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.).

Global impacts of COVID-19 pandemic on sexual and reproductive health services: An international comparative study on primary care from the INTRePID Consortium.

OBJECTIVE: To understand how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted sexual and reproductive health (SRH) visits. DESIGN: An ecological study comparing SRH services volume in different countries before and after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. SETTING: Seven countries from the INTernational ConsoRtium of Primary Care BIg Data Researchers (INTRePID) across four continents. POPULATION: Over 3.8 million SRH visits to primary care physicians in Australia, China, Canada, Norway, Singapore, Sweden and the USA. METHODS: Difference in average SRH monthly visits before and during the pandemic, with negative binomial regression modelling to compare predicted and observed number of visits during the pandemic for SRH visits. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Monthly number of visits to primary care physicians from 2018 to 2021. RESULTS: During the pandemic, the average volume of monthly SRH visits increased in Canada (15.6%, 99% CI 8.1-23.0%) where virtual care was pronounced. China, Singapore, Sweden and the USA experienced a decline (-56.5%, 99% CI -74.5 to -38.5%; -22.7%, 99% CI -38.8 to -6.5%; -19.4%, 99% CI -28.3 to -10.6%; and -22.7%, 99% CI -38.8 to -6.5%, respectively); while Australia and Norway showed insignificant changes (6.5%, 99% CI -0.7 to -13.8% and 1.7%, 99% CI -6.4 to -9.8%). The countries that maintained (Australia, Norway) or surpassed (Canada) pre-pandemic visit rates had the greatest use of virtual care. CONCLUSIONS: In-person SRH visits to primary care decreased during the pandemic. Virtual care seemed to counterbalance that decline. Although cervical cancer screening appeared insensitive to virtual care, strategies such as incorporating self-collected samples for HPV testing may provide a solution in a future pandemic.

How do we build a comprehensive Vein-to-Vein (V2V) database for conduct of observational studies in transfusion medicine? Demonstrated with the Recipient Epidemiology and Donor Evaluation Study-IV-Pediatric V2V database protocol.

BACKGROUND: The Recipient Epidemiology and Donor Evaluation Study-IV-Pediatric (REDS-IV-P) is the fourth iteration of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's REDS program and includes a focus on pediatric populations. The REDS-IV-P Vein-to-Vein (V2V) database encompasses linked information from blood donors, blood components, and patients to facilitate studies in transfusion medicine. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The V2V database is an Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model database. The study period is April 1, 2019 through December 31, 2023. Data from all donors and donations at participating blood centers, all blood components derived from the donations, and all inpatient visits and selected outpatient visits at participating hospitals are included. The database captures all information within patient data domains not restricting data to a preselected subset of medical records. RESULTS: The V2V database contains data from 7 blood centers and 22 hospitals. We project the database will have over 2 billion pieces of information from 1.3 million patients with 20.6 million healthcare encounters. The database will include data on approximately 1 million transfused units and 2.3 million donors with approximately 6.8 million donation visits. CONCLUSION: The REDS-IV-P V2V database is a comprehensive database with data from millions of blood donors, blood components, and patients. A diverse set of data from the encounters are included in the database such that emerging questions can likely be addressed. The Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model is an efficient, flexible, and increasingly used common data model. The final de-identified database will be publicly available.

A Cluster Randomized Trial of Primary Care Practice Redesign to Integrate Behavioral Health for Those Who Need It Most: Patients With Multiple Chronic Conditions.

PURPOSE: Patient outcomes can improve when primary care and behavioral health providers use a collaborative system of care, but integrating these services is difficult. We tested the effectiveness of a practice intervention for improving patient outcomes by enhancing integrated behavioral health (IBH) activities. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic, cluster randomized controlled trial. The intervention combined practice redesign, quality improvement coaching, provider and staff education, and collaborative learning. At baseline and 2 years, staff at 42 primary care practices completed the Practice Integration Profile (PIP) as a measure of IBH. Adult patients with multiple chronic medical and behavioral conditions completed the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29) survey. Primary outcomes were the change in 8 PROMIS-29 domain scores. Secondary outcomes included change in level of integration. RESULTS: Intervention assignment had no effect on change in outcomes reported by 2,426 patients who completed both baseline and 2-year surveys. Practices assigned to the intervention improved PIP workflow scores but not PIP total scores. Baseline PIP total score was significantly associated with patient-reported function, independent of intervention. Active practices that completed intervention workbooks (n = 13) improved patient-reported outcomes and practice integration (P ≤ .05) compared with other active practices (n = 7). CONCLUSION: Intervention assignment had no effect on change in patient outcomes; however, we did observe improved patient outcomes among practices that entered the study with greater IBH. We also observed more improvement of integration and patient outcomes among active practices that completed the intervention compared to active practices that did not. Additional research is needed to understand how implementation efforts to enhance IBH can best reach patients.

