Explore the vast range of titles available.

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation has called for a randomised trial of delivery to a cardiac arrest centre. We aimed to assess whether expedited delivery to a cardiac arrest centre compared with current standard of care following resuscitated cardiac arrest reduces deaths. ARREST is a prospective, parallel, multicentre, open-label, randomised superiority trial. Patients (aged ≥18 years) with return of spontaneous circulation following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest without ST elevation were randomly assigned (1:1) at the scene of their cardiac arrest by London Ambulance Service staff using a secure online randomisation system to expedited delivery to the cardiac catheter laboratory at one of seven cardiac arrest centres or standard of care with delivery to the geographically closest emergency department at one of 32 hospitals in London, UK. Masking of the ambulance staff who delivered the interventions and those reporting treatment outcomes in hospital was not possible. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 30 days, analysed in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population excluding those with unknown mortality status. Safety outcomes were analysed in the ITT population. The trial was prospectively registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Registry, 96585404. Between Jan 15, 2018, and Dec 1, 2022, 862 patients were enrolled, of whom 431 (50%) were randomly assigned to a cardiac arrest centre and 431 (50%) to standard care. 20 participants withdrew from the cardiac arrest centre group and 19 from the standard care group, due to lack of consent or unknown mortality status, leaving 411 participants in the cardiac arrest centre group and 412 in the standard care group for the primary analysis. Of 822 participants for whom data were available, 560 (68%) were male and 262 (32%) were female. The primary endpoint of 30-day mortality occurred in 258 (63%) of 411 participants in the cardiac arrest centre group and in 258 (63%) of 412 in the standard care group (unadjusted risk ratio for survival 1·00, 95% CI 0·90–1·11; p=0·96). Eight (2%) of 414 patients in the cardiac arrest centre group and three (1%) of 413 in the standard care group had serious adverse events, none of which were deemed related to the trial intervention. In adult patients without ST elevation, transfer to a cardiac arrest centre following resuscitated cardiac arrest in the community did not reduce deaths. British Heart Foundation.

Background MASK‐air® is an app that supports allergic rhinitis patients in disease control. Users register daily allergy symptoms and their impact on activities using visual analog scales (VASs). We aimed to assess the concurrent validity, reliability, and responsiveness of these daily VASs. Methods Daily monitoring VAS data were assessed in MASK‐air® users with allergic rhinitis. Concurrent validity was assessed by correlating daily VAS values with those of the EuroQol‐5 Dimensions (EQ‐5D) VAS, the Control of Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma Test (CARAT) score, and the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Allergic Specific (WPAI‐AS) Questionnaire (work and activity impairment scores). Intra‐rater reliability was assessed in users providing multiple daily VASs within the same day. Test–retest reliability was tested in clinically stable users, as defined by the EQ‐5D VAS, CARAT, or “VAS Work” (i.e., VAS assessing the impact of allergy on work). Responsiveness was determined in users with two consecutive measurements of EQ‐5D‐VAS or “VAS Work” indicating clinical change. Results A total of 17,780 MASK‐air® users, with 317,176 VAS days, were assessed. Concurrent validity was moderate–high (Spearman correlation coefficient range: 0.437–0.716). Intra‐rater reliability intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) ranged between 0.870 (VAS assessing global allergy symptoms) and 0.937 (VAS assessing allergy symptoms on sleep). Test–retest reliability ICCs ranged between 0.604 and 0.878—“VAS Work” and “VAS asthma” presented the highest ICCs. Moderate/large responsiveness effect sizes were observed—the sleep VAS was associated with lower responsiveness, while the global allergy symptoms VAS demonstrated higher responsiveness. Conclusion In MASK‐air®, daily monitoring VASs have high intra‐rater reliability and moderate–high validity, reliability, and responsiveness, pointing to a reliable measure of symptom loads.

Patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) are used to assess a patient's health status at a particular point in time. They are essential in the development of person‐centred care. This paper reviews studies performed on PROMs for assessing AR and asthma control, in particular VAS scales that are included in the app MASK‐air® (Mobile Airways Sentinel networK) for asthma and rhinitis. VASs were initially developed on paper and pencil and tested for their criterion validity, cut‐offs and responsiveness. Then, a multicentric, multinational, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, randomised control trial (DB‐PC‐RCT) using an electronic VAS form was carried out. Finally, with the development of MASK‐air® in 2015, previously validated VAS questions were adapted to the digital format and further methodologic evaluations were performed. VAS for asthma, rhinitis, conjunctivitis, work and EQ‐5D are included in the app. Additionally, two control‐medication scores for allergic symptoms of asthma (e‐DASTHMA) were validated for their criterion validity, cut‐offs and responsiveness.

