Early Outpatient Treatment for Covid-19 with Convalescent Plasma.

BACKGROUND: Polyclonal convalescent plasma may be obtained from donors who have recovered from coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). The efficacy of this plasma in preventing serious complications in outpatients with recent-onset Covid-19 is uncertain. METHODS: In this multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of Covid-19 convalescent plasma, as compared with control plasma, in symptomatic adults (≥18 years of age) who had tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, regardless of their risk factors for disease progression or vaccination status. Participants were enrolled within 8 days after symptom onset and received a transfusion within 1 day after randomization. The primary outcome was Covid-19-related hospitalization within 28 days after transfusion. RESULTS: Participants were enrolled from June 3, 2020, through October 1, 2021. A total of 1225 participants underwent randomization, and 1181 received a transfusion. In the prespecified modified intention-to-treat analysis that included only participants who received a transfusion, the primary outcome occurred in 17 of 592 participants (2.9%) who received convalescent plasma and 37 of 589 participants (6.3%) who received control plasma (absolute risk reduction, 3.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 1.0 to 5.8; P = 0.005), which corresponded to a relative risk reduction of 54%. Evidence of efficacy in vaccinated participants cannot be inferred from these data because 53 of the 54 participants with Covid-19 who were hospitalized were unvaccinated and 1 participant was partially vaccinated. A total of 16 grade 3 or 4 adverse events (7 in the convalescent-plasma group and 9 in the control-plasma group) occurred in participants who were not hospitalized. CONCLUSIONS: In participants with Covid-19, most of whom were unvaccinated, the administration of convalescent plasma within 9 days after the onset of symptoms reduced the risk of disease progression leading to hospitalization. (Funded by the Department of Defense and others; CSSC-004 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04373460.).

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.

Digital inhalers for asthma management.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Although digital inhaler systems for asthma management have been commercially available for over a decade, their current use in clinical practice is limited. This review outlines barriers and offers potential solutions to their implementation. RECENT FINDINGS: Digital inhaler systems demonstrate increased controller medication adherence, decreased quick-relief medication use, and improved asthma control. SUMMARY: Use of digital inhaler systems is supported by data from large clinical trials demonstrating improved asthma outcomes. Navigating telemedicine during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has led to advances clearing the path for increased adoption of digital inhaler systems. Progress in areas including patient education and onboarding, clinical management, coding and billing, privacy and security have facilitated implementation in clinical practice.

Cost-effectiveness of budesonide-formoterol vs inhaled epinephrine in US adults with mild asthma.

BACKGROUND: The management of mild asthma has lacked an over-the-counter (OTC) option aside from inhaled epinephrine, which is available in the United States. However, inhaled epinephrine use without an inhaled corticosteroid may increase the risk of asthma death. OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of OTC as-needed budesonide-formoterol as a plausible alternative to inhaled epinephrine. METHODS: We developed a probabilistic Markov model to compare OTC as-needed budesonide-formoterol inhaler use vs inhaled epinephrine use in adults with mild asthma from a US societal perspective over a lifetime horizon, with a 3% annual discount rate (2022 US dollars). Inputs were derived from the SYmbicort Given as-needed in Mild Asthma (SYGMA) trials, published literature, and commercial costs. Outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), costs, incremental net monetary benefit (INMB), severe asthma exacerbations, well-controlled asthma days, and asthma-related deaths. Microsimulation was used to evaluate underinsured Americans living with mild asthma (n = 5,250,000). RESULTS: Inhaled epinephrine was dominated (with lower QALYs gains at a higher cost) by both as-needed budesonide-formoterol (INMB, $15,541 at a willingness-to-pay of $100,000 per QALY) and the no-OTC inhaler option (INMB, $1023). Adults using as-needed budesonide-formoterol had 145 more well-controlled asthma days, 2.79 fewer severe exacerbations, and an absolute risk reduction of 0.23% for asthma-related death compared with inhaled epinephrine over a patient lifetime. As-needed budesonide-formoterol remained dominant in all sensitivity and scenario analyses, with a 100% probability of being cost-effective compared with inhaled epinephrine in probabilistic sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSION: If made available, OTC as-needed budesonide-formoterol for treating mild asthma in underinsured adults without HCP management improves asthma outcomes, prevents fatalities, and is cost-saving.