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.

Subcutaneous Insulin Versus Traditional Intravenous Insulin Infusion in Treatment of Mild to Moderate Diabetic Ketoacidosis.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous (IV) insulin infusions are the current standard of care for treatment of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). Subcutaneous (SQ) insulin, however, may also be a safe and effective alternative. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare patient-centered outcomes related to the treatment of mild to moderate DKA using two different protocols: an SQ insulin protocol and an IV insulin infusion protocol with an initial bolus (IVB) or without a bolus (IVNB). METHODS: We retrospectively conducted a multicenter cohort study evaluating SQ vs. IV insulin for the treatment of mild to moderate DKA. The primary outcome was time to DKA resolution. Secondary outcomes included time to glucose correction, hospital length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit LOS, hypoglycemia events, readmission rates, and IV insulin use. RESULTS: Within the study time frame, 257 patients were included in the multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analysis. There was no significant difference in the time to DKA resolution between the IVB (p = 0.603) or IVNB (p = 0.269) groups compared with the population who received SQ insulin only. Hospital LOS was significantly longer when comparing the SQ group with the IVNB group (p < 0.001), but not when comparing it with the IVB group (p = 0.259). The IV protocols had significantly more hypoglycemic events compared with the SQ protocol (IVB vs. SQ, p < 0.001; IVNB vs. SQ, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: SQ insulin may be an effective alternative option for treating mild to moderate DKA with fewer hypoglycemic effects.

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 (ß = 0.24) and worse Asthma Control Test scores (ß = 0.20). Stress partially mediated the relationship between SES and increased emergency room/urgent care visits and worse asthma control (ß = 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 (ß = 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.

COPD Population in US Primary Care: Data From the Optimum Patient Care DARTNet Research Database and the Advancing the Patient Experience in COPD Registry.

PURPOSE: To describe demographic and clinical characteristics of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients managed in US primary care. METHODS: This was an observational registry study using data from the Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Optimum Patient Care DARTNet Research Database from which the Advancing the Patient Experience COPD registry is derived. Registry patients were aged ≥35 years at diagnosis. Electronic health record data were collected from both registries, supplemented with patient-reported information/outcomes from the Advancing the Patient Experience registry from 5 primary care groups in Texas, Ohio, Colorado, New York, and North Carolina (June 2019 through November 2020). RESULTS: Of 17,192 patients included, 1,354 were also in the Advancing the Patient Experience registry. Patients were predominantly female (56%; 9,689/17,192), White (64%; 9,732/15,225), current/ex-smokers (80%; 13,784/17,192), and overweight/obese (69%; 11,628/16,849). The most commonly prescribed maintenance treatments were inhaled corticosteroid with a long-acting ß2-agonist (30%) and inhaled corticosteroid with a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (27%). Although 3% (565/17,192) of patitents were untreated, 9% (1,587/17,192) were on short-acting bronchodilator monotherapy, and 4% (756/17,192) were on inhaled corticosteroid monotherapy. Despite treatment, 38% (6,579/17,192) of patients experienced 1 or more exacerbations in the last 12 months. These findings were mirrored in the Advancing Patient Experience registry with many patients reporting high or very high impact of disease on their health (43%; 580/1,322), a breathlessness score 2 or more (45%; 588/1,315), and 1 or more exacerbation in the last 12 months (50%; 646/1,294). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight the high exacerbation, symptom, and treatment burdens experienced by COPD patients managed in US primary care, and the need for more real-life effectiveness trials to support decision making at the primary care level.

Integrating behavioral health & primary care for multiple chronic diseases: Clinical trial of a practice redesign toolkit.

