A randomized, open-label, pragmatic study to assess reliever-triggered inhaled corticosteroid in African American/Black and Hispanic/Latinx adults with asthma: Design and methods of the PREPARE trial

Pediatric asthma exacerbation and COVID-19 pandemic: Impacts, challenges, and future considerations

OBJECTIVE

Asthma, a common disease among children and adolescents, poses a great health risk when ignored; therefore, a thorough follow-up to prevent exacerbations is emphasized. The aim of the present study is to investigate asthma exacerbation in children during the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) era.

DATA SOURCES

This narrative review has been done by searching the PubMed and Embase databases using Asthma, COVID-19, Pandemic, and Symptom flare up as keywords.

STUDY SELECTIONS

Studies related to asthma exacerbation in COVID-19 pandemic were included.

RESULTS

Based on studies, controlled or mild to moderate asthma has not been considered a risk factor for COVID-19 severity and has not affected hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and mortality. Surprisingly, emergent and non-emergent visits and asthmatic attacks decreased during the pandemic. The three main reasons for decreased incidence and exacerbation of asthma episodes in the COVID-19 era included reduced exposure to environmental allergens, increasing the acceptance of treatment by pediatrics and caregivers, and decreased risk of other respiratory viral infections. Based on the available studies, COVID-19 vaccination had no serious side effects, except in cases of uncontrolled severe asthma, and can be injected in these children. Also, there was no conclusive evidence of asthma exacerbation after the injection of COVID-19 vaccines.

CONCLUSION

Further studies are recommended to follow the pattern of asthma in the post-pandemic situation and to become prepared for similar future conditions.

Asthma morbidity measures across Black ethnic subgroups

BACKGROUND

Black adults are disproportionately affected by asthma and are often considered a homogeneous group in research studies despite cultural and ancestral differences.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to determine if asthma morbidity differs across adults in Black ethnic subgroups.

METHODS

Adults with moderate-severe asthma were recruited across the continental United States and Puerto Rico for the PREPARE (PeRson EmPowered Asthma RElief) trial. Using self-identifications, we categorized multiethnic Black (ME/B) participants (n = 226) as Black Latinx participants (n = 146) or Caribbean, continental African, or other Black participants (n = 80). African American (AA/B) participants (n = 518) were categorized as Black participants who identified their ethnicity as being American. Baseline characteristics and retrospective asthma morbidity measures (self-reported exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids [SCs], emergency department/urgent care [ED/UC] visits, hospitalizations) were compared across subgroups using multivariable regression.

RESULTS

Compared with AA/B participants, ME/B participants were more likely to be younger, residing in the US Northeast, and Spanish speaking and to have lower body mass index, health literacy, and <1 comorbidity, but higher blood eosinophil counts. In a multivariable analysis, ME/B participants were significantly more likely to have ED/UC visits (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.34, 95% CI = 1.04-1.72) and SC use (IRR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.00-1.62) for asthma than AA/B participants. Of the ME/B subgroups, Puerto Rican Black Latinx participants (n = 120) were significantly more likely to have ED/UC visits (IRR = 1.64, 95% CI = 1.22-2.21) and SC use for asthma (IRR = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.06-1.92) than AA/B participants. There were no significant differences in hospitalizations for asthma among subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

ME/B adults, specifically Puerto Rican Black Latinx adults, have higher risk of ED/UC visits and SC use for asthma than other Black subgroups.

Preference for and impact of telehealth vs in-person asthma visits among Black and Latinx adults

BACKGROUND

Black and Latinx adults experience disproportionate asthma-related morbidity and limited specialty care access. The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic expanded telehealth use.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate visit type (telehealth [TH] vs in-person [IP]) preferences and the impact of visit type on asthma outcomes among Black and Latinx adults with moderate-to-severe asthma.

METHODS

For this PREPARE trial ancillary study, visit type preference was surveyed by e-mail or telephone post-trial. Emergency medical record data on visit types and asthma outcomes were available for a subset (March 2020 to April 2021). Characteristics associated with visit type preferences, and relationships between visit type and asthma outcomes (control [Asthma Control Test] and asthma-related quality of life [Asthma Symptom Utility Index]), were tested using multivariable regression.

