Systematic review of measures of disease severity in rhinitis

The burden of allergic rhinitis is undermanaged in a large proportion of Chinese young adults from Singapore

Background

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a nasal disorder characterized by the simultaneous manifestation of at least 2 out of 4 possible symptoms: rhinorrhea, nasal itching, nasal pruritus, and sneezing. Presently, among Chinese young adults from Singapore, we characterised AR phenotypes, established Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS) baselines, and examined the management of AR.

Methods

Participants completed an investigator-administered International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood (ISAAC) questionnaire and underwent a skin prick test (SPT). Individuals exhibiting sensitization during the SPT while having at least 2 rhinitis symptoms were identified as AR cases, then categorized into Allergic Rhinitis in Asthma (ARIA) classifications.

Results

There were 9323 subjects analyzed. AR prevalence was estimated at 35.4%. Rhinorrhea was perceived as the most severe (mean Nasal Symptom Score (mNSS) ± SD: 1.42 ± 0.74), while nasal pruritus was the least severe (mNSS ± SD: 1.24 ± 0.68). Among moderate-severe AR (68.1%), most were affected by either troublesome symptoms (27.7%) or sleep disturbances (18.4%). By ARIA classes, 26.6% were mild intermittent, 5.4% were mild persistent, 50.3% were moderate-severe intermittent, and 17.6% were moderate-severe persistent. The mean TNSS (mTNSS) of AR cases was 4.43 (SD = 2.49) and between AR classifications, the mTNSS was significantly different. Notably, a large proportion of AR cases remained undiagnosed (85.2%), untreated (72.5%), or both (65.4%); 19.8% self-medicated for AR.

Conclusions

There was a significant difference in TNSS of the AR phenotypes, and among phenotypes with a higher mTNSS, a large proportion remained untreated, undiagnosed, or both. The evidence indicates an existing burden of AR among Chinese young adults in Singapore which is notably undermanaged.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Rhinitis and Chronic Rhinosinusitis

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are valuable in the assessment and management of rhinitis and chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). They measure outcomes that may include symptoms, disease control, well-being, and health-related quality of life (QOL). PROMs for rhinitis and rhinosinusitis are often used before and after an intervention, for example, medication, therapeutic procedure, or, in allergic rhinitis (AR), allergen immunotherapy. Although widely used in clinical trials for AR and conjunctivitis, symptom score PROMs are less validated than disease control or QOL measures. The best validated PROM for AR is the Rhinitis Quality of Life Questionnaire, but there is no universally accepted criterion standard for symptom and disease control PROMs. For CRS, at least 15 different criteria have been used to assess disease control in clinical studies, but what CRS disease control means and how it should be measured are concepts in evolution. The most used QOL measure for CRS is the 22-item Sinonasal Outcome Test. The use of PROMs to support clinical decisions and for shared decision-making for rhinitis and rhinosinusitis still has many challenges, including the selection of the preferred instrument, when and how to administer, the impact of comorbidities, and questionnaire fatigue for both patient and provider.

Impact of allergic rhinitis on quality of life in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the impact of allergic rhinitis (AR) on the quality of life (QoL) in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS).

METHODS

Retrospective cross-sectional study of adult patients with CRS presenting to our clinic between August 2020 and February 2023 was performed. AR was diagnosed based on a positive skin or blood allergy test. Patients' characteristics, AR status, comorbidities, endoscopy scores, and SNOT-22 scores were collected.

RESULTS

A total of 514 CRS patients were included, with 265 (51.6 %) patients with AR. CRS patients with AR were younger (p = 0.004), more likely to be female (p < 0.001), and more likely to have asthma (p < 0.001). Polyp status and endoscopy scores did not differ between patients with and without AR. Baseline SNOT-22 scores were slightly worse in the AR cohort (43.6 vs 38.7, p = 0.007), which was mainly secondary to rhinologic (p = 0.002), extrarhinologic (p = 0.007), and ear/facial (p = 0.007) subdomains. Worse rhinologic and extrarhinologic scores were associated with the presence of AR after adjusting for confounding variables (Coef = 1.55, p = 0.011; and Coef = 0.83, p = 0.021 respectively).

