The role of mobile health technologies in allergy care: An EAACI position paper

Mobile health (mHealth) uses mobile communication devices such as smartphones and tablet computers to support and improve health-related services, data and information flow, patient self-management, surveillance, and disease management from the moment of first diagnosis to an optimized treatment. The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology created a task force to assess the state of the art and future potential of mHealth in allergology. The task force endorsed the "Be He@lthy, Be Mobile" WHO initiative and debated the quality, usability, efficiency, advantages, limitations, and risks of mobile solutions for allergic diseases. The results are summarized in this position paper, analyzing also the regulatory background with regard to the "General Data Protection Regulation" and Medical Directives of the European Community. The task force assessed the design, user engagement, content, potential of inducing behavioral change, credibility/accountability, and privacy policies of mHealth products. The perspectives of healthcare professionals and allergic patients are discussed, underlining the need of thorough investigation for an effective design of mHealth technologies as auxiliary tools to improve quality of care. Within the context of precision medicine, these could facilitate the change in perspective from clinician- to patient-centered care. The current and future potential of mHealth is then examined for specific areas of allergology, including allergic rhinitis, aerobiology, allergen immunotherapy, asthma, dermatological diseases, food allergies, anaphylaxis, insect venom, and drug allergy. The impact of mobile technologies and associated big data sets are outlined. Facts and recommendations for future mHealth initiatives within EAACI are listed.

Diagnostic tools in ocular allergy

Ocular allergy (OA) includes a group of common and less frequent hypersensitivity disorders frequently misdiagnosed and not properly managed. The diagnosis of OA is usually based on clinical history and signs and symptoms, with the support of in vivo and in vitro tests when identification of the specific allergen is required. To date, no specific test is available for the diagnosis of the whole spectrum of the different forms of OA. The lack of recommendations on diagnosis of OA is considered a medical need not only for allergists but also for ophthalmologists. This position paper aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the currently available tools for diagnosing OA to promote a common nomenclature and procedures to be used by different specialists. Questionnaires, sign and symptom grading scales, tests, and potential biomarkers for OA are reviewed. We also identified several unmet needs in the diagnostic tools to generate interest, increase understanding, and inspire further investigations. Tools, recommendations, and algorithms for the diagnosis of OA are proposed for use by both allergists and ophthalmologists. Several unmet needs in the diagnostic tools should be further improved by specific clinical research in OA.

Ocular allergy: recognizing and diagnosing hypersensitivity disorders of the ocular surface

Ocular allergy includes several clinically different conditions that can be considered as hypersensitivity disorders of the ocular surface. The classification of these conditions is complex, and their epidemiology has not been adequately studied because of the lack of unequivocal nomenclature. Ocular allergy symptoms are often, but not always, associated with other allergic manifestations, mostly rhinitis. However, specific ocular allergic diseases need to be recognized and managed by a team that includes both an ophthalmologist and an allergist. The diagnosis of ocular allergy is usually based on clinical history and signs and symptoms, with the support of in vivo and in vitro tests when the identification of the specific allergic sensitization is required for patient management. The aims of this Task Force Report are (i) to unify the nomenclature and classification of ocular allergy, by combining the ophthalmology and allergy Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma criteria; (ii) to describe current methods of diagnosis; (iii) to summarize the therapeutic options for the management of ocular allergic inflammation.

Morning and evening efficacy evaluation of rupatadine (10 and 20 mg), compared with cetirizine 10 mg in perennial allergic rhinitis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Background:

A circadian rhythm of symptoms has been reported in allergic rhinitis (AR). Severity of all major symptoms of AR, including runny nose, sneezing, and nasal congestion, is typically at its peak in the morning. The objective of this study was to explore the efficacy of the antihistamine and platelet activating factor (PAF) antagonist rupatadine in the morning and evening and to evaluate whether rupatadine provides effective symptom relief throughout the 24-hour dosing interval.

Methods:

A total of 308 patients ≥18 years of age with PAR was randomly assigned to once-daily rupatadine 10 mg, rupatadine 20 mg, or cetirizine 10 mg for 4 weeks in a placebo-controlled, double-blind study. The main outcome was the morning/evening reflective total symptom score (5TSS) over the treatment period. Secondary endpoints included morning/evening reflective nasal total symptom score (4NTSS), individual symptoms, Pdmax1 as percentage of days with daily severest symptom score ≤1, and subject/investigator evaluation of therapeutic response.