RESULTS

A total of 866 participants consented to be surveyed, with 847 respondents. Among the participants with asthma care experience with both visit types, 42.0% preferred TH for regular checkups, which associated with employment (odds ratio [OR] = 1.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-2.39; P = .02), lower asthma medication adherence (OR = 1.06; 95% CI, 1.01-1.11; P = .03), and having more historical emergency department and urgent care asthma visits (OR = 1.10 for each additional visit; 95% CI, 1.02-1.18; P = .02), after adjustment. Emergency medical record data were available for 98 participants (62 TH, 36 IP). Those with TH visits were more likely Latinx, from the Southwest, employed, using inhaled corticosteroid-only controller therapy, with lower body mass index, and lower self-reported asthma medication adherence vs those with IP visits only. Both groups had comparable Asthma Control Test (18.4 vs 18.9, P = .52) and Asthma Symptom Utility Index (0.79 vs 0.84, P = .16) scores after adjustment.

CONCLUSION

TH may be similarly efficacious as and often preferred over IP among Black and Latinx adults with moderate-to-severe asthma, especially for regular checkups.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02995733.

Comparing asthma control assessment using the Asthma Control Test and the Asthma APGAR in African American/Black and Hispanic/Latinx populations

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this analysis was to compare the Asthma Control Test (ACT) and the Asthma APGAR asthma control assessment tools in African-Ancestry/Black (AA/B) and Hispanic/Latinx (H/L) adults with moderate to severe asthma.

METHODS

This pre-planned sub-study of the PREPARE clinical trial compares the baseline ACT and Asthma APGAR scores for the PREPARE populations using correlation coefficients, generalized linear modeling and receiver operating curve (ROC) analyses. Correlations were also assessed for both control tests and the Asthma Symptom Utility Index (ASUI).

RESULTS

Among the 1201 adults (603 AA/B and 598 H/L) with moderate to severe asthma, most had uncontrolled asthma by both the ACT and the Asthma APGAR. Correlation coefficients between the ACT, Asthma APGAR and ASUI were strong and did not differ significantly by race/ethnicity. The ACT consistently assessed more patients as uncontrolled compared with the Asthma APGAR. The differences in ACT and Asthma APGAR scores did not differ by age, gender, race/ethnicity, self-reported health literacy or medication adherence but did differ by education level. Both the ACT and Asthma APGAR had similar ROCs for predicting an asthma exacerbation in the next 3 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Both the ACT and the Asthma APGAR can be used for asthma control assessment in AA/B and H/L populations with moderate to severe asthma, providing comparable rates of uncontrolled asthma and similar limited ability to predict exacerbations. Further work is required to better understand the basis and clinical implications of the higher rates of uncontrolled asthma identified using the ACT.

Caribbean Latinx with moderate-severe asthma bear greater asthma morbidity than other Latinx

BACKGROUND

Hispanic/Latinx (HL) ethnicity encompasses racially and culturally diverse subgroups. Studies suggest that Puerto Ricans (PR) may bear greater asthma-related morbidity than Mexicans, but these were conducted in children or had limited clinical characterization.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to determine whether disparities in asthma morbidity exist among HL adult subgroups.

METHODS

Adults with moderate-severe asthma were recruited from US clinics, including from Puerto Rico, for the Person Empowered Asthma Relief (PREPARE) trial. Considering the shared heritage between PR and other Caribbean HL (Cubans and Dominicans [C&D]), the investigators compared baseline self-reported clinical characteristics between Caribbean HL (CHL) (PR and C&D: n = 457) and other HLs (OHL) (Mexicans, Spaniards, Central/South Americans; n = 141), and between CHL subgroups (C&D [n = 56] and PR [n = 401]). This study compared asthma morbidity measures (self-reported exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids, emergency department/urgent care (ED/UC) visits, hospitalizations, health care utilization) through negative binomial regression.