Context: Most patients in need of behavioral health (BH) care are seen in primary care, which often has difficulty responding. Some practices integrate behavioral health care (IBH), with medical and BH providers at the same location, working as a team. However, it is difficult to achieve high levels of integration. Objective: Test the effectiveness of a practice intervention designed to increase BH integration. Study Design: Pragmatic, cluster-randomized controlled trial. Setting: 43 primary care practices with on-site BH services in 13 states. Population: 2,460 adults with multiple chronic medical and behavioral conditions. Intervention: 24-month practice change process including an online curriculum, a practice redesign and implementation workbook, remote quality improvement coaching services, and an online learning community. Outcomes: Primary outcomes were changes in the 8 Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29) domain scores. Secondary outcomes were changes in medication adherence, self-reported healthcare utilization, time lost due to disability, cardiovascular capacity, patient centeredness, provider empathy, and several condition-specific measures. A sample of practice staff completed the Practice Integration Profile at each time point to estimate the degree of BH integration in that site. Practice-level case studies estimated the typical costs of implementing the intervention. Results: The intervention had no significant effect on any of the primary or secondary outcomes. Subgroup analyses showed no convincing patterns of effect in any populations. COVID-19 was apparently not a moderating influence of the effect of the intervention on outcomes. The intervention had a modest effect on the degree of practice integration, reaching statistical significance in the Workflow domain. The median cost of the intervention was $18,204 per practice. In post-hoc analysis, level of BH integration was associated with improved patient outcomes independent of the intervention, both at baseline and longitudinally. Conclusions: The specific intervention tested in this study was inexpensive, but had only a small impact on the degree of BH integration, and none on patient outcomes. However, practices that had more integration at baseline had better patient outcomes, independent of the intervention. Although this particular intervention was ineffective, IBH remains an attractive strategy for improving patient outcomes.

2020 Focused Updates to the Asthma Management Guidelines: A Report from the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Coordinating Committee Expert Panel Working Group.

The 2020 Focused Updates to the Asthma Management Guidelines: A Report from the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Coordinating Committee Expert Panel Working Group was coordinated and supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) of the National Institutes of Health. It is designed to improve patient care and support informed decision making about asthma management in the clinical setting. This update addresses six priority topic areas as determined by the state of the science at the time of a needs assessment, and input from multiple stakeholders:A rigorous process was undertaken to develop these evidence-based guidelines. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's (AHRQ) Evidence-Based Practice Centers conducted systematic reviews on these topics, which were used by the Expert Panel Working Group as a basis for developing recommendations and guidance. The Expert Panel used GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation), an internationally accepted framework, in consultation with an experienced methodology team for determining the certainty of evidence and the direction and strength of recommendations based on the evidence. Practical implementation guidance for each recommendation incorporates findings from NHLBI-led patient, caregiver, and clinician focus groups. To assist clincians in implementing these recommendations into patient care, the new recommendations have been integrated into the existing Expert Panel Report-3 (EPR-3) asthma management step diagram format.

Adherence to adding inhaled corticosteroids to rescue therapy in a pragmatic trial with adults with asthma: A pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Underuse of guideline-recommended inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) controller therapy is a risk factor for greater asthma burden. ICS concomitantly used with rescue inhalers (Patient-Activated Reliever-Triggered ICS ['PARTICS']) reduced asthma exacerbations in efficacy trials, but whether PARTICS is effective in pragmatic trials is unknown. OBJECTIVE: We conducted this pilot to determine the feasibility of executing a large-scale pragmatic PARTICS trial and to improve study protocols. METHODS: Four sites recruited 33 Hispanic or black adults with persistent asthma, randomized them approximately 3:1 to intervention or usual care, and followed them for 12 weeks. All participants received asthma guideline-based educational videos; intervention participants received video-based instructions on implementing PARTICS plus usual medications. The study involved 1 randomization visit and monthly questionnaires. Timely questionnaire responses (±2 weeks) were monitored. Participants underwent qualitative phone interviews to assess self-reported adherence to PARTICS and understand barriers to completing study procedures. RESULTS: Timely questionnaire response rates were 61%, 64%, and 70% at 4, 8, and 12 weeks, respectively. Self-reported adherence to PARTICS was 76% (95% confidence interval [CI], 58%-94% [n = 21]), 88% (95%CI, 72%-100% [n = 16]), and 62% (95%CI, 36%-88% [n = 13]) at weeks 1, 6, and 12, respectively. Barriers to completing study procedures included difficulties with questionnaire access, remembering to use ICS and rescue inhalers together, and obtaining refills. Only 22% of participants recognized their short-acting bronchodilator as "reliever" or "rescue." CONCLUSION: Recruitment was feasible within the allocated period. Adherence to PARTICS was incomplete, questionnaire completion was suboptimal, and common rescue inhaler nomenclature usage was limited. We have modified the full study protocol to attempt to improve adherence to PARTICS and minimize barriers to study procedures. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: pilot study for 'PeRson EmPowered Asthma Relief' (PREPARE, NCT02995733).