Results:

All active groups were significantly more effective than placebo in improving morning and evening evaluations of 5TSS (P < 0.001) and 4NTSS (P < 0.001) at 2 or 4 weeks. At morning evaluation, there was a significant reduction from baseline for 5TSS with rupatadine 10 mg (−36.8%, P < 0.01) and 20 mg (−46.3%, P < 0.01) compared with placebo. Similarly, 4NTSS was reduced significantly more with rupatadine 10 mg (−34%, P < 0.05) and 20 mg (−41%, P < 0.01) compared with placebo. In the cetirizine 10 mg group, the reduction was −32.7% and −32.2% for 5TSS and 4NTSS, respectively, but this reduction was not significant compared with placebo. The percentage reduction was greater at evening than at morning evaluation. 5TSS reduction with rupatadine 10 mg (−40.7%, P < 0.05) and 20 mg (−49.9%, P < 0.01) and cetirizine 10 mg (−40.1%, P < 0.05) was significantly better than with placebo. 4NTSS values for active groups were also significantly improved versus placebo. When individual symptoms were assessed, statistically significant differences for rhinorrhea (P < 0.01), nasal itching (P < 0.01), and sneezing (P < 0.01) were shown in all active groups compared with placebo at morning and evening evaluations. Pdmax1 index was significantly improved for all active groups and the overall efficacy assessed by patients or investigators showed a significant improvement (P < 0.01) versus placebo at 2 and 4 weeks. The incidence of somnolence was significantly greater in all active groups versus placebo.

Conclusion:

The sustained 24-hour action of rupatadine 10 mg provides an effective control of morning and evening symptoms in patients with PAR treated for up to 4 weeks.

Adult coeliac disease

Coeliac disease is an auto-immune inflammatory reaction characterized by a partial or total villi's atrophy of the proximal small intestine occuring after ingestion of gluten in genetically predisposed patients. The classic form is much more frequent in children. Thereby there has been a misevaluation and improper treatment of coeliac disease in adults who suffer more from asymptomatica and atypical forms. Currently the only effective treatment is a strict gluten free diet for life. However recent researches brought a new light on the matter. Now oats as a causative factor is controvertial. The introduction of some moderate intestinal lesions (pre-atrophic with intra-epithelial hyperlymphocytosis qualified as "weak enteropathies") in the definition of coeliac disease might be possible. Moreover the way to diagnose has evolved as serological tests and markers are more used due to their efficiency.

Do patients with skin allergies have higher levels of anxiety than patients with allergic respiratory diseases? Results of a large-scale cross-sectional study in a French population

BACKGROUND

Psychological comorbidity is a known aspect of allergic disease. However, there is recent evidence that a large proportion of allergic patients remains undiagnosed and untreated for psychological disease. In addition, the complexities of the anxiety-allergy relationship, i.e. differences for current and past disease, or differences among allergic disease types, are not well understood.

OBJECTIVES

To measure the level of anxiety in a large allergic population in France using a standardized measure, the State/Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI).

METHODS

Allergy patients in France (n = 3939) who visited their allergy specialists participated in the study. The patients completed a questionnaire which was then linked to the questionnaire completed by their physician. Only patients with both subject and physician questionnaire were kept in the analyses. Mean STAI scores for the State (S) and Trait (T) scales were obtained for each allergic disease. ANCOVA models testing group differences on the mean scores, using the categories "current disease", "past disease" and "allergic disease ever", were assessed along with relevant confounders.

RESULTS

Allergic rhinitis (AR), asthma and atopic dermatitis (AD) were the most prevalent conditions of the 12 allergic diseases assessed in the study. Women had higher mean STAI S/T scores than men and age was also found to be associated with higher S scores; therefore, both age and gender were included as covariates where relevant. A single ANCOVA model for each STAI scale showed a statistical difference among the various allergic diseases. Using the category "current disease" each allergic disease was assessed separately regarding the presence or absence of that disease. Higher, statistically significant mean STAI scores were found for AD and allergic urticaria on the S scale and for AD on the T scale. Similarly, for the category "allergic disease ever", AD and allergic urticaria reached statistical significance on the S scale, while on the T scale only AD was statistically significant. When patients were assessed for anxiety based on their past disease, asthma, AR and sinusitis were significant on the S scale while asthma and nasal polyps were statistically significant on the T scale. When asthma and AD were tested simultaneously, only the latter was significant.

CONCLUSIONS

High mean scores for State and Trait anxiety were mostly associated with AD.