Symptom Duration and Resolution With Early Outpatient Treatment of Convalescent Plasma for Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) convalescent plasma (CCP) reduces hospitalizations among outpatients treated early after symptom onset. It is unknown whether CCP reduces time to symptom resolution among outpatients. METHODS: We evaluated symptom resolution at day 14 by trial arm using an adjusted subdistribution hazard model, with hospitalization as a competing risk. We also assessed the prevalence of symptom clusters at day 14 between treatments. Clusters were defined based on biologic clustering, impact on ability to work, and an algorithm. RESULTS: Among 1070 outpatients followed up after transfusion, 381 of 538 (70.8%) receiving CCP and 381 of 532 (71.6%) receiving control plasma were still symptomatic (P = .78) at day 14. Associations between CCP and symptom resolution by day 14 did not differ significantly from those in controls after adjustment for baseline characteristics (adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.99; P = .62). The most common cluster consisted of cough, fatigue, shortness of breath, and headache and was found in 308 (57.2%) and 325 (61.1%) of CCP and control plasma recipients, respectively (P = .16). CONCLUSIONS: In this trial of outpatients with early COVID-19, CCP was not associated with faster resolution of symptoms compared with control. Overall, there were no differences by treatment in the prevalence of each symptom or symptom clusters at day 14. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04373460.

Transfusing Convalescent Plasma as Post-Exposure Prophylaxis Against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Infection: A Double-Blinded, Phase 2 Randomized, Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) convalescent plasma (CCP) for preventing infection in exposed, uninfected individuals is unknown. CCP might prevent infection when administered before symptoms or laboratory evidence of infection. METHODS: This double-blinded, phase 2 randomized, controlled trial (RCT) compared the efficacy and safety of prophylactic high titer (≥1:320 by Euroimmun ELISA) CCP with standard plasma. Asymptomatic participants aged ≥18 years with close contact exposure to a person with confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the previous 120 hours and negative SARS-CoV-2 test within 24 hours before transfusion were eligible. The primary outcome was new SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: In total, 180 participants were enrolled; 87 were assigned to CCP and 93 to control plasma, and 170 transfused at 19 sites across the United States from June 2020 to March 2021. Two were excluded for screening SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) positivity. Of the remaining 168 participants, 12/81 (14.8%) CCP and 13/87 (14.9%) control recipients developed SARS-CoV-2 infection; 6 (7.4%) CCP and 7 (8%) control recipients developed COVID-19 (infection with symptoms). There were no COVID-19-related hospitalizations in CCP and 2 in control recipients. Efficacy by restricted mean infection free time (RMIFT) by 28 days for all SARS-CoV-2 infections (25.3 vs 25.2 days; P = .49) and COVID-19 (26.3 vs 25.9 days; P = .35) was similar for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of high-titer CCP as post-exposure prophylaxis, although appearing safe, did not prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04323800.

The One Health approach for allergic diseases and asthma.

The One Health approach is a collaborative and interdisciplinary strategy with focal point on human, animal, and environmental health interconnections. One Health can support the advanced management of allergic diseases and asthma, as complex, multifactorial diseases driven by interactions between the resilience response to the exposome. According to the One Health concept allergic diseases and asthma arising from exposures to a wide range of allergens, infectious agents and irritants (such as pollutants) occurring indoors and outdoors can be heavily influenced by environmental health (air, water, and soil quality) intermingled with animal health. These are currently heavily impacted by climate change, land use, urbanization, migration, overpopulation, and many more. Thus, a coordinated response to address the underlying factors that contribute to the development of allergic diseases and asthma needs to focus on the environment, human, and animal health altogether. Collaborative efforts across multiple sectors, including public health, veterinary medicine, environmental science, and community engagement are thus needed. A wide range of activities, including monitoring and surveillance of environmental and health data, targeted interventions to reduce exposures to allergens and irritants, and research on the underlying mechanisms that drive the development of allergic diseases and asthma are needed to move the field forward. In this consensus document elaborated by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) and American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology (AAAAI) under the practical allergy (PRACTALL) series, we provide insights into the One Heath approach aiming to provide a framework for addressing the complex and multifactorial nature of allergic diseases and asthma.