Effects of multicomponent primary care-based intervention on immunization rates and missed opportunities to vaccinate adults.

BACKGROUND: Adult immunization rates are below Healthy People 2020 targets. Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of a multicomponent intervention to improve adult immunization rates. METHODS: This prospective interventional before-and-after non-randomized study was conducted through the American Academy of Family Physicians National Research Network with 43 primary care physicians from a large multi-specialty healthcare organization (multicomponent intervention group n = 23; comparator group n = 20) in the United States. The multicomponent intervention included provider reminders, quarterly provider-level performance reports, provider education, patient visual aid materials, and standing orders on adult pneumococcal, influenza, and zoster immunizations. We assessed individual and comparative provider-level vaccination rates and missed opportunities detailing concordance with targets established by Healthy People 2020 for pneumococcal, influenza, and zoster immunizations. RESULTS: Vaccination rates increased after 12 months in intervention and comparator groups respectively for: a). influenza from 44.4 ± 16.7 to 51.3% ± 12.9% (by 6.9 percentage points, p = 0.001) and from 35.1 ± 19.1 to 41.3% ± 14.2%, (by 6.2 percentage points, p = 0.01); b). pneumococcal vaccinations in older adults from 62.8 ± 17.6 to 81.4% ± 16.6% (by 18.6 percentage points, for p < 0.0001) and from 55.9 ± 20.0 to 72.7% ± 18.4% (by 16.7 percentage points, p < 0.0001); and c). zoster from 37.1 ± 13.4 to 41.9% ± 13.1% (by 4.8 percentage points, p < 0.0001) and from 35.0 ± 18.7 to 42.3% ± 20.9% (7.3 percentage points, p = 0.001). Pneumococcal vaccinations in adults at risk did not change from baseline in intervention group (35.7 ± 19.6 to 34.5% ± 19.0%, p = 0.3) and improved slightly in comparator group (24.3 ± 20.1 to 28.2% ± 20.0%, p = 0.003). Missed opportunities reduced after 12 months, most noticeably, for: a). for influenza from 57.7 to 48.6% (by 9.1 percentage points, p < 0.0001) and from 69.7 to 59.6% (by 10.1 percentage points, p < 0.0001); b). pneumococcal vaccinations in older adults from 18.1 to 11.5% (by 6.6 percentage points p < 0.0001) and from 24.6 to 20.4% (by 4.3 percentage points, p < 0.0001) in intervention and comparator groups respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Multicomponent interventions show promise in improving vaccination rates and reducing missed opportunities in older adults for pneumococcal and zoster vaccines and vaccination against influenza. Provider reminders remain the most effective strategy when delivered either as a component of these interventions or alone.

Managing Asthma in Adolescents and Adults: 2020 Asthma Guideline Update From the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program.

Importance: Asthma is a major public health problem worldwide and is associated with excess morbidity, mortality, and economic costs associated with lost productivity. The National Asthma Education and Prevention Program has released the 2020 Asthma Guideline Update with updated evidence-based recommendations for treatment of patients with asthma. Objective: To report updated recommendations for 6 topics for clinical management of adolescents and adults with asthma: (1) intermittent inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs); (2) add-on long-acting muscarinic antagonists; (3) fractional exhaled nitric oxide; (4) indoor allergen mitigation; (5) immunotherapy; and (6) bronchial thermoplasty. Evidence Review: The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Advisory Council chose 6 topics to update the 2007 asthma guidelines based on results from a 2014 needs assessment. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality conducted systematic reviews of these 6 topics based on literature searches up to March-April 2017. Reviews were updated through October 2018 and used by an expert panel (n = 19) that included asthma content experts, primary care clinicians, dissemination and implementation experts, and health policy experts to develop 19 new recommendations using the GRADE method. The 17 recommendations for individuals aged 12 years or older are reported in this Special Communication. Findings: From 20 572 identified references, 475 were included in the 6 systematic reviews to form the evidence basis for these recommendations. Compared with the 2007 guideline, there was no recommended change in step 1 (intermittent asthma) therapy (as-needed short-acting ß2-agonists [SABAs] for rescue therapy). In step 2 (mild persistent asthma), either daily low-dose ICS plus as-needed SABA therapy or as-needed concomitant ICS and SABA therapy are recommended. Formoterol in combination with an ICS in a single inhaler (single maintenance and reliever therapy) is recommended as the preferred therapy for moderate persistent asthma in step 3 (low-dose ICS-formoterol therapy) and step 4 (medium-dose ICS-formoterol therapy) for both daily and as-needed therapy. A short-term increase in the ICS dose alone for worsening of asthma symptoms is not recommended. Add-on long-acting muscarinic antagonists are recommended in individuals whose asthma is not controlled by ICS-formoterol therapy for step 5 (moderate-severe persistent asthma). Fractional exhaled nitric oxide testing is recommended to assist in diagnosis and monitoring of symptoms, but not alone to diagnose or monitor asthma. Allergen mitigation is recommended only in individuals with exposure and relevant sensitivity or symptoms. When used, allergen mitigation should be allergen specific and include multiple allergen-specific mitigation strategies. Subcutaneous immunotherapy is recommended as an adjunct to standard pharmacotherapy for individuals with symptoms and sensitization to specific allergens. Sublingual immunotherapy is not recommended specifically for asthma. Bronchial thermoplasty is not recommended as part of standard care; if used, it should be part of an ongoing research effort. Conclusions and Relevance: Asthma is a common disease with substantial human and economic costs globally. Although there is no cure or established means of prevention, effective treatment is available. Use of the recommendations in the 2020 Asthma Guideline Update should improve the health of individuals with asthma.