CONCLUSION

The impact of allergic rhinitis on QoL is mainly on the nasal symptoms. Further studies should look at the role of AR on the QoL of different CRS endotypes; and at the role of AR-specific treatment, such as immunotherapy, on the QoL of patients with CRS.

Rhinitis Disease Burden and the Impact of Social Determinants of Health

Social determinants of health (SDHs) have a substantial impact on patient care and outcomes globally, both in low- to middle-income countries and in high-income countries. In the clinic, lack of availability of diagnostic tools, inequities in access to care, and challenges obtaining and adhering to prescribed treatment plans may further compound these issues. This article addresses a case of rhinitis in the context of SDHs and inequities in care that may affect various communities and populations around the world. SDHs may include various aspects of one's financial means, education, access to medical care, environment and living situation, and community factors, each of which could play a role in the rhinitis disease manifestations, diagnosis, and management. Allergic and nonallergic rhinitis are considered from this perspective. Rhinitis epidemiology, disease burden, and risk factors are broadly addressed. Patient evaluation, diagnostic tests, and management options are also reviewed, and issues related to SDHs are noted. Finally, inequities in care, knowledge gaps, and unmet needs are highlighted. It is critical to consider SDHs and care inequities when evaluating and treating patients for rhinitis and other allergic conditions.

Endoscopic vidian and vidian-branch neurectomy for refractory allergic rhinitis: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic vidian neurectomy is expected to provide good therapeutic relief in patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) being refractory to medication therapy or conservative surgery. However, the evidence bases for its benefit remain debatable. In this study, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to clarify the therapeutic role of various forms of vidian neurectomy in refractory AR.

METHOD

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines were used to conduct a systematic review of primary studies that reported original patient data for endoscopic vidian neurectomy (EVN) and vidian-branch neurectomy, which includes selective vidian neurectomy (SVN) and posterior nasal neurectomy (PNN). The primary outcome was patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), including the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) and Visual Analog Scale (VAS), to assess an improvement in nasal symptom severity and quality of patient's life. The incidence of surgical complications and other objective outcomes were considered secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

This review included 24 clinical studies involving 1677 patients with refractory AR, of which 510 patients in six studies had combined chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) and 95 patients in one study had combined asthma. Postoperative PROMs were significantly better than preoperatively in almost all patients who underwent vidianp (RQLQ: standardized mean difference [SMD] = 2.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.40-2.92, p < 0.001; VAS: SMD = 5.15, 95% CI = 4.29-6.02, p < 0.001) or vidian-branch neurectomy (RQLQ in PNN: SMD = 3.29, 95% CI = 2.45-4.13, p < 0.001; VAS in PNN: SMD = 4.38, 95% CI = 3.41-5.34, p < 0.001), and were generally better than in the conservative treatment group. Dividing with 18 months as the cutoff point, a subgroup analysis of the follow-up period was conducted, and the results showed that both long-term and short-term postoperative patients had considerably reduced symptoms compared to the preoperative period. The two surgical procedures, SVN and PNN, attributed to vidian-branch neurectomy have extremely few complications. However, EVN is more likely to cause dry eyes and palatal numbness, with no other serious complications. In patients with AR and CRSwNP, vidian or selective vidian neurectomy combined with functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS) is more effective than conventional FESS (RQLQ: SMD = 2.17, 95% CI = 1.66-2.69, p < 0.001; VAS: SMD = 6.42, 95% CI = 4.78-8.06, p < 0.001). For patients who have both AR and asthma, SVN with pharyngeal branch excision is a potential treatment option.

CONCLUSION

EVN and vidian-branch neurectomy (including SVN and PNN) are effective treatments, but the former has a higher risk of complications. Additionally, vidian-branch neurectomy with FESS is beneficial for patients with mixed CRSwNP. SVN is a potential approach for patients with coexisting AR and asthma.

