Systemic glucocorticosteroids (sGCS) are widely used in the treatment of chronic inflammatory airway diseases such as rhinitis, rhinosinusitis and asthma. It is well-known that systemic use is linked to multiple adverse effects (AEs) both in the short- and the long-term. However, less is known about the safety of multiple short courses of sGCS. Currently there is no established agreement on the acceptable cumulative exposure to sGCS, considering the potential for various AEs. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated sGCS-related AEs in both upper and lower inflammatory airway disease, with a particular focus on short- and long-term risks. We further evaluated whether a dose-response relationship existed between the daily and cumulative dosages of sGCS and the occurrence of those AEs. Our meta-analysis confirmed that cumulative dosages between 500 mg and 1 g prednisolone-equivalent significantly increase the risk of most AEs, with risks increasing with incremental dose. These findings underscore the importance of: (a) judicious sGCS prescription and need for steroid stewardship, due to their potential for short- and long-term complications, occurring even with repeated short courses, and (b) prioritization of steroid-sparing approaches (e.g., biologicals) to avoid reaching a cumulative dose of 500 mg.

Chronic respiratory diseases (CRDs) remain 1 of the leading causes of preventable morbidity and disability worldwide, affecting up to one-third of the total Western population in 2025. Recognizing the substantial burden of inflammatory airway diseases such as asthma, COPD, chronic rhinosinusitis, and respiratory allergy, the European Forum for Research and Education in Allergy and Airway Diseases (EUFOREA) organized the symposium "Shaping the Future of Respiratory Care" in April 2025 in Brussels, Belgium, at the occasion of the 10-year jubilee. Featuring keynote speakers from the World Health Organization and EUFOREA, this initiative had the following aims: (1) promoting dialogue on translating innovations into daily clinical practice; (2) encouraging collaboration between the different stakeholders in the respiratory field; and (3) defining strategic priorities to transform respiratory care and arrest the CRD epidemic over the next decade. The symposium highlighted the importance of moving toward predictive, preventive, and patient-centered medicine, while supporting value-based health care systems to improve long-term patient outcomes. This report summarizes the main insights and strategic directions discussed at the meeting.

Allergic rhinitis (AR), the most prevalent immunological disease, affects approximately 400 million individuals globally and can significantly impact quality of life (QoL). Despite nearly 25 years of guidelines, AR remains largely under- diagnosed, suboptimally treated and poorly controlled. In the light of new knowledge and treatment options, there is a necessity to update or revise fundamental AR definitions to facilitate communication across diverse specialties engaged in its treatment and to improve patient care. The European Forum for Research and Education in Allergy and Airway Diseases (EUFOREA) convened a meeting of experts and patient representatives to deliberate the optimal methodology for measuring AR treatment responses and establishing novel treatment goals. This paper presents a consensus on revised AR definitions, including control, severe allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (SARC), refractory severe allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (R-SARC), remission, resolution, improvement, exacerbation, treatable traits (TTs), treat to target, relapse, progression, disease modification, and prevention.

In April 2024, the European Summit “Raising the bar in respiratory care” was organized by the European Forum for Research and Education in Allergy and Airway Diseases (EUFOREA) in the European Parliament and hosted by Members of the European Parliament Dorien Rookmaker and Mislav Kolakušić. The aim of the Summit was to respond to the need of European patients suffering from chronic respiratory diseases (CRDs) by joining forces with European and global organisations in the management of the epidemics of CRD, recognising the weaknesses of current care models and focussing on collaboration to improve care and prevention. Participants belonging to International and National Societies and Committees from the European Rhinologic Society (ERS), International Rhinologic Society (IRS), Belgian Respiratory Society (BeRS), Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA), Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD), Global Alliance against Chronic Respiratory Diseases (GARD), and from the European Federation of Allergy and Airways Diseases Patients Associations (EFA) and the EUFOREA's Patient Advisory Board (PAB) described their vision and action plan to work in partnership to raise the bar in respiratory care. This report summarizes the contributions of the representatives of different European stakeholders in the field of CRDs.

