Explore the vast range of titles available.

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is caused by immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated reactions to inhaled allergens and is one of the most common chronic conditions globally. AR often co-occurs with asthma and conjunctivitis and is a global health problem causing major burden and disability worldwide. Risk factors include inhalant and occupational allergens, as well as genetic factors. AR impairs quality of life, affects social life, school and work, and is associated with substantial economic costs. The Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) initiative classified AR into intermittent or persistent and mild or moderate/severe. The diagnosis is based on the clinical history and, if needed in patients with uncontrolled rhinitis despite medications or with long-lasting symptoms, on skin tests or the presence of serum-specific IgE antibodies to allergens. The most frequently used pharmacological treatments include oral, intranasal or ocular H 1 -antihistamines, intranasal corticosteroids or a fixed combination of intranasal H 1 -antihistamines and corticosteroids. Allergen immunotherapy prescribed by a specialist using high-quality extracts in stratified patients is effective in patients with persistent symptoms. Real-world data obtained by mobile technology offer new insights into AR phenotypes and management. The outlook for AR includes a better understanding of novel multimorbid phenotypes, health technology assessment and patient-centred shared decision-making. This Primer by Bousquet and colleagues summarizes the epidemiology, mechanisms, diagnosis and treatment of allergic rhinitis. In addition, it reviews the quality-of-life issues faced by patients and provides an overview of how mobile health technologies could improve patient care.

[...]mast cells and basophils serve as specified effectors in type 2 immunity response under the influence of the type-2 cytokines environment in local tissue [7]. [...]the lack of IFN β results in viral replication, cell cytotoxicity, and mediator release associated with non-protective inflammation. [...]HDM is one of the most powerful allergens that could activate both innate and adaptive type 2 immune responses, thereby increasing asthma severity in sensitized individuals. [...]an early warning system for the outbreaks of thunderstorm asthma by accompanying meteorology and pollen counts has been evaluated recently but has shown limited practical applications and needs to be optimized [58–60].

Interleukins (IL)-4 and -13 play a pivotal role in the pathobiology of type-2 asthma. Indeed, IL-4 is crucially involved in Th2 cell differentiation, immunoglobulin (Ig) class switching and eosinophil trafficking. IL-13 cooperates with IL-4 in promoting IgE synthesis, and also induces nitric oxide (NO) production, goblet cell metaplasia and fibroblast proliferation, as well as elicits contractile responses and hyperplasia of airway smooth muscle cells. IL-4 and IL-13 share common signaling pathways, activated by the binding of both cytokines to receptor complexes including the α-subunit of the IL-4 receptor (IL-4Rα). Therefore, the subsequent receptor dimerization is responsible for the pathophysiologic effects of IL-4 and IL-13. By selectively blocking IL-4Rα, the fully human IgG4 monoclonal antibody dupilumab behaves as a dual receptor antagonist of both IL-4 and IL-13. Through this mechanism of action, dupilumab exerts effective therapeutic actions in type-2 inflammation, thus decreasing asthma exacerbations, FeNO (fractional exhaled NO) levels, and the intake of oral corticosteroids (OCS). In addition to being approved for the add-on biological therapy of severe asthma, dupilumab has also been licensed for the treatment of nasal polyposis and atopic dermatitis.

Asthma is a common chronic disease characterized by episodic or persistent respiratory symptoms and airflow limitation. Asthma treatment is based on a stepwise and control-based approach that involves an iterative cycle of assessment, adjustment of the treatment and review of the response aimed to minimize symptom burden and risk of exacerbations. Anti-inflammatory treatment is the mainstay of asthma management. In this review we will discuss the rationale and barriers to the treatment of asthma that may result in poor outcomes. The benefits of currently available treatments and the possible strategies to overcome the barriers that limit the achievement of asthma control in real-life conditions and how these led to the GINA 2019 guidelines for asthma treatment and prevention will also be discussed.