Clinical Practice Guideline: Immunotherapy for Inhalant Allergy

OBJECTIVE

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the therapeutic exposure to an allergen or allergens selected by clinical assessment and allergy testing to decrease allergic symptoms and induce immunologic tolerance. Inhalant AIT is administered to millions of patients for allergic rhinitis (AR) and allergic asthma (AA) and is most commonly delivered as subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) or sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). Despite its widespread use, there is variability in the initiation and delivery of safe and effective immunotherapy, and there are opportunities for evidence-based recommendations for improved patient care.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this clinical practice guideline (CPG) is to identify quality improvement opportunities and provide clinicians trustworthy, evidence-based recommendations regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. Specific goals of the guideline are to optimize patient care, promote safe and effective therapy, reduce unjustified variations in care, and reduce the risk of harm. The target patients for the guideline are any individuals aged 5 years and older with AR, with or without AA, who are either candidates for immunotherapy or treated with immunotherapy for their inhalant allergies. The target audience is all clinicians involved in the administration of immunotherapy. This guideline is intended to focus on evidence-based quality improvement opportunities judged most important by the guideline development group (GDG). It is not intended to be a comprehensive, general guide regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. The statements in this guideline are not intended to limit or restrict care provided by clinicians based on their experience and assessment of individual patients.

ACTION STATEMENTS

The GDG made a strong recommendation that (Key Action Statement [KAS] 10) the clinician performing allergy skin testing or administering AIT must be able to diagnose and manage anaphylaxis. The GDG made recommendations for the following KASs: (KAS 1) Clinicians should offer or refer to a clinician who can offer immunotherapy for patients with AR with or without AA if their patients' symptoms are inadequately controlled with medical therapy, allergen avoidance, or both, or have a preference for immunomodulation. (KAS 2A) Clinicians should not initiate AIT for patients who are pregnant, have uncontrolled asthma, or are unable to tolerate injectable epinephrine. (KAS 3) Clinicians should evaluate the patient or refer the patient to a clinician who can evaluate for signs and symptoms of asthma before initiating AIT and for signs and symptoms of uncontrolled asthma before administering subsequent AIT. (KAS 4) Clinicians should educate patients who are immunotherapy candidates regarding the differences between SCIT and SLIT (aqueous and tablet) including risks, benefits, convenience, and costs. (KAS 5) Clinicians should educate patients about the potential benefits of AIT in (1) preventing new allergen sensitizations, (2) reducing the risk of developing AA, and (3) altering the natural history of the disease with continued benefit after discontinuation of therapy. (KAS 6) Clinicians who administer SLIT to patients with seasonal AR should offer pre- and co-seasonal immunotherapy. (KAS 7) Clinicians prescribing AIT should limit treatment to only those clinically relevant allergens that correlate with the patient's history and are confirmed by testing. (KAS 9) Clinicians administering AIT should continue escalation or maintenance dosing when patients have local reactions (LRs) to AIT. (KAS 11) Clinicians should avoid repeat allergy testing as an assessment of the efficacy of ongoing AIT unless there is a change in environmental exposures or a loss of control of symptoms. (KAS 12) For patients who are experiencing symptomatic control from AIT, clinicians should treat for a minimum duration of 3 years, with ongoing treatment duration based on patient response to treatment. The GDG offered the following KASs as options: (KAS 2B) Clinicians may choose not to initiate AIT for patients who use concomitant beta-blockers, have a history of anaphylaxis, have systemic immunosuppression, or have eosinophilic esophagitis (SLIT only). (KAS 8) Clinicians may treat polysensitized patients with a limited number of allergens.