RESULTS

CHL compared to OHL were similar in age, body mass index, poverty status, blood eosinophils, and fractional exhaled nitric oxide but were prescribed more asthma controller therapies. Relative to OHL, CHL had significantly increased odds of asthma exacerbations (odds ratio [OR]: 1.84; 95% CI: 1.4-2.4), ED/UC visits (OR: 1.88; 95% CI: 1.4-2.5), hospitalization (OR: 1.98; 95% CI: 1.06-3.7), and health care utilization (OR: 1.91; 95% CI: 1.44-2.53). Of the CHL subgroups, PR had significantly increased odds of asthma exacerbations, ED/UC visits, hospitalizations, and health care utilization compared to OHL, whereas C&D only had increased odds of exacerbations compared to OHL. PR compared to C&D had greater odds of ED/UC and health care utilization.

CONCLUSIONS

CHL adults, compared with OHL, adults reported nearly twice the asthma morbidity; these differences are primarily driven by PR. Novel interventions are needed to reduce morbidity in this highly impacted population.

Socioeconomic status associates with worse asthma morbidity among Black and Latinx adults

BACKGROUND

Asthma disproportionately affects African American/Black (AA/B) and Hispanic/Latinx (H/L) patients and individuals with low socioeconomic status (SES), but the relationship between SES and asthma morbidity within these racial/ethnic groups is inadequately understood.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the relationship between SES and asthma morbidity among AA/B and H/L adults with moderate to severe asthma using multidomain SES frameworks and mediation analyses.

METHODS

We analyzed enrollment data from the PeRson EmPowered Asthma RElief randomized trial, evaluating inhaled corticosteroid supplementation to rescue therapy. We tested for direct and indirect relationships between SES and asthma morbidity using structural equation models. For SES, we used a latent variable defined by poverty, education, and unemployment. For asthma morbidity, we used self-reported asthma exacerbations in the year before enrollment (corticosteroid bursts, emergency room/urgent care visits, or hospitalizations), and Asthma Control Test scores. We tested for mediation via health literacy, perceived stress, and self-reported discrimination. All models adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, ethnicity, and comorbidities.

RESULTS

Among 990 AA/B and H/L adults, low SES (latent variable) was directly associated with hospitalizations (β = 0.24) and worse Asthma Control Test scores (β = 0.20). Stress partially mediated the relationship between SES and increased emergency room/urgent care visits and worse asthma control (β = 0.03 and = 0.05, respectively). Individual SES domains were directly associated with asthma morbidity. Stress mediated indirect associations between low educational attainment and unemployment with worse asthma control (β = 0.05 and = 0.06, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Lower SES is directly, and indirectly through stress, associated with asthma morbidity among AA/B and H/L adults. Identification of stressors and relevant management strategies may lessen asthma-related morbidity among these populations.

Evolution of a research team: the patient partner perspective

INTRODUCTION

Despite a movement toward the inclusion of patient partners or advisors as part of the research team in all funded studies, few publications have discussed patient engagement from the patient partners' perspective.

METHODS

Qualitative interviews were conducted by independent qualitative researchers to collect and summarize the experiences and perspectives of the 16 Patient Partners (PPs) on the study team for PeRson EmPowered Asthma RElief (PREPARE), a large, pragmatic study of 1200 African American/Black (AA/B) and Hispanic/Latinx (H/L) adults with asthma. This study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

RESULTS

This paper, authored by the PPs themselves, summarizes qualitative interview findings. The journey of the PREPARE PPs began with a desire to learn more about asthma and advocate for other individuals with asthma. Many challenges, including intimidation and lack of trust, were overcome as the research team prioritized building a comfortable environment in which PPs' lived experiences, opinions, and cultural beliefs are valued, and in which PP voices are centered and respected. Over time, the PPs gained confidence in expressing ideas and feedback, and in taking ownership of their role as valued members of the research team. The PP experience has had tremendous personal and professional impact on the PPs themselves, while also modeling a change in the way researchers and PPs relate to and partner with each other.