Aim: The International Severe Asthma Registry (ISAR; Results: Of the 37 registries identified, 26 were ISAR affiliates and 11 non-ISAR affiliates. Twenty-five ISAR-registries and 4 nonISAR registries reported collecting >90% of the 65 core variables. Twenty-three registries reported collecting all optional steroidrelated comorbidity variables. Twenty-nine registries reported collecting all optional safety variables. Ten registries reported collecting COVID-19 variables. Twenty-four registries reported collecting additional variables including data from asthma questionnaires (10 Asthma Control Questionnaire, 20 Asthma Control Test, 11 Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, and 4 EuroQol 5-dimension 5-level Questionnaire). Eight registries are linked to databases such as electronic medical records and national claims or disease databases. Conclusion: Standardised data collection has enabled individual severe asthma registries to collect unified data and increase statistical power for severe asthma research irrespective of ISAR affiliations. Keywords: Asia-Pacific, biologies, COVID-19, Europe, ISAR, International Severe Asthma Registry, oral corticosteroids, Registry, Middle East, Severe Asthma, Latin America, USA

mHealth, such as apps running on consumer smart devices is becoming increasingly popular and has the potential to profoundly affect healthcare and health outcomes. However, it may be disruptive and results achieved are not always reaching the goals. Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) has evolved from a guideline using the best evidence-based approach to care pathways suited to real-life using mobile technology in allergic rhinitis (AR) and asthma multimorbidity. Patients largely use over-the-counter medications dispensed in pharmacies. Shared decision making centered around the patient and based on self-management should be the norm. Mobile Airways Sentinel networK (MASK), the Phase 3 ARIA initiative, is based on the freely available MASK app ( the Allergy Diary , Android and iOS platforms). MASK is available in 16 languages and deployed in 23 countries. The present paper provides an overview of the methods used in MASK and the key results obtained to date. These include a novel phenotypic characterization of the patients, confirmation of the impact of allergic rhinitis on work productivity and treatment patterns in real life. Most patients appear to self-medicate, are often non-adherent and do not follow guidelines. Moreover, the Allergy Diary is able to distinguish between AR medications. The potential usefulness of MASK will be further explored by POLLAR (Impact of Air Pollution on Asthma and Rhinitis), a new Horizon 2020 project using the Allergy Diary .

Background:To date, studies investigating the association between pre-biologic biomarker levels and post-biologic outcomes have been limited to single biomarkers and assessment of biologic efficacy from structured clinical trials.Aim:To elucidate the associations of pre-biologic individual biomarker levels or their combinations with pre-to-post biologic changes in asthma outcomes in real-life.Methods:This was a registry-based, cohort study using data from 23 countries, which shared data with the International Severe Asthma Registry (May 2017-February 2023). The investigated biomarkers (highest pre-biologic levels) were immunoglobulin E (IgE), blood eosinophil count (BEC) and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO). Pre- to approximately 12-month post-biologic change for each of three asthma outcome domains (i.e. exacerbation rate, symptom control and lung function), and the association of this change with pre-biologic biomarkers was investigated for individual and combined biomarkers.Results:Overall, 3751 patients initiated biologics and were included in the analysis. No association was found between pre-biologic BEC and pre-to-post biologic change in exacerbation rate for any biologic class. However, higher pre-biologic BEC and FeNO were both associated with greater post-biologic improvement in FEV1 for both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R, with a trend for anti-IL4Rα. Mean FEV1 improved by 27-178 mL post-anti-IgE as pre-biologic BEC increased (250 to 1000 cells/μL), and by 43-216 mL and 129-250 mL post-anti-IL5/5R and -anti-IL4Rα, respectively along the same BEC gradient. Corresponding improvements along a FeNO gradient (25-100 ppb) were 41-274 mL, 69-207 mL and 148-224 mL for anti-IgE, anti-IL5/5R, and anti-IL4Rα, respectively. Higher baseline BEC was also associated with lower probability of uncontrolled asthma (OR 0.392; p=0.001) post-biologic for anti-IL5/5R. Pre-biologic IgE was a poor predictor of subsequent pre-to-post-biologic change for all outcomes assessed for all biologics. The combination of BEC + FeNO marginally improved the prediction of post-biologic FEV1 increase (adjusted R2: 0.751), compared to BEC (adjusted R2: 0.747) or FeNO alone (adjusted R2: 0.743) (p=0.005 and <0.001, respectively); however, this prediction was not improved by the addition of IgE.Conclusions:The ability of higher baseline BEC, FeNO and their combination to predict biologic-associated lung function improvement may encourage earlier intervention in patients with impaired lung function or at risk of accelerated lung function decline.