Executive Summary of Clinical Practice Guideline on Immunotherapy for Inhalant Allergy

OBJECTIVE

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the therapeutic exposure to an allergen or allergens selected by clinical assessment and allergy testing to decrease allergic symptoms and induce immunologic tolerance. Inhalant AIT is administered to millions of patients for allergic rhinitis (AR) and allergic asthma (AA) and is most commonly delivered as subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) or sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). Despite its widespread use, there is variability in the initiation and delivery of safe and effective immunotherapy, and there are opportunities for evidence-based recommendations for improved patient care.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this clinical practice guideline is to identify quality improvement opportunities and provide clinicians trustworthy, evidence-based recommendations regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. Specific goals of the guideline are to optimize patient care, promote safe and effective therapy, reduce unjustified variations in care, and reduce risk of harm. The target patients for the guideline are any individuals aged 5 years and older with AR, with or without AA, who are either candidates for immunotherapy or treated with immunotherapy for their inhalant allergies. The target audience is all clinicians involved in the administration of immunotherapy. This guideline is intended to focus on evidence-based quality improvement opportunities judged most important by the guideline development group. It is not intended to be a comprehensive, general guide regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. The statements in this guideline are not intended to limit or restrict care provided by clinicians based on their experience and assessment of individual patients.

ACTION STATEMENTS

The guideline development group made a strong recommendation that (Key Action Statement [KAS] 10) the clinician performing allergy skin testing or administering AIT must be able to diagnose and manage anaphylaxis. The guideline development group made recommendations for the following KASs: (KAS 1) Clinicians should offer or refer to a clinician who can offer immunotherapy for patients with AR with or without AA if their patients' symptoms are inadequately controlled with medical therapy, allergen avoidance, or both, or have a preference for immunomodulation. (KAS 2A) Clinicians should not initiate AIT for patients who are pregnant, have uncontrolled asthma, or are unable to tolerate injectable epinephrine. (KAS 3) Clinicians should evaluate the patient or refer the patient to a clinician who can evaluate for signs and symptoms of asthma before initiating AIT and for signs and symptoms of uncontrolled asthma before administering subsequent AIT. (KAS 4) Clinicians should educate patients who are immunotherapy candidates regarding the differences between SCIT and SLIT (aqueous and tablet) including risks, benefits, convenience, and costs. (KAS 5) Clinicians should educate patients about the potential benefits of AIT in (1) preventing new allergen sensitization, (2) reducing the risk of developing AA, and (3) altering the natural history of the disease with continued benefit after discontinuation of therapy. (KAS 6) Clinicians who administer SLIT to patients with seasonal AR should offer pre- and co-seasonal immunotherapy. (KAS 7) Clinicians prescribing AIT should limit treatment to only those clinically relevant allergens that correlate with the patient's history and are confirmed by testing. (KAS 9) Clinicians administering AIT should continue escalation or maintenance dosing when patients have local reactions to AIT. (KAS 11) Clinicians should avoid repeat allergy testing as an assessment of the efficacy of ongoing AIT unless there is a change in environmental exposures or a loss of control of symptoms. (KAS 12) For patients who are experiencing symptomatic control from AIT, clinicians should treat for a minimum duration of 3 years, with ongoing treatment duration based on patient response to treatment. The guideline development group offered the following KASs as options: (KAS 2B) Clinicians may choose not to initiate AIT for patients who use concomitant beta-blockers, have a history of anaphylaxis, have systemic immunosuppression, or have eosinophilic esophagitis (SLIT only). (KAS 8) Clinicians may treat polysensitized patients with a limited number of allergens.

Self-Management in Allergic Rhinitis: Strategies, Outcomes and Integration into Clinical Care

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a common disease, characterized by typical symptoms and type 2 inflammation. Standard treatment is usually effective and safe, and most medications are available as over-the-counter (OTC). Therefore, AR patients, mostly at the AR onset or if symptoms are mild, prefer to manage symptoms themselves. However, self-management could be associated with problems, including inadequate control or medication abuse. Therefore, this paper aimed at presenting and discussing this issue. Ideally, self-management should be conducted under medical supervision. In this regard, telemedicine could represent a valuable tool for implementing self-management. Visual analog scale (VAS) is a perfect parameter to measure symptom severity, medications use, and AR control. In addition, VAS is easily monitored over time. Presently, a mobile application allows to AR patients of self-managing themselves. Therefore, mobile healthcare may supply fundamental support in communication and decision-making. In this regard, VAS represents the best tool to monitor symptoms' severity and control over time. Finally, pharmacological and non-pharmacological remedies are numerous and effective but should be used wisely.