The asthma Symptom Free Days Questionnaire: how reliable are patient responses?

Objective: Symptom free days are a widely used patient-reported outcome (PRO) in asthma clinical trials. We assessed the internal consistency of one instrument for this PRO, the Symptom Free Days Questionnaire (SFDQ), in a population of Black adults with asthma enrolled in the Blacks and Exacerbations on Long-acting beta agonists and Tiotropium (BELT) trial. Methods: We assessed responses to the SFDQ collected at baseline, 6 and 12 months as part of the BELT trial. The internal consistency of responses, specifically number of patient-reported days with symptoms in 14 days were compared to the number of patient-reported days with no symptoms in the same 14 days. Lin concordance correlation coefficients (Lin ccc) were calculated over time to assess "learning" and by age, sex, geographic location, and annual family income. Results: The internal consistency of the responses of the 1070 enrolled patients was consistently low over the 12 months of the study; varying from 43.8% at baseline to 52.1% at 12 months. This corresponded to Lin cccs of 0.33-0.32 over the study period. Internal consistency and the Lin ccc did not vary by age group, sex, geographic location or percent poverty. Concordance was slightly but not significantly higher at all time points in those with family annual income of ≥$50,000 compared to those with lower annual incomes. Conclusions: The SFDQ did not work well in the BELT population of Black adults with asthma. Further validation is required before the SFDQ is used in other large clinical trials with any population.

Susceptibility to exacerbations in Black adults with asthma.

OBJECTIVE: Exacerbations account for much of the morbidity in asthma. In a large intervention study, we sought to test the hypothesis that a Black adult exacerbation-prone phenotype - a group of Black people with asthma who are at high risk of repeat exacerbation within one year - exists in asthma independent of clinical control. METHODS: We analyzed exacerbation risk factors in 536 self-identified Black Americans with asthma eligible for, or on, Step 3 National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP) therapy who participated in a randomized 6-18 month trial of tiotropium versus long acting beta agonist as add-on therapy to inhaled corticosteroids. Exacerbations were defined as events treated by oral or systemic corticosteroids. Clinical control was assessed by a validated asthma control questionnaire (ACQ5). RESULTS: Exacerbations became more likely with loss of clinical control. The mean baseline ACQs for exacerbators and non-exacerbators were 2.41 and 1.91, respectively (p < 0.001). The strongest independent factor associated with exacerbations across all ACQ levels was an exacerbation in the preceding year (adjusted OR 3.26; p < 0.001). The severity of prior exacerbations did not correlate with the likelihood of a future exacerbation. Lower baseline FEV1/FVC was also associated with increased risk of exacerbations. CONCLUSIONS: Even though exacerbations increase with loss of clinical control, an exacerbation susceptibility phenotype exists in Black adults with asthma, independent of clinical control. This phenotype requires precision therapeutic targeting.