CONCLUSION

The partnership between PPs and researchers in the PREPARE study has elevated the PP role from external advisors to integral and empowered members of a collective research team, and the partnership developed and evolved over time.

Reliever-Triggered Inhaled Glucocorticoid in Black and Latinx Adults with Asthma

BACKGROUND

Black and Latinx patients bear a disproportionate burden of asthma. Efforts to reduce the disproportionate morbidity have been mostly unsuccessful, and guideline recommendations have not been based on studies in these populations.

METHODS

In this pragmatic, open-label trial, we randomly assigned Black and Latinx adults with moderate-to-severe asthma to use a patient-activated, reliever-triggered inhaled glucocorticoid strategy (beclomethasone dipropionate, 80 μg) plus usual care (intervention) or to continue usual care. Participants had one instructional visit followed by 15 monthly questionnaires. The primary end point was the annualized rate of severe asthma exacerbations. Secondary end points included monthly asthma control as measured with the Asthma Control Test (ACT; range, 5 [poor] to 25 [complete control]), quality of life as measured with the Asthma Symptom Utility Index (ASUI; range, 0 to 1, with lower scores indicating greater impairment), and participant-reported missed days of work, school, or usual activities. Safety was also assessed.

RESULTS

Of 1201 adults (603 Black and 598 Latinx), 600 were assigned to the intervention group and 601 to the usual-care group. The annualized rate of severe asthma exacerbations was 0.69 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61 to 0.78) in the intervention group and 0.82 (95% CI, 0.73 to 0.92) in the usual-care group (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.999; P = 0.048). ACT scores increased by 3.4 points (95% CI, 3.1 to 3.6) in the intervention group and by 2.5 points (95% CI, 2.3 to 2.8) in the usual-care group (difference, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.5 to 1.2); ASUI scores increased by 0.12 points (95% CI, 0.11 to 0.13) and 0.08 points (95% CI, 0.07 to 0.09), respectively (difference, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.05). The annualized rate of missed days was 13.4 in the intervention group and 16.8 in the usual-care group (rate ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.95). Serious adverse events occurred in 12.2% of the participants, with an even distribution between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Among Black and Latinx adults with moderate-to-severe asthma, provision of an inhaled glucocorticoid and one-time instruction on its use, added to usual care, led to a lower rate of severe asthma exacerbations. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and others; PREPARE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02995733.).

Socioeconomic impact of COVID-19 and willingness to be vaccinated in African American/Black and Hispanic/Latinx adults

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Nebulizer Use by Black and Latinx Adults with Moderate to Severe Asthma

BACKGROUND

Generally, a short-acting beta-2 agonist (SABA) delivered via metered-dose inhaler (MDI) is recommended for quick relief of asthma symptoms. However, in the PeRson EmPowered Asthma RElief (PREPARE) pragmatic trial, 67% of patients reported having used a nebulizer for SABA administration.

OBJECTIVE

To understand preferences, experiences, and decision making regarding the use of nebulizers in Black and Latinx adults with uncontrolled asthma.

METHODS

We interviewed 40 of the 1,201 PREPARE patients employing a matrix analysis. Those interviewed were Black (n = 20) and Latinx (n = 20) adults with uncontrolled asthma seeking primary or specialty care in clinics throughout the United States. Data were analyzed used a Rapid Assessment Procedures qualitative methodology, informed by grounded theory.

RESULTS

Substudy participants, on average, reported using a nebulizer 3.5 times/wk. Daily use was common, and frequency ranged from less than daily to up to 6 times daily. Nearly all participants reported a longstanding history of nebulizer use. Participants tended to use their nebulizer at home, and some shared it with others in the home. Many reported preferring a nebulizer over an MDI for relief of severe symptoms and to avoid emergency room visits or hospitalizations. The extent to which cost affected nebulizer use varied among participants.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite asthma guideline recommendations that MDIs be used rather than nebulizers for SABA administration, nebulizer use was common among PREPARE study participants. Clinicians should explore patients' history and experiences with nebulizer use as part of evaluation of asthma control.