Peripheral Multiple Cytokine Profiles Identified CD39 as a Novel Biomarker for Diagnosis and Reflecting Disease Severity in Allergic Rhinitis Patients

Background

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a common clinical problem, and immune cells and cytokines were proven to be pivotal in its pathogenesis. Our aim is to measure the peripheral concentrations of multiple cytokines in AR patients and identify novel biomarkers for diagnosis and disease severity.

Methods

Peripheral blood samples were collected from 50 AR patients, including 25 mild AR (MAR) patients and 25 moderate-severe AR patients (MSAR), and 22 healthy controls (HCs), and multiple cytokine profiling was outlined by Luminex assay. Cytokine levels were compared among the three groups, and their correlations with disease severity were evaluated. The candidate cytokines were further verified by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in a validation cohort.

Results

Multiple cytokine profiling revealed that CD39 and interferon (IFN)-γ levels were reduced, and interleukin (IL)-13, IL-5, IL-33, and thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP) levels were elevated in the AR group than the HC group (P < 0.05). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves presented that serum CD39 and IL-33 exhibited strong diagnostic abilities, and serum CD39 and IL-10 presented capacities in distinguishing disease severity (AUC > 0.8, P < 0.05). Moreover, CD39 concentrations were decreased, and IL-10, IL-5, and TSLP concentrations were enhanced in the MSAR group more than in the MAR group. Correlation analysis results showed that serum CD39, IL-5, and TSLP levels were associated with total nasal symptom score (TNSS) and visual analogue score (VAS) (P < 0.05). Further data in the validation cohort suggested that serum CD39 levels were reduced, and IL-5 and TSLP levels were increased in AR patients, especially in MSAR patients (P < 0.05). ROC results revealed potential values of serum CD39 in diagnosis and disease severity evaluation in AR patients (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

This study highlighted that peripheral multiple cytokine profiles were significantly varied in AR patients and associated with disease severity. The results in discover-validation cohorts implied that serum CD39 might serve as a novel biomarker for diagnosing AR and reflecting its disease severity.

International consensus statement on allergy and rhinology: Allergic rhinitis - 2023

BACKGROUND

In the 5 years that have passed since the publication of the 2018 International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2018), the literature has expanded substantially. The ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 update presents 144 individual topics on allergic rhinitis (AR), expanded by over 40 topics from the 2018 document. Originally presented topics from 2018 have also been reviewed and updated. The executive summary highlights key evidence-based findings and recommendation from the full document.

METHODS

ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 employed established evidence-based review with recommendation (EBRR) methodology to individually evaluate each topic. Stepwise iterative peer review and consensus was performed for each topic. The final document was then collated and includes the results of this work.

RESULTS

ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 includes 10 major content areas and 144 individual topics related to AR. For a substantial proportion of topics included, an aggregate grade of evidence is presented, which is determined by collating the levels of evidence for each available study identified in the literature. For topics in which a diagnostic or therapeutic intervention is considered, a recommendation summary is presented, which considers the aggregate grade of evidence, benefit, harm, and cost.

CONCLUSION

The ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 update provides a comprehensive evaluation of AR and the currently available evidence. It is this evidence that contributes to our current knowledge base and recommendations for patient evaluation and treatment.

Rhinitis phenotypes and multimorbidities in the general population: the CONSTANCES cohort

BACKGROUND

Scarce epidemiological studies have characterised allergic rhinitis (AR) and non-allergic rhinitis (NAR) in adults. In a population-based cohort, our aims were to 1) describe rhinitis, AR and NAR, and 2) explore how asthma and conjunctivitis may lead to the identification of novel rhinitis phenotypes.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional analysis, current rhinitis was defined as present in the last 12 months using a questionnaire from the French CONSTANCES cohort. Participants with current rhinitis reporting nasal allergies were considered as AR, otherwise as NAR. We described AR and NAR phenotypes, and their phenotypes including co-occurrence with ever-asthma and ever-conjunctivitis.