Use of Asthma APGAR Tools in Primary Care Practices: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess patient and practice outcomes after introducing the Asthma APGAR (Activities, Persistent, triGGers, Asthma medications, Response to therapy) tools into primary care practices. METHODS: We used a pragmatic cluster-randomized controlled design in 18 US family medicine and pediatric practices to compare outcomes in patients with persistent asthma aged 5 to 45 years after introduction of the Asthma APGAR tools vs usual care. Patient outcomes included asthma control, quality of life, and emergency department (ED), urgent care, and inpatient hospital visits. The practice outcome was adherence to asthma guidelines. RESULTS: We enrolled 1,066 patients: 245 children, 174 adolescents, and 647 adults. Sixty-five percent (692 patients) completed both baseline and 12-month questionnaires, allowing analysis for patient-reported outcomes. Electronic health record data were available for 1,063 patients (99.7%) for practice outcomes. The proportion of patients reporting an asthma-related ED, urgent care, or hospital visit in the final 6 months of the study was lower in the APGAR practices vs usual care practices (10.6% vs 20.9%, P = .004). The percentage of patients with "in control" asthma increased more between baseline and 1 year in the APGAR group vs usual care group (13.5% vs 3.4%, P =.0001 vs P =.86) with a trend toward better control scores and asthma-related quality of life in the former at 1 year (P ≤.06 and P = .06, respectively). APGAR practices improved their adherence to 3 or more guideline elements compared with usual care practices (20.7% increase vs 1.9% decrease, P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Introduction of the Asthma APGAR tools improves rates of asthma control; reduces asthma-related ED, urgent care, and hospital visits; and increases practices' adherence to asthma management guidelines.

Recruiting primary care practices for practice-based research: a case study of a group-randomized study (TRANSLATE CKD) recruitment process.

Background: We assessed the challenging process of recruiting primary care practices in a practice-based research study. Methods: In this descriptive case study of recruitment data collected for a large practice-based study (TRANSLATE CKD), 48 single or multiple-site health care organizations in the USA with a total of 114 practices were invited to participate. We collected quantitative and qualitative measures of recruitment process and outcomes for the first 25 practices recruited. Information about 13 additional practices is not provided due to staff transitions and limited data collection resources. Results: Initial outreach was made to 114 practices (from 48 organizations, 41% small); 52 (45%) practices responded with interest. Practices enrolled in the study (n = 25) represented 22% of the total outreach number, or 48% of those initially interested. Average time to enroll was 71 calendar days (range 11-107). There was no difference in the number of days practices remained under recruitment, based on enrolled versus not enrolled (44.8 ± 30.4 versus 46.8 ± 25.4 days, P = 0.86) or by the organization size, i.e. large versus small (defined by having ≤4 distinct practices; 52 ± 23.6 versus 43.6 ± 27.8 days; P = 0.46). The most common recruitment barriers were administrative, e.g. lack of perceived direct organizational benefit, and were more prominent among large organizations. Conclusions: Despite the general belief that the research topic, invitation method, and interest in research may facilitate practice recruitment, our results suggest that most of the recruitment challenges represent managerial challenges. Future research projects may need to consider relevant methodologies from businesses administration and marketing fields.

Adoption of a Portal for the Primary Care Management of Pediatric Asthma: A Mixed-Methods Implementation Study.

BACKGROUND: Patient portals may improve communication between families of children with asthma and their primary care providers and improve outcomes. However, the feasibility of using portals to collect patient-reported outcomes from families and the barriers and facilitators of portal implementation across diverse pediatric primary care settings have not been established. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the feasibility of using a patient portal for pediatric asthma in primary care, its impact on management, and barriers and facilitators of implementation success. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods implementation study in 20 practices (11 states). Using the portal, parents of children with asthma aged 6-12 years completed monthly surveys to communicate treatment concerns, treatment goals, symptom control, medication use, and side effects. We used logistic regression to evaluate the association of portal use with child characteristics and changes to asthma management. Ten clinician focus groups and 22 semistructured parent interviews explored barriers and facilitators of use in the context of an evidence-based implementation framework. RESULTS: We invited 9133 families to enroll and 237 (2.59%) used the portal (range by practice, 0.6%-13.6%). Children of parents or guardians who used the portal were significantly more likely than nonusers to be aged 6-9 years (vs 10-12, P=.02), have mild or moderate/severe persistent asthma (P=.009 and P=.04), have a prescription of a controller medication (P<.001), and have private insurance (P=.002). Portal users with uncontrolled asthma had significantly more medication changes and primary care asthma visits after using the portal relative to the year earlier (increases of 14% and 16%, respectively). Qualitative results revealed the importance of practice organization (coordinated workflows) as well as family (asthma severity) and innovation (facilitated communication and ease of use) characteristics for implementation success. CONCLUSIONS: Although use was associated with higher treatment engagement, our results suggest that achieving widespread portal adoption is unlikely in the short term. Implementation efforts should include workflow redesign and prioritize enrollment of symptomatic children. CLINICALTRIAL: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01966068; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01966068 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6i9iSQkm3).