Introduction and objectives: We aimed to build a national consensus to optimize the use of oral corticosteroids (OCS) in severe asthma in Portugal. Material and methods: A modified 3-round Delphi including 65 statements (topics on chronic systemic corticotherapy, therapeutic schemes, asthma safety and monitoring) was performed via online platform (October-November 2019). A five-point Likert-type scale was used (1-‘strongly disagree’; 5-‘strongly agree’). Consensus threshold was established as a percentage of agreement among participants ≥90% in the 1st round and ≥85% in the 2nd and 3rd rounds. The level of consensus achieved by the panel was discussed with the participants (face-to-face meeting). Results: Forty-eight expert physicians in severe asthma (specialists in allergology and pulmonology) participated in the study. Almost half of the statements (28/65; 43.1%) obtained positive consensus by the end of round one. By the end of the exercise, 12 (18.5%) statements did not achieve consensus. Overall, 87% of physicians agree that further actions for OCS cumulative risk assessment in acute asthma exacerbations are needed. The vast majority (91.7%) demonstrated a favorable perception for using biological agents whenever patients are eligible. Most participants (95.8%) are more willing to accept some degree of lung function deterioration compared to other outcomes (worsening of symptoms, quality of life) when reducing OCS dose. Monitoring patients’ comorbidities was rated as imperative by all experts. Conclusions: : These results can guide an update on asthma management in Portugal and should be supplemented by studies on therapy access, patients’ adherence, and costs.

Bronchial asthma is a chronic disease that affects individuals of all ages. It has a high prevalence and is associated with high morbidity and considerable levels of mortality. However, asthma is not a single disease, and multiple subtypes or phenotypes (clinical, inflammatory or combinations thereof) can be detected, namely in aggregated clusters. Most studies have characterised asthma phenotypes and clusters of phenotypes using mainly clinical and inflammatory parameters. These studies are important because they may have clinical and prognostic implications and may also help to tailor personalised treatment approaches. In addition, various metabolomics studies have helped to further define the metabolic features of asthma, using electronic noses or targeted and untargeted approaches. Besides discriminating between asthma and a healthy state, metabolomics can detect the metabolic signatures associated with some asthma subtypes, namely eosinophilic and non-eosinophilic phenotypes or the obese asthma phenotype, and this may prove very useful in point-of-care application. Furthermore, metabolomics also discriminates between asthma and other “phenotypes” of chronic obstructive airway diseases, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or Asthma–COPD Overlap (ACO). However, there are still various aspects that need to be more thoroughly investigated in the context of asthma phenotypes in adequately designed, homogeneous, multicentre studies, using adequate tools and integrating metabolomics into a multiple-level approach.

Introduction and objectives: Severe asthma management during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is a challenge and will continue to be, at least in the next few months, as herd immunity is still a mirage. A lot has to be learned about how COVID-19 affects underlying diseases, and severe asthma is no exception. Methods: Narrative review of papers available until February 2021 in PubMed and Google Scholar, relating severe asthma and COVID-19. Four main research topics were reviewed: SARS-CoV-2 infection: immunology and respiratory pathology; interrelationship of severe asthma endotypes and COVID-19 disease mechanisms; severe asthma epidemiology and COVID-19; and biologics for severe asthma in the context of COVID-19. Results: COVID-19 disease mechanisms start with upper respiratory cell infection, and afterwards several immunological facets are activated, contributing to disease severity, namely cell-mediated immunity and antibody production. Although infrequent in the COVID-19 course some patients develop a cytokine storm that causes organ damage and may lead to acute respiratory distress syndrome or multiorgan failure. Regarding severe asthma endotypes, type2-high might have a protective role both in infection risk and disease course. There is conflicting data regarding the epidemiological relationship between COVID-19 among severe asthma patients, with some studies reporting increased risk of infection and disease course, whereas others the other way round. Biologics for severe asthma do not seem to increase the risk of infection and severe COVID-19, although further evidence is needed. Conclusions: Globally, in the era of COVID-19, major respiratory societies recommend continuing the biologic treatment, preferably in a self-home administration program.

Background: Health and fitness apps have potential benefits to improve self-management and disease control among patients with asthma. However, inconsistent use rates have been reported across studies, regions, and health systems. A better understanding of the characteristics of users and nonusers is critical to design solutions that are effectively integrated in patients’ daily lives, and to ensure that these equitably reach out to different groups of patients, thus improving rather than entrenching health inequities. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the use of general health and fitness apps by patients with asthma and to identify determinants of usage. Methods: A secondary analysis of the INSPIRERS observational studies was conducted using data from face-to-face visits. Patients with a diagnosis of asthma were included between November 2017 and August 2020. Individual-level data were collected, including age, gender, marital status, educational level, health status, presence of anxiety and depression, postcode, socioeconomic level, digital literacy, use of health services, and use of health and fitness apps. Multivariate logistic regression was used to model the probability of being a health and fitness app user. Statistical analysis was performed in R. Results: A total of 526 patients attended a face-to-face visit in the 49 recruiting centers and 514 had complete data. Most participants were ≤40 years old (66.4%), had at least 10 years of education (57.4%), and were in the 3 higher quintiles of the socioeconomic deprivation index (70.1%). The majority reported an overall good health status (visual analogue scale [VAS] score>70 in 93.1%) and the prevalence of anxiety and depression was 34.3% and 11.9%, respectively. The proportion of participants who reported using health and fitness mobile apps was 41.1% (n=211). Multivariate models revealed that single individuals and those with more than 10 years of education are more likely to use health and fitness mobile apps (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.22, 95%CI 1.05-4.75 and aOR 1.95, 95%CI 1.12-3.45, respectively). Higher digital literacy scores were also associated with higher odds of being a user of health and fitness apps, with participants in the second, third, and fourth quartiles reporting aORs of 6.74 (95%CI 2.90-17.40), 10.30 (95%CI 4.28-27.56), and 11.52 (95%CI 4.78-30.87), respectively. Participants with depression symptoms had lower odds of using health and fitness apps (aOR 0.32, 95%CI 0.12-0.83). Conclusions: A better understanding of the barriers and enhancers of app use among patients with lower education, lower digital literacy, or depressive symptoms is key to design tailored interventions to ensure a sustained and equitable use of these technologies. Future studies should also assess users’ general health-seeking behavior and their interest and concerns specifically about digital tools. These factors may impact both initial engagement and sustained use.

