| 5. |
- Sousa-Pinto, Bernardo, et al.
(author)
-
Development and validation of combined symptom-medication scores for allergic rhinitis*
- 2022
-
In: Allergy. European Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. - : John Wiley & Sons. - 0105-4538 .- 1398-9995. ; 77:7, s. 2147-2162
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: Validated combined symptom-medication scores (CSMSs) are needed to investigate the effects of allergic rhinitis treatments. This study aimed to use real-life data from the MASK-air® app to generate and validate hypothesis- and data-driven CSMSs.Methods: We used MASK-air® data to assess the concurrent validity, test-retest reliability and responsiveness of one hypothesis-driven CSMS (modified CSMS: mCSMS), one mixed hypothesis- and data-driven score (mixed score), and several data-driven CSMSs. The latter were generated with MASK-air® data following cluster analysis and regression models or factor analysis. These CSMSs were compared with scales measuring (i) the impact of rhinitis on work productivity (visual analogue scale [VAS] of work of MASK-air®, and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment: Allergy Specific [WPAI-AS]), (ii) quality-of-life (EQ-5D VAS) and (iii) control of allergic diseases (Control of Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma Test [CARAT]).Results: We assessed 317,176 days of MASK-air® use from 17,780 users aged 16-90 years, in 25 countries. The mCSMS and the factor analyses-based CSMSs displayed poorer validity and responsiveness compared to the remaining CSMSs. The latter displayed moderate-to-strong correlations with the tested comparators, high test-retest reliability and moderate-to-large responsiveness. Among data-driven CSMSs, a better performance was observed for cluster analyses-based CSMSs. High accuracy (capacity of discriminating different levels of rhinitis control) was observed for the latter (AUC-ROC = 0.904) and for the mixed CSMS (AUC-ROC = 0.820).Conclusion: The mixed CSMS and the cluster-based CSMSs presented medium-high validity, reliability and accuracy, rendering them as candidates for primary endpoints in future rhinitis trials.
|
|