BackgroundLittle is known about rhinitis control in real-life, nor about the contribution of treatment-related and patient-related factors.ObjectiveThis study aimed to examine the level of rhinitis control and rhinitis medication utilization in patients with persistent rhinitis, and to identify predictors of rhinitis control.MethodsA cross-sectional observational study was conducted in patients with persistent rhinitis recruited in community pharmacies. Participants completed the Rhinitis Control Assessment Test (RCAT), and a questionnaire on patient/rhinitis characteristics, and rhinitis medication use. A visual analogue scale (VAS) for nasal symptoms was also completed. Pharmacy dispensing data was used to calculate adherence to intranasal glucocorticoids. Nasal spray technique was evaluated using a standardized checklist. Predictors of rhinitis control were explored using a linear regression model.ResultsA total of 1514 patients, recruited in 215 pharmacies, participated in the study (mean age 48.7 years, 62% female). Almost 60% exhibited suboptimal rhinitis control (RCAT ≤ 21/30). A 50mm cut-off on the VAS yielded 78.1% sensitivity to identify suboptimal rhinitis control. Participants most frequently used intranasal glucocorticoids (55.6%) and intranasal decongestants (47.4%). Only 10.3% of current nasal spray users demonstrated perfect technique. More than half (54.8%) of glucocorticoid users were identified as underadherent. Female sex, self-reported nasal hyperreactivity, active asthma, and use of oral/intranasal decongestants or nasal saline were identified as predictors of worse rhinitis control.ConclusionSuboptimal rhinitis control was common in this real-life sample of persistent rhinitis patients. Improving use of rhinitis medication may be key to increase disease control.

Asthma, rhinitis, and atopic dermatitis (AD) are interrelated clinical phenotypes that partly overlap in the human interactome. The concept of "one-airway-one-disease," coined over 20 years ago, is a simplistic approach of the links between upper- and lower-airway allergic diseases. With new data, it is time to reassess the concept. This article reviews (i) the clinical observations that led to Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA), (ii) new insights into polysensitization and multimorbidity, (iii) advances in mHealth for novel phenotype definitions, (iv) confirmation in canonical epidemiologic studies, (v) genomic findings, (vi) treatment approaches, and (vii) novel concepts on the onset of rhinitis and multimorbidity. One recent concept, bringing together upper- and lower-airway allergic diseases with skin, gut, and neuropsychiatric multimorbidities, is the "Epithelial Barrier Hypothesis." This review determined that the "one-airway-one-disease" concept does not always hold true and that several phenotypes of disease can be defined. These phenotypes include an extreme "allergic" (asthma) phenotype combining asthma, rhinitis, and conjunctivitis. Rhinitis alone and rhinitis and asthma multimorbidity represent two distinct diseases with the following differences: (i) genomic and transcriptomic background (Toll-Like Receptors and IL-17 for rhinitis alone as a local disease; IL-33 and IL-5 for allergic and non-allergic multimorbidity as a systemic disease), (ii) allergen sensitization patterns (mono- or pauci-sensitization versus polysensitization), (iii) severity of symptoms, and (iv) treatment response. In conclusion, rhinitis alone (local disease) and rhinitis with asthma multimorbidity (systemic disease) should be considered as two distinct diseases, possibly modulated by the microbiome, and may be a model for understanding the epidemics of chronic and autoimmune diseases.

•Studies trying to optimise adherence to DOACs show disappointing results. •To be successful, a personalised approach to future intervention designs is needed. •We conducted a qualitative study using the Theoretical Domains Framework. •We gained insight into patients' perspectives and views regarding the use of DOACs. •We report on the underlying determinants of (non-)adherence to DOACs.