Objective To describe patients with severe asthma treated with or eligible for monoclonal antibodies, assessing the health and economic burden using the Italian National Healthcare Service (SSN) administrative data. Methods From 4.6 million inhabitants, among patients with asthma from 1 January to 31 December 2022, those with severe asthma were identified by monoclonal antibody dispensation (cohort A) and by eligibility for monoclonal antibodies, defined as continuous treatment with medium- or high-dose inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta agonists and the occurrence of exacerbations (cohort B-narrow and cohort B-broad according to “narrow” and” broad” definitions, respectively). One-year exacerbations, healthcare utilization, and direct costs were assessed. Results Of the 128,621 patients with asthma (51.8% women; mean age, 54 years), patients with severe asthma were identified as follows: cohort A (n = 3046; 2.4%), cohort B-narrow (n = 3517; 2.7%), and cohort B-broad (n = 7621; 5.6%). Compared with cohort A, patients in cohorts B-narrow and B-broad were older, had more comorbidities, experienced more moderate/severe exacerbations (70.9%–57.3% vs. 46.7%), and had higher hospitalization rates and greater drug use but fewer specialist visits. The annual SSN costs averaged €7512 for cohort A versus €2911–€2351 for cohorts B-narrow and B-broad. Cohort A incurred higher costs for asthma drugs, whereas cohorts B-narrow and B-broad incurred higher costs for concomitant drugs, hospitalizations, and specialist care. Conclusions A significant disease burden exists in patients with uncontrolled severe asthma who are potentially eligible for monoclonal antibodies in Italy.

The prevalence of asthma and allergic diseases has increased dramatically during the past few decades not only in industrialized countries. Urban air pollution from motor vehicles has been indicated as one of the major risk factors responsible for this increase. Although genetic factors are important in the development of asthma and allergic diseases, the rising trend can be explained only in changes occurred in the environment. Despite some differences in the air pollution profile and decreasing trends of some key air pollutants, air quality is an important concern for public health in the cities throughout the world. Due to climate change, air pollution patterns are changing in several urbanized areas of the world, with a significant effect on respiratory health. The observational evidence indicates that recent regional changes in climate, particularly temperature increases, have already affected a diverse set of physical and biological systems in many parts of the world. Associations between thunderstorms and asthma morbidity in pollinosis subjects have been also identified in multiple locations around the world. Allergens patterns are also changing in response to climate change and air pollution can modify the allergenic potential of pollens especially in presence of specific weather conditions. The underlying mechanisms of all these interactions are not well known yet. The consequences on health vary from decreases in lung function to allergic diseases, new onset of diseases, and exacerbation of chronic respiratory diseases. Factor clouding the issue is that laboratory evaluations do not reflect what happens during natural exposition, when atmospheric pollution mixtures in polluted cities are inhaled. In addition, it is important to recall that an individual’s response to pollution exposure depends on the source and components of air pollution, as well as meteorological conditions. Indeed, some air pollution-related incidents with asthma aggravation do not depend only on the increased production of air pollution, but rather on atmospheric factors that favour the accumulation of air pollutants at ground level. Considering these aspects governments worldwide and international organizations such as the World Health Organization and the European Union are facing a growing problem of the respiratory effects induced by gaseous and particulate pollutants arising from motor vehicle emissions.