[A comparative study of the ocular tolerance after administration of anti-allergic eye drops with or without a preservative]

AIM

The aim of the study was to evaluate the occurrence of ocular adverse effects observed after administration of anti-allergic eye drops with and without a preservative in patients with allergic conjunctivitis.

METHODS

A total of 3090 patients with allergic conjunctivitis and treated with anti-allergic eye drops were included in an open nonrandomised prospective study by 507 general practitioners located throughout France. The symptoms of discomfort and pain experienced during instillations as well as the characteristics of the patients and of their allergic pathology were recorded.

RESULTS

Two groups of patients (eyedrops without preservative [n = 2712] and with preservative [n = 121]) were identified. Sixty percent and 15% of the cases of allergic conjunctivitis were associated with rhinitis and asthma, respectively, and for 70% of the occurrences, an identifiable factor (pollen, dusts, animals etc.) was responsible for the appearance of the symptoms. Compliance was significantly higher for anti-allergic eye drops without preservative than for those with a preservative (average number of instillations 3.5 vs 2.9/day, p < 0.001; number of instillations omitted 3.6 vs 4.2, p = 0.01). The proportion of patients experiencing at least one adverse drug reaction was 24% for eye drops with no preservative and 89% for eye drops with a preservative (p < 0.001). The most frequently notified symptom was a sensation of prickling and burning (10% and 47%, respectively, for eye drops with no preservative and eye drops with a preservative; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The prescription of eye drops with no preservative allows a significant decrease in ocular adverse drug reactions and a greater acceptance by the patient regarding his/her anti-allergic treatment.

[Allergic conjunctivitis: diagnosis and treatment]

Allergic conjunctivitis are the most frequent presentation of ocular allergy. They concern two specialists, ophthalmologists and allergists, who must establish a close collaboration, to succeed in an etiological diagnosis and consequent efficacious treatment. On one hand the history of allergy must be deep and on the other a simple pollen etiology giving simple functional signs: skin tests (pricks or epicutaneous) after a flawless questioning, at need completed by the measurement of specific and total IgE titres in the tears and even sometimes by a conjunctival provocation test, minimal other ophthalmological examination, researching anomalies in the tear level and signs of cellular suffering (Break-up time: time of rupture of the tear film). The differential diagnosis falls into the field of the ophthalmologist: traumatic or infectious conjunctivitis (herpes), vernal kerato-conjunctivitis for acute conjunctivitis; dry eye, viral conjunctivitis, anomalies of convergence for the most frequent signs of chronic conjunctivitis. The treatments are symptomatic to relieve the patient, eye lotions without preservatives for long term treatment and etiological that include allergen avoidance, without forgetting specific desensitisation (mites, pollens) that may need a rigorous indication.

[How to manage allergic rhinitis in current practice]

The allergic rhinitis is a very frequent condition. Its consequences are probably underestimated because of the large number of self-medicated patients. The clinical history is often telling. Etiological diagnosis is based on cutaneous Prick-Tests, which have a high sensibility and specificity-rate and which can be easily applied to young children. The treatment relies on the use of oral anti-histamines and local steroid sprays, for a period of time covering the exposure to allergens. In all the cases, the avoidance of the allergen constitutes the decisive element to determine the efficiency of the treatment. The starting up of a treatment prevents the outbreak of complications or enables to decrease their strength. Specific immunotherapy may be considered according to the last OMS consensus statement.

[Childhood allergic rhinitis]

Allergic rhinitis is the most common chronic disease in children. This frequency is in strong progress. According to ISAAC' study, it concerns a child (6/7 years) on four and a teenager on two. The seasonal rhinitises are generally well treated. Perennial allergic rhinitises are chronic and often neglected. They are more often complicated or associated to asthma which represents the major evolutionary risk. In a general way, allergic rhinitis are sub-diagnosed and untreated while we have more and more effective therapeutic means. Although allergic rhinitis is not considered as a severe disease, its echo on children's quality of life, physical and psychological well-being, and capacity to learn. It has also important socio-economic consequences. A better coverage is imperative itself as far as the diagnosis based on the symptoms and the allergy cutaneous tests which are easy. The options for treating allergic rhinitis in the child are not so different as those for adult. Complete avoidance of inhalant allergens is not always possible and medication are quite always possible. Intranasal corticosteroids are sometimes prescribed. In persistent disease, allergen immunotherapy may be considered according to the last OMS consensus statement.