Transfusion reactions associated with COVID-19 convalescent plasma in outpatient clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) is an important therapeutic option for outpatients at high risk of hospitalization from SARS-CoV-2 infection. We assessed the safety of outpatient CCP transfusions administered during clinical trials. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We analyzed data pertaining to transfusion-related reactions from two randomized controlled trials in the U.S. that evaluated the efficacy of CCP versus control plasma in various ambulatory settings. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess whether CCP was associated with transfusion reactions, after adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: The combined study reported 79/1351 (5.9%) adverse events during the transfusion visit, with the majority 62/1351 (4.6%) characterized by mild, allergic-type findings of urticaria, and/or pruritus consistent with minor allergic transfusion reactions; the other reported events were attributed to the patients' underlying disease, COVID-19, or vasovagal in nature. We found no difference in the likelihood of allergic transfusion reactions between those receiving CCP versus control plasma (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.43-1.31). Risk of urticaria and/or pruritus increased with a pre-existing diagnosis of asthma (AOR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.16-4.67). We did not observe any CCP-attributed antibody disease enhancement in participants with COVID-19 or increased risk of infection. There were no life-threatening severe transfusion reactions and no patients required hospitalization related to transfusion-associated complications. DISCUSSION: Outpatient plasma administration was safely performed for nearly 1400 participants. CCP is a safe therapeutic option for outpatients at risk of hospitalization from COVID-19.

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.

Do regional geography and race influence management of chronic spontaneous urticaria?

Chronic spontaneous urticaria is defined as migratory evanescent pruritic blanching wheals that occur with variable frequency for 6 weeks or more, with or without accompanying angioedema. This condition affects approximately 0.1% to 1.4% of persons worldwide. Second-generation H1 antihistamines are the mainstay of management, with refractory cases often managed with an array of options, including H2 antihistamines, leukotriene receptor antagonists, glucocorticosteroids, immunosuppressive agents, and omalizumab. However, the degree of practice variation as to what treatments are prescribed is poorly understood, given that clinical care could be driven by patient preferences or lack of clarity as to best practices for refractory cases. We conducted a small, exploratory study of the role of race, ethnicity, and regional geographic distance to specialist care on chronic spontaneous urticaria prescribing practices. A small-area geographic variation in chronic spontaneous urticaria management in a large Chicago-area health care system was identified. Rates of omalizumab use varied by patient zip code, with more omalizumab prescriptions being associated with zip codes closer to the main office of an academic medical center-affiliated allergist-immunologist practice. Higher rates of omalizumab use were associated with White race in regional and patient-level analyses, though the reasons for this race-based finding are not clear.

How do I implement an outpatient program for the administration of convalescent plasma for COVID-19?

Convalescent plasma, collected from donors who have recovered from a pathogen of interest, has been used to treat infectious diseases, particularly in times of outbreak, when alternative therapies were unavailable. The COVID-19 pandemic revived interest in the use of convalescent plasma. Large observational studies and clinical trials that were executed during the pandemic provided insight into how to use convalescent plasma, whereby high levels of antibodies against the pathogen of interest and administration early within the time course of the disease are critical for optimal therapeutic effect. Several studies have shown outpatient administration of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) to be both safe and effective, preventing clinical progression in patients when administered within the first week of COVID-19. The United States Food and Drug Administration expanded its emergency use authorization (EUA) to allow for the administration of CCP in an outpatient setting in December 2021, at least for immunocompromised patients or those on immunosuppressive therapy. Outpatient transfusion of CCP and infusion of monoclonal antibody therapies for a highly transmissible infectious disease introduces nuanced challenges related to infection prevention. Drawing on our experiences with the clinical and research use of CCP, we describe the logistical considerations and workflow spanning procurement of qualified products, infrastructure, staffing, transfusion, and associated management of adverse events. The purpose of this description is to facilitate the efforts of others intent on establishing outpatient transfusion programs for CCP and other antibody-based therapies.