RESULTS

Among the 20 772 participants included in this analysis (mean±sd age 52.6±12.6 years; 55.2% female), crude prevalences of AR and NAR were 28.0% and 10.9%. AR participants more frequently reported persistent rhinitis (31.6% versus 25.1%) and moderate-to-severe rhinitis (40.1% versus 24.2%) than NAR participants. Among AR or NAR participants, those with ever-asthma reported more moderate-to-severe rhinitis. Participants with AR, ever-asthma and ever-conjunctivitis had an earlier age of rhinitis onset, more severe rhinitis and higher eosinophil counts than participants in other groups. Results were replicated in another cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large population-based cohort, 40% reported current rhinitis, with a lower prevalence of moderate-to-severe rhinitis than in clinical practice. For the first time in a general adult population, we showed that AR and NAR alone or in combination with asthma or in combination with asthma and conjunctivitis are different phenotypes. These results provide new insights on how best to manage rhinitis and its multimorbidities.

Allergic rhinitis in Chinese young adults from the Singapore/Malaysia cross-sectional genetics epidemiology study (SMCGES) cohort: Prevalence, patterns, and epidemiology of allergic rhinitis

Background

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is characterized by the occurrence of at least 2 symptoms of nasal itching, nasal blockage, rhinorrhea, and sneezing, when not afflicted with a cold or flu, with defined atopic sensitization demonstrated by skin prick test or specific IgE responses. Besides the detriment to standard of living and economic burden of AR, both multicentre and single-cohort studies have observed an increase in AR prevalence in Asia over time.

Methods

In total, 12 872 individuals, with mean age 22.1 years (SD = 4.8), were recruited from universities in Singapore and Malaysia. Each participant provided epidemiological data based on an investigator-administered questionnaire adapted from the validated International Study of Allergies and Asthma in Childhood (ISAAC) protocol, and atopy status was determined using a skin prick test (SPT) performed by qualified staff. AR was diagnosed according to Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines and a positive SPT result.

Results

Sensitization (determined by SPT) to either Blomia tropicalis or Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus was prevalent in 66.5% of the cohort. Current rhinitis (manifesting ≥2 rhinitis symptoms, within the past 12 months) was observed in 48.9% of our population, while AR, which included atopy status, was estimated at 39.4%. Sneezing and rhinorrhea were the most common symptoms among AR cases. AR prevalence decreased with increasing age (OR: 0.979; 95% CI: 0.969-0.989), while male gender (OR: 2.053; 95% CI: 1.839-2.294), and a parental history of allergic diseases (OR: 2.750; 95% CI: 2.284-3.316) were significant risk factors for AR. Upon adjustment for age, gender, and parental history, housing type (OR: 0.632; 95% CI: 0.543-0.736) and income level (>$6000 vs <$2000; OR: 2.461; 95% CI: 2.058-2.947) remained as significant risk factors for AR, while ever having kept a pet (OR: 1.167; 95% CI: 1.025-1.328) emerged as a risk factor. Conflicting results were obtained for indicators of sedentary lifestyle: frequent physical activity (OR: 1.394; 95% CI: 1.150-1.694) and increased duration spent using the TV/computer (OR: 1.224; 95% CI: 1.006-1.489) both increased the risk of AR. Lastly, we used the Quality of Diet based on Glycaemic Index Score (QDGIS) to assess the Glycaemic Index (GI) level of overall diet. We identified lower GI level of overall diet as a protective factor against AR manifestation (OR: 0.682; 95% CI: 0.577-0.807).

Conclusion

While the previously established non-modifiable risk factors for AR were present in our study population, the identification of modifiable risk factors, such as TV/computer usage, and dietary habits, opens a new area for research, both in the areas of gene-environment interaction, and management of AR.