Comparison of rhinitis treatments using MASK-air® data and considering the minimal important difference

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorSousa-Pinto B.
dc.contributor.authorSchünemann H.J.
dc.contributor.authorSá-Sousa A.
dc.contributor.authorVieira R.
dc.contributor.authorAmaral R.
dc.contributor.authorAnto J.M.
dc.contributor.authorKlimek L.
dc.contributor.authorCzarlewski W.
dc.contributor.authorMullol J.
dc.contributor.authorPfaar O.
dc.contributor.authorBedbrook A.
dc.contributor.authorBrussino L.
dc.contributor.authorKvedariene V.
dc.contributor.authorLarenas-Linnemann D.
dc.contributor.authorOkamoto Y.
dc.contributor.authorVentura M.T.
dc.contributor.authorAgache I.
dc.contributor.authorAnsotegui I.
dc.contributor.authorBergmann K.C.
dc.contributor.authorBosnic-Anticevich S.
dc.contributor.authorBrozek J.
dc.contributor.authorCanonica G.W.
dc.contributor.authorCardona V.
dc.contributor.authorCarreiro-Martins P.
dc.contributor.authorCasale T.
dc.contributor.authorCecchi L.
dc.contributor.authorChivato T.
dc.contributor.authorChu D.K.
dc.contributor.authorCingi C.
dc.contributor.authorCosta E.M.
dc.contributor.authorCruz A.A.
dc.contributor.authorDel Giacco S.
dc.contributor.authorDevillier P.
dc.contributor.authorEklund P.
dc.contributor.authorFokkens W.J.
dc.contributor.authorGemicioglu B.
dc.contributor.authorHaahtela T.
dc.contributor.authorIvancevich J.C.
dc.contributor.authorIspayeva Z.
dc.contributor.authorJutel M.
dc.contributor.authorKuna P.
dc.contributor.authorKaidashev I.
dc.contributor.authorKhaitov M.
dc.contributor.authorKraxner H.
dc.contributor.authorLaune D.
dc.contributor.authorLipworth B.
dc.contributor.authorLouis R.
dc.contributor.authorMakris M.
dc.contributor.authorMonti R.
dc.contributor.authorMorais-Almeida M.
dc.contributor.authorMösges R.
dc.contributor.authorNiedoszytko M.
dc.contributor.authorPapadopoulos N.G.
dc.contributor.authorPatella V.
dc.contributor.authorPham-Thi N.
dc.contributor.authorRegateiro F.S.
dc.contributor.authorReitsma S.
dc.contributor.authorRouadi P.W.
dc.contributor.authorSamolinski B.
dc.contributor.authorSheikh A.
dc.contributor.authorSova M.
dc.contributor.authorTodo-Bom A.
dc.contributor.authorTaborda-Barata L.
dc.contributor.authorToppila-Salmi S.
dc.contributor.authorSastre J.
dc.contributor.authorTsiligianni I.
dc.contributor.authorValiulis A.
dc.contributor.authorVandenplas O.
dc.contributor.authorWallace D.
dc.contributor.authorWaserman S.
dc.contributor.authorYorgancioglu A.
dc.contributor.authorZidarn M.
dc.contributor.authorZuberbier T.
dc.contributor.authorFonseca J.A.
dc.contributor.authorBousquet J.
dc.date.accessioned2024-07-22T08:04:01Z
dc.date.available2024-07-22T08:04:01Z
dc.date.issued2022
dc.description.abstractBackground: 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. © 2022 European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
dc.identifier.DOI-ID10.1111/all.15371
dc.identifier.issn01054538
dc.identifier.urihttp://akademikarsiv.cbu.edu.tr:4000/handle/123456789/12537
dc.language.isoEnglish
dc.publisherJohn Wiley and Sons Inc
dc.rightsAll Open Access; Green Open Access
dc.subjectAdrenal Cortex Hormones
dc.subjectDesensitization, Immunologic
dc.subjectFluticasone
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectRhinitis
dc.subjectRhinitis, Allergic
dc.subjectantihistaminic agent
dc.subjectazelastine
dc.subjectazelastine plus fluticasone
dc.subjectcorticosteroid
dc.subjectfluticasone
dc.subjectsteroid
dc.subjectunclassified drug
dc.subjectcorticosteroid
dc.subjectadult
dc.subjectallergic rhinitis
dc.subjectArticle
dc.subjectclinical article
dc.subjectcomparative study
dc.subjectconfounding variable
dc.subjectcontrolled study
dc.subjectdesensitization
dc.subjectfemale
dc.subjecthuman
dc.subjectmale
dc.subjectminimal clinically important difference
dc.subjectmonotherapy
dc.subjectpractice guideline
dc.subjectvisual analog scale
dc.subjectallergic rhinitis
dc.subjectdesensitization
dc.subjectrhinitis
dc.titleComparison of rhinitis treatments using MASK-air® data and considering the minimal important difference
dc.typeArticle

Files

Collections

Scopus Koleksiyonu