Electronic medication monitoring versus self-reported use of inhaled corticosteroids and short-acting beta2-agonists in uncontrolled asthma.

OBJECTIVE: Current standard of care, patient self-report and clinician estimation, overestimates true inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) adherence. We compare self-reported inhaled ICS and short-acting beta 2-agonists (SABA) use with objective data from electronic medication monitors (EMMs). METHODS: Adults with uncontrolled asthma and prescribed ICS and SABA were enrolled. At visit one, participants' ICS and SABA inhalers were fitted with EMMs to track real-time medication usage over 14 days. Participants were asked to complete paper diaries to self-report medication usage over the same period. Participant self-report of ICS adherence and SABA use versus objective ICS adherence and SABA use was compared using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. RESULTS: One hundred participants (80% female, mean age 48.5 years, 60% completed college, 80% privately insured) had complete data. Participant self-report (median (IQR): 0.8 (0.0, 2.0)) was greater than objectively measured (median (IQR): 0.43 (0.1, 2.1)) SABA use, but the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.64). Participant self-report (median (IQR): 97 (67, 100)) was significantly greater than objectively measured (median (IQR): 75 (54, 93)) ICS adherence (P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Significant discrepancies between self-report and objective ICS usage were observed. EMM can provide clinicians with accurate data on ICS medication taking behavior, thus reducing medication regimen complexity, side effects, and costs.

A randomised controlled trial of the effect of a connected inhaler system on medication adherence in uncontrolled asthmatic patients.

Suboptimal adherence to maintenance therapy contributes to poor asthma control and exacerbations. This study evaluated the effect of different elements of a connected inhaler system (CIS), comprising clip-on inhaler sensors, a patient-facing app and a healthcare professional (HCP) dashboard, on adherence to asthma maintenance therapy.This was an open-label, parallel-group, 6-month, randomised controlled trial in adults with uncontrolled asthma (asthma control test (ACT) score less than 20) on fixed-dose inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting ß-agonist maintenance therapy (n=437). All subjects received fluticasone furoate/vilanterol ELLIPTA dry-powder inhalers for maintenance and salbutamol/albuterol metered-dose inhalers for rescue, with a sensor attached to each inhaler. Participants were randomised to one of five CIS study arms (allocation ratio 1:1:1:1:1) reflecting the recipient of the data feedback from the sensors, as follows: 1) maintenance use to participants and HCPs (n=87); 2) maintenance use to participants (n=88); 3) maintenance and rescue use to participants and HCPs (n=88); 4) maintenance and rescue use to participants (n=88); and 5) no feedback (control) (n=86).For the primary endpoint, observed mean±sd adherence to maintenance therapy over months 4-6 was 82.2±16.58% (n=83) in the "maintenance to participants and HCPs" arm and 70.8±27.30% (n=85) in the control arm. The adjusted least squares mean±se was 80.9±3.19% and 69.0±3.19%, respectively (study arm difference: 12.0%, 95% CI 5.2-18.8%; p<0.001). Adherence was also significantly greater in the other CIS arms versus the control arm. The mean percentage of rescue medication free days (months 4-6) was significantly greater in participants receiving data on their rescue use compared with controls. ACT scores improved in all study arms with no significant differences between groups.A CIS can improve adherence to maintenance medication and reduce rescue medication use in patients with uncontrolled asthma.