Health and fitness apps have potential benefits to improve self-management and disease control among patients with asthma. However, inconsistent use rates have been reported across studies, regions, and health systems. A better understanding of the characteristics of users and nonusers is critical to design solutions that are effectively integrated in patients’ daily lives, and to ensure that these equitably reach out to different groups of patients, thus improving rather than entrenching health inequities.

Background: Patients with severe asthma may present with characteristics representing overlapping phenotypes, making them eligible for more than one class of biologic. Our aim was to describe the profile of adult patients with severe asthma eligible for both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/ 5R and to compare the effectiveness of both classes of treatment in real life. Methods: This was a prospective cohort study that included adult patients with severe asthma from 22 countries enrolled into the International Severe Asthma registry (ISAR) who were eligible for both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/ 5R. The effectiveness of anti-IgE and anti-IL5/ 5R was compared in a 1:1 matched cohort. Exacerbation rate was the primary effectiveness endpoint. Secondary endpoints included long-term- oral corticosteroid (LTOCS) use, asthma-related emergency room (ER) attendance, and hospital admissions. Results: In the matched analysis (n = 350/group), the mean annualized exacerbation rate decreased by 47.1% in the anti-IL5/ 5R group and 38.7% in the anti-IgE group. Patients treated with anti-IL5/ 5R were less likely to experience a future exacerbation (adjusted IRR 0.76; 95% CI 0.64, 0.89; p < 0.001) and experienced a greater reduction in mean LTOCS dose than those treated with anti-IgE (37.44% vs. 20.55% reduction; p = 0.023). There was some evidence to suggest that patients treated with anti-IL5/ 5R experienced fewer asthma-related hospitalizations (IRR 0.64; 95% CI 0.38, 1.08), but not ER visits (IRR 0.94, 95% CI 0.61, 1.43). Conclusions: In real life, both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/ 5R improve asthma outcomes in patients eligible for both biologic classes; however, anti-IL5/ 5R was superior in terms of reducing asthma exacerbations and LTOCS use.

Biomarkers for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients with rhinitis and/or asthma are urgently needed. Although some biologic biomarkers exist in specialist care for asthma, they cannot be largely used in primary care. There are no validated biomarkers in rhinitis or allergen immunotherapy (AIT) that can be used in clinical practice. The digital transformation of health and health care (including mHealth) places the patient at the center of the health system and is likely to optimize the practice of allergy. Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) and EAACI (European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology) developed a Task Force aimed at proposing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) as digital biomarkers that can be easily used for different purposes in rhinitis and asthma. It first defined control digital biomarkers that should make a bridge between clinical practice, randomized controlled trials, observational real-life studies and allergen challenges. Using the MASK-air app as a model, a daily electronic combined symptom-medication score for allergic diseases (CSMS) or for asthma (e-DASTHMA), combined with a monthly control questionnaire, was embedded in a strategy similar to the diabetes approach for disease control. To mimic real-life, it secondly proposed quality-of-life digital biomarkers including daily EQ-5D visual analogue scales and the bi-weekly RhinAsthma Patient Perspective (RAAP). The potential implications for the management of allergic respiratory diseases were proposed.

MASK-air® , a validated mHealth app (Medical Device regulation Class IIa) has enabled large observational implementation studies in over 58,000 people with allergic rhinitis and/or asthma. It can help to address unmet patient needs in rhinitis and asthma care. MASK-air® is a Good Practice of DG Santé on digitally-enabled, patient-centred care. It is also a candidate Good Practice of OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). MASK-air® data has enabled novel phenotype discovery and characterisation, as well as novel insights into the management of allergic rhinitis. MASK-air® data show that most rhinitis patients (i) are not adherent and do not follow guidelines, (ii) use as-needed treatment, (iii) do not take medication when they are well, (iv) increase their treatment based on symptoms and (v) do not use the recommended treatment. The data also show that control (symptoms, work productivity, educational performance) is not always improved by medications. A combined symptom-medication score (ARIA-EAACI-CSMS) has been validated for clinical practice and trials. The implications of the novel MASK-air® results should lead to change management in rhinitis and asthma.

MASK-air®, a validated mHealth app (Medical Device regulation Class IIa) has enabled large observational implementation studies in over 58,000 people with allergic rhinitis and/or asthma. It can help to address unmet patient needs in rhinitis and asthma care. MASK-air® is a Good Practice of DG Santé on digitally-enabled, patient-centred care. It is also a candidate Good Practice of OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). MASK-air® data has enabled novel phenotype discovery and characterisation, as well as novel insights into the management of allergic rhinitis. MASK-air® data show that most rhinitis patients (i) are not adherent and do not follow guidelines, (ii) use as-needed treatment, (iii) do not take medication when they are well, (iv) increase their treatment based on symptoms and (v) do not use the recommended treatment. The data also show that control (symptoms, work productivity, educational performance) is not always improved by medications. A combined symptom-medication score (ARIA-EAACI-CSMS) has been validated for clinical practice and trials. The implications of the novel MASK-air® results should lead to change management in rhinitis and asthma.