ArticleAllergy2025
Comparison of Allergic Rhinitis Treatments on Patient Satisfaction: A MASK-air and EAACI Methodological Committee Report.
Article in Allergy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Guideline
- Guideline
- Comparison of Allergic Rhinitis Treatments on Utilities and Quality of Life: A MASK-air Study.Clinical and experimental allergy : journal of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2026Observational
- The Evaluation initiative: management of rhinitis by Italian otorhinolaryngologists.Multidisciplinary respiratory medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
46 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionSatisfaction with treatments may affect medication adherence and use patterns, including the use of co-medication. We aimed to compare different medications for allergic rhinitis (AR) on (i) patients' satisfaction and (ii) co-medication use frequency.
methodsWe assessed data from the mHealth app MASK-air. We evaluated days on which users with self-reported AR had used-alone or in co-medication-intranasal corticosteroids (INCS), intranasal antihistamines (INAH), fixed combinations of INAH+INCS, or oral antihistamines (OAH). We built multivariable regression models to compare these different AR medication classes (as well as individual medications) on their (i) treatment satisfaction levels (measured using a specific daily visual analogue scale ['VAS satisfaction']) and (ii) odds of being used in co-medication.
resultsWe assessed 28,177 days reported by 1691 MASK-air users. For all medication classes, co-medication usage was associated with lower treatment satisfaction. When used in monotherapy, OAH were associated with lower VAS satisfaction than INCS (-1.7 points; 95% CI = -2.7; -0.7) or INAH+INCS (-2.1 points; 95% CI = -3.5; -0.7). INCS displayed higher odds of being used in co-medication than OAH (OR = 1.3; 95% CI = 1.0; 1.6) or INAH+INCS (OR = 1.3; 95% CI = 0.8; 1.8). When comparing individual intranasal medications, fluticasone furoate and fluticasone propionate tended to be more frequently used in co-medication. Among individual OAH, desloratadine and rupatadine were associated with higher satisfaction, while fexofenadine was more frequently used in co-medication.
conclusionUsing patient-reported data, we evaluated different medication classes and treatments in terms of satisfaction and co-medication frequency. These results provide key insights into the acceptability of AR treatments and will contribute to future treatment guidelines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.