Media Influence on Anxiety, Health Utility, and Health Beliefs Early in the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic-a Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: The psychological effects from the COVID-19 pandemic and response are poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To understand the effects of the pandemic and response on anxiety and health utility in a nationally representative sample of US adults. DESIGN: A de-identified, cross-sectional survey was administered at the end of April 2020. Probability weights were assigned using estimates from the 2018 American Community Survey and Integrated Public Use Microdata Series Estimates. PARTICIPANTS: US adults 18-85 years of age with landline, texting-enabled cellphone, or internet access. INTERVENTION: Seven split-half survey blocks of 30 questions, assessing demographics, COVID-19-related health attitudes, and standardized measures of generalized self-efficacy, anxiety, depression, personality, and generic health utility. MAIN MEASURES: State/Trait anxiety scores, EQ-5D-3L Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score, and demographic predictors of these scores. KEY RESULTS: Among 4855 respondents, 56.7% checked COVID-19-related news several times daily, and 84.4% at least once daily. Only 65.7% desired SARS-CoV-2 vaccination for themselves, and 70.1% for their child. Mean state anxiety (S-anxiety) score was significantly higher than mean trait anxiety (T-anxiety) score (44.9, 95%CI 43.5-46.3 vs. 41.6, 95%CI 38.7-44.5; p = 0.03), with both scores significantly higher than previously published norms. In an adjusted regression model, less frequent news viewing was associated with significantly lower S-anxiety score. Mean EQ-5D-3L VAS score for the population was significantly lower vs. established US normative data (71.4 CI 67.4-75.5, std. error 2 vs. societal mean 80, std. error 0.1; p < 0.001). EQ-5D-3L VAS score was bimodal (highest with hourly and no viewing) and significantly reduced with less media viewership in an adjusted model. CONCLUSIONS: Among a nationally representative sample, there were higher S-anxiety and lower EQ-5D-3L VAS scores compared to non-pandemic normative data, indicative of a potential detrimental acute effect of the pandemic. More frequent daily media viewership was significantly associated with higher S-anxiety but also predictive of higher health utility, as measured by EQ-5D-3L VAS scores.

Community Health Worker Asthma Interventions for Children: Results From a Clinically Integrated Randomized Comparative Effectiveness Trial (2016‒2019).

Objectives. To compare asthma control for children receiving either community health worker (CHW) or certified asthma educator (AE-C) services. Methods. The Asthma Action at Erie Trial is a comparative effectiveness trial that ran from 2016 to 2019 in Cook County, Illinois. Participants (aged 5‒16 years with uncontrolled asthma) were randomized to 10 home visits from clinically integrated asthma CHWs or 2 in-clinic sessions from an AE-C. Results. Participants (n = 223) were mainly Hispanic (85%) and low-income. Both intervention groups showed significant improvement in asthma control scores over time. Asthma control was maintained after interventions ended. The CHW group experienced a greater improvement in asthma control scores. One year after intervention cessation, the CHW group had a 42% reduction in days of activity limitation relative to the AE-C group (b = 0.58; 95% confidence interval = 0.35, 0.96). Conclusions. Both interventions were associated with meaningful improvements in asthma control. Improvements continued for 1 year after intervention cessation and were stronger with the CHW intervention. Public Health Implications. Clinically integrated asthma CHW and AE-C services that do not provide home environmental remediation equipment may improve and sustain asthma control.

A multistakeholder Delphi consensus core outcome set for clinical trials in moderate-to-severe asthma (coreASTHMA).