BACKGROUND:Rhinitis medicamentosa (RM) is a type of nonallergic rhinitis caused by prolonged use of nasal decongestants (NDs). Although it is a preventable phenotype of rhinitis, little is known about patients dealing with this condition. OBJECTIVE:To gain a better understanding of patients' views and experiences of ND overuse, and potential facilitators and barriers to discontinue the overuse. METHODS:We performed a qualitative study using in-depth semistructured interviews with 22 patients who have been using an ND on an almost daily basis for at least 6 months. The interviews were conducted face-to-face, audio-recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Data analysis followed the grounded theory approach. RESULTS:Interviewees described the large impact of nasal congestion on their daily lives. Despite efforts to try other treatment options, the ND was considered the only effective aid to resolve the troublesome symptom. Most participants were aware that the prolonged use was problematic, sometimes leading to hiding behavior in order to avoid criticism by others including their health professionals. Many participants expressed a strong will to discontinue. However, multiple barriers to withdrawal were identified including fear of surgery or the impact of withdrawal on sleep, lack of good alternatives, and negative experiences with past withdrawal attempts. Patients thus face a dilemma in which the barriers to withdrawal currently outweigh the possible benefits. CONCLUSION:The use of NDs is considered indispensable by many chronic users. The facilitators and barriers identified in this study provide opportunities to reduce the use of NDs and the prevalence of RM in the future.

AbstractBackgroundAllergic rhinitis (AR) management requires a coordinated effort from healthcare providers and patients. Pharmacists are key members of these integrated care pathways resolving medication‐related problems, optimizing regimens, improving adherence and recommending therapies while establishing liaisons between patients and physicians.MethodsAllergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) first published a reference document on the pharmacist's role in allergic rhinitis management in 2004. Several guidelines were developed over the past 20 years improving the care of allergic rhinitis patients through an evidence‐based, integrated care approach.ResultsThis ARIA/EAACI/FIP Position Paper is based on the latest ARIA in the Pharmacy guidelines and provides: (a) a structured approach to pharmacists identifying people with AR and/or allergic conjunctivitis as well as those at risk of poor disease control; (b) an evidence‐based clinical decision support tool for optimising the management of allergic rhinitis in the community pharmacy; and (c) a framework of referral to the physician.ConclusionThis document is not intended to be a mandatory standard of care but is provided as a basis for pharmacists and their staff to develop relevant local standards of care for their patients, within their local practice environment. Pharmacy care varies between countries, and the guide should be adapted to the local situation.

The practice of allergology varies widely between countries, and the costs and sales for the treatment of rhinitis differ depending on practices and health systems. To understand these differences and their implications, the rhinitis market was studied in some of the EU countries.We conducted a pharmaco-epidemiological database analysis to assess the medications that were being prescribed for allergic rhinitis in the years 2016, 2017 and 2018. We used the IQVIA platforms for prescribed medicines (MIDAS®- Meaningful Integration of Data, Analytics and Services) and for OTC medicines (OTC International Market Tracking-OTCims). We selected the five most important markets in the EU (France, Germany, Italy, Poland and Spain).Intranasal decongestants were excluded from the analyses because they are rarely prescribed for allergic rhinitis. For both Standard Units (SU) and costs, France is leading the other countries. In terms of SU, the four other countries are similar. For costs, Poland is lower than the three others. However, medication use differs largely. For 2018, in SU, intranasal corticosteroid is the first treatment in Poland (70.0%), France (51.3%), Spain (51.1%) and Germany (50.3%), whereas the Italian market is dominated by systemic antihistamines (41.4%) followed by intranasal corticosteroids (30.1%). Results of other years were similar.There are major differences between countries in terms of rhinoconjunctivitis medication usage.