Background General practitioners (GPs), community pharmacists and allergic rhinitis (AR) patients in Italy were surveyed in order to gain insight from all three perspectives into the diagnosis, management and burden of AR in Italy. Methods General practitioners and pharmacists (n = 100 for each) were surveyed by telephone; questions related to overall practice and to last AR patient seen. Patients (n = 552) completed a questionnaire after visiting specialist allergy centres. Questions related to diagnosis and treatment, degree of everyday limitation from AR, and satisfaction with treatment. The data were analysed descriptively. Results Allergic rhinitis was managed mainly by GPs, who reported making the diagnosis themselves in 68 % of cases; rhinorrhea (64 %), sneezing (57 %) and congestion (49 %) were the symptoms most frequently taken into account. Limitation from AR on everyday life was rated 6.2 out of 10 by GPs. Pharmacists most often considered eye tearing (54 %) in their diagnosis. Almost half of GPs (49 %) and 87 % of pharmacists were unaware of the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines. The most commonly reported prescribed treatments by GPs were branded mometasone furoate, desloratadine, ebastine and generic mometasone; 21 % prescribed homeopathic products occasionally. On average, GPs remembered that their last patient case had moderate/severe disease, was prescribed anti-histamine monotherapy (37 % of cases), and did not change prescription (78 %). Pharmacists recommended an antihistamine for 56 % of clients who asked for advice, and a nasal decongestant for 21 %. Patients rated limitation from AR on everyday life as 5.7/10. 55 % reported using multiple therapies, and 43 % were not satisfied or weakly satisfied with their current treatment. Patients’ main expectation for the future was to succeed in managing their AR symptoms (45 %), while 22 % hoped for a definitive cure. Many patients (61 %) were concerned their health would deteriorate. Conclusions Allergic rhinitis is largely managed by GPs in Italy, with pharmacists also playing a role, yet awareness of the ARIA guidelines among these groups is low. Patient satisfaction with treatment is moderate or low. New more effective treatments are needed to improve AR management in Italy. Allergy education programs need to be better targeted to GPs and pharmacists, and communication with patients regarding symptom control must be improved.

The risks of overusing short-acting β2-agonists (SABA), including an increase in asthma-related deaths, are many and well known. The Global Initiative on Asthma (GINA) 2019 and 2020 updates recommend as-needed inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/formoterol as the preferred rescue medication in mild asthma as monotherapy and also in moderate to severe asthma when the maintenance and reliever therapy (MART) strategy is used. Using SABA for symptom relief, however, was the standard of treatment for many years, and consequently this practice persists, particularly in patients not taking ICS regularly. Here, we examine the rationale for this shift from a long-standing recommendation for as-needed SABA treatment to the use of as-needed ICS/formoterol and consider clinical evidence on strategies for asthma treatment and patient management.

Background In asthma, persistent airflow limitation (PAL) is associated with poorer control, lung function decline and exacerbations. Using post‐hoc analyses we evaluated: the relationship between post‐salbutamol PAL at screening, airflow limitation (AL) during 52 weeks treatment with extrafine beclometasone dipropionate/formoterol fumarate/glycopyrronium (BDP/FF/G) versus BDP/FF and the risk of moderate/severe asthma exacerbations. Methods TRIMARAN and TRIGGER were double‐blind studies comparing BDP/FF/G with BDP/FF (TRIMARAN medium‐dose ICS; TRIGGER high‐dose) in adults with uncontrolled asthma. Patients were subgrouped according to post‐salbutamol PAL status at screening, and AL over the 52‐week treatment period. Results Most patients with post‐salbutamol PAL at screening had AL at all on‐treatment visits (TRIMARAN 62.8%; TRIGGER 66.8%). A significantly higher proportion of patients had normalised airflow on ≥1 follow‐up visit when receiving BDP/FF/G than BDP/FF (TRIMARAN 44.1 vs. 33.1% [p = 0.003]; TRIGGER 40.1 vs. 26.0% [p < 0.001]). In patients with post‐salbutamol PAL at screening and normalised AL at ≥1 follow‐up visit, exacerbation rates were 15% (p = 0.105) and 19% (p = 0.039) lower in TRIMARAN and TRIGGER versus those with AL on all visits. There was a trend to lower exacerbation rates in patients receiving BDP/FF/G than BDP/FF, particularly in patients in whom AL was normalised. Conclusion In these analyses, AL in asthma was associated with an increased exacerbation incidence. Inhaled triple therapy with extrafine BDP/FF/G was more likely to normalise airflow, and was associated with a trend to a lower exacerbation rate than BDP/FF, particularly in the subgroup of patients in whom treatment was associated with airflow normalisation. ClinicalTrials.gov: TRIMARAN, NCT02676076; TRIGGER, NCT02676089.