BACKGROUND: Treatments for long-term control of asthma have improved and include a promising but expensive class of biologic therapies. However, the clinical trials evaluating these and other novel treatments have used a variety of different outcomes to evaluate efficacy. The evolution of asthma care calls for a re-examination of outcomes that are most important to patients and other stakeholders. OBJECTIVE: To develop a core set of outcomes to be measured in phase 3 and phase 4 clinical drug trials in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma. METHODS: We used a robust and in-depth multistakeholder consensus process bringing together patients, clinicians, regulators, payers, health technology assessors, researchers, and product developers to reach consensus on outcomes. We used a modified Delphi method to reach consensus, an approach adapted from the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative aligned with contemporary methodological standards for core outcome set development. RESULTS: The following outcomes were included in the final core set: severe asthma exacerbation, change in asthma control, asthma-specific or severe asthma-specific quality of life, asthma-specific hospital stay (ie, >24-hour stays at any level of care) or admission, and asthma-specific emergency department visit. CONCLUSION: These 5 outcomes represent a minimum set of core outcomes for use in phase 3 and phase 4 clinical drug trials in moderate-to-severe asthma. Consistent collection of these outcomes as minimum, independent of whether additional heterogeneous primary or secondary outcomes are included, will allow for meaningful comparisons of the effect of asthma therapies across clinical trials.

Psychosocial Moderators and Outcomes of a Randomized Effectiveness Trial for Child Asthma.

OBJECTIVE: Psychosocial factors play a role in child asthma morbidity and disparities, but their impact on asthma intervention effectiveness is less understood. This study examined how child, parent, and family psychosocial factors moderated asthma response to, and changed in response to, 2 community asthma interventions among urban minority youth. METHODS: Asthma Action at Erie was a randomized comparative effectiveness trial examining a community health worker (CHW) home intervention versus certified asthma educator (AE-C) services for children aged 5-16 with uncontrolled asthma (N = 223; mean age = 9.37, SD = 3.02; 85.2% Hispanic). Asthma control was assessed via the Asthma Control Test (ACT)/childhood ACT and activity limitation. Baseline child/parent depression and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, family chaos, and social support were examined as treatment moderators. We also tested intervention effects on psychosocial outcomes. RESULTS: For parents with higher baseline depression symptoms, youth in the CHW group had greater ACT improvement by 24 months (7.49 points) versus AE-C (4.76 points) and 51% reduction in days of limitation by 6 months versus AE-C (ß = -0.118; p = .0145). For higher parent PTSD symptoms, youth in CHW had 68% fewer days of limitation at 24 months versus AE-C (ß = -0.091; p = .0102). Psychosocial outcomes did not vary by group, but parent depression, parent and child PTSD symptoms, and social support improved for all. CONCLUSIONS: CHW intervention was associated with improved asthma control among families with higher parent strain. Findings have implications for utilizing tailored CHW home interventions to optimize asthma outcomes in at-risk families.

Relative efficacy and safety of inhaled corticosteroids in patients with asthma: Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) are recommended as first-line controller medications for persistent asthma. However, guidelines on the initial ICS doses, step-up and step-down algorithms, and when to switch to combination therapy vary. OBJECTIVE: To understand the ideal starting doses of ICS therapy based on current evidence and to systematically compare low, moderate, and high starting doses of ICSs as monotherapy and in combination with long-acting ß-agonists with respect to efficacy and safety. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for relevant English-language articles published from 1980 to November 17, 2018. Randomized controlled trials with adult, steroid-naive, ICS-free (for ≥4 weeks) patients with asthma and a duration of 4 weeks or longer with an ICS treatment arm (monotherapy or combination therapy) were included. Separate fixed-effects Bayesian network meta-analyses were conducted on the extracted data for peak expiratory flow, forced expiratory volume in 1 second, nighttime rescue medication use, nighttime symptom score, and study withdrawal because of an adverse event. RESULTS: A total of 31 randomized controlled trials were analyzed. All starting doses of ICSs were comparable with respect to nighttime rescue medication use, nighttime symptom score, change in forced expiratory volume in 1 second, and study withdrawal because of an adverse event. Significant improvement in morning peak expiratory flow was observed with high-dose ICSs and with low- and moderate-dose ICSs and long-acting ß-agonists than with low-dose ICSs. CONCLUSION: Overall, a high starting dose of ICSs had no additional clinical benefit in 3 of the 4 efficacy parameters compared with low or moderate ICS doses for controlling moderate to severe asthma but might have potential safety concerns.