Digital anamorphosis is used to define a distorted image of health and care that may be viewed correctly using digital tools and strategies. MASK digital anamorphosis represents the process used by MASK to develop the digital transformation of health and care in rhinitis. It strengthens the ARIA change management strategy in the prevention and management of airway disease. The MASK strategy is based on validated digital tools. Using the MASK digital tool and the CARAT online enhanced clinical framework, solutions for practical steps of digital enhancement of care are proposed.

The paradigm of how we manage allergic rhinitis is shifting with a growing understanding that it is a complex process, requiring a coordinated effort from healthcare providers and patients. Pharmacists are key members of these integrated care pathways resolving medication-related problems, optimizing regimens, improving adherence and recommending therapies while establishing liaisons between patients and physicians. Community pharmacists are the most accessible healthcare professionals to the public and allergic rhinitis is one of the most common diseases managed by pharmacists. Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines developed over the past 20 years have improved the care of allergic rhinitis patients through an evidence-based, integrated care approach. In this paper, we propose an integrated approach to allergic rhinitis management in community pharmacy following the 2019 ARIA in the pharmacy guidelines.

Following publication of the original article [1], the authors identified an error in the author name of Martin Wagenmann. The incorrect author name is: Martin Wagemann. The correct author name is: Martin Wagenmann. The author group has been updated above and the original article [1] has been corrected.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.

Because of the inflammatory mechanisms of most chronic upper airway diseases such as rhinitis and chronic rhinosinusitis, systemic steroids have been used for their treatment for decades. However, it has been very well documented that—potentially severe—side-effects can occur with the accumulation of systemic steroid courses over the years. A consensus document summarizing the benefits of systemic steroids for each upper airway disease type, as well as highlighting the potential harms of this treatment is currently lacking. Therefore, a panel of international experts in the field of Rhinology reviewed the available literature with the aim of providing recommendations for the use of systemic steroids in treating upper airway disease.

Over the past 20 years, ARIA (Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma) has developed various guidelines for the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR) and asthma multimorbidity. Over time, the ARIA initiative has evolved to ensure the highest level of bestpractices adoption in real life settings. It has evolved towards Integrated Care Pathways (ICPs) using mobile technology, and has now entered a new phase in which change management is key to provide an active and healthy life to all AR patients. With that in mind, the first ARIA masterclass was held on 12th September 2018 in Brussels, Belgium. The masterclass aimed at informing clinicians about the principles of change management, providing unbiased education on diagnosis and treatments, sharing the most recent research data on AR and multimorbidities, and creating a snowball effect to increase the adoption of best practices around the globe. This report provides an overview of the ARIA masterclass concept, summarizes the key lectures and discussions, and gives an outline of the future key development.

### What you need to knowThe common cold is usually caused by viruses and is mostly self limiting,1 but it can have a substantial impact on work, school,2 use of health services, and money spent on medications. Children have around 6-8 colds per year and adults have 2-4.34Many over-the-counter (OTC) treatments for the common cold claim to alleviate nasal symptoms, such as congestion, rhinorrhoea (runny nose), and sneezing. Table 1 lists commonly used drugs. Evidence for the effectiveness of these treatments is limited and of low quality, and clear guidance is lacking.5 Long term use of nasal decongestants is known to lead to chronic nasal congestion.6View this table:Table 1 Drugs used to treat symptoms in common cold### Search strategy and study selectionWe searched the Cochrane Library for systematic reviews that investigate the effectiveness of treatments for the common cold. If only a protocol or no Cochrane review was available, we searched PubMed for other systematic reviews on the topic. If no systematic reviews were found, we searched for individual randomised controlled trials of commonly used treatments (fig 1, table 2). We extracted data on the subjective severity and duration of nasal symptoms (nasal congestion, rhinorrhoea, and sneezing) and adverse events. We extracted the number of studies and participants, and where available, used pooled results. If pooled results were not available, we assessed whether the findings were in favour of the active treatment.### AdultsWe found Cochrane reviews on treatments such as decongestants, antihistamines, analgesics, intranasal corticosteroids, herbal remedies, and vitamins …