PURPOSE:A Patient-Activated Reliever-Triggered Inhaled Corticosteroid (PARTICS) strategy of enhancing usual care with rescue short-acting beta agonist (SABA) supplemented with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) reduces asthma exacerbations vs. usual care alone in Black and Latinx adults with moderate-severe asthma. We investigated post-trial PARTICS usage and patient perceptions of efficacy. METHODS:PREPARE trial participants randomized to the PARTICS intervention were surveyed an average of 29 months after trial exit. RESULTS:Of 600 PARTICS-assigned PREPARE trial participants, 505 consented to future research. Fifty-two percent (262/505) completed this survey. Forty-one percent (108/262) continued using PARTICS post-trial. Of these, 97% (105/108) reported that PARTICS helped to control their asthma. Thirty-four percent (37/108) switched from the trial provided QVAR® to other ICS brands due to insurance coverage or clinician issues (e.g., unwillingness to prescribe or misunderstanding of PARTICS; 65%, 24/37). Of those who stopped using PARTICS post-trial (59% [154/262]), 62% (95/154) reported using PARTICS until the PREPARE-provided ICS inhaler ran out, and 31% (47/154) reported not knowing that their asthma care clinician could prescribe it. Only 2% (5/154) of those not using PARTICS reported that it had not been helpful for asthma. CONCLUSIONS:Continued PARTICS use was common >2 years post-trial despite minimal study instruction and was perceived as helpful for asthma, suggesting that patients will likely adopt this strategy if implemented at a healthcare system level.

Background:Community advisors including patients, families, clinicians, and payers are important partners who can guide clinical research; yet, there is little evidence documenting the impact of community engagement on study changes and outcomes. Objective:This study aims to describe the effect of community advisor input on 2 concerns identified during the conduct of a clinical trial. Methods:Using data from the PREPARE (Person Empowered Asthma Relief) randomized clinical trial studying the use of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) as part of rescue therapy for asthma, we examined the effect of protocol changes suggested by community advisors to address study implementation concerns. Results:Community advisors addressed 2 issues that threatened the success of the research: low response rates to monthly outcome surveys and low reported use of ICS with nebulizer rescue treatments. Initial low survey response rates were addressed by changing reminder frequency, shortening the survey, reducing the burden of logging in, and adding a raffle prize for timely responses. In the pilot phase of the study, the overall 3-month survey response rate was 67% (64 completed of 96 possible surveys). After protocol changes, the survey response rate over the first 3 months was 96.08% (3404 completed of 3543 possible surveys) and was 87.38% (1032 of 1181 participants) for each individual's final 3 months; the overall response rate for the full study was 92.3%. For the full study, 72.1% (n=850) of 1181 participants completed all of their first three surveys compared with only 25% (n=8) of 32 pilot enrollees. Early low use of ICS with nebulizers was addressed by additional communication, reminder stickers, and designing a method to attach a provided ICS inhaler to the nebulizers. The percentage of people reporting use of 3 to 5 puffs of ICS with each nebulizer treatment rose from 42.1% (200/475) in the early full study to 75.4% (525/696) following the protocol changes. Conclusions:Multicomponent changes to the PREPARE protocol crafted by community advisors were associated with improved monthly survey rates and ICS adherence during nebulizer use.

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.

Background: Clinician-patient miscommunication contributes to worse asthma outcomes. What patients call their asthma inhalers and its relationship with asthma morbidity are unknown. Methods: Inhaler names were ascertained from Black and Latinx adults with moderate-severe asthma and categorized as “standard” if based on brand/generic name or inhaler type (i.e., controller vs. rescue) or “non-standard” for other terms (i.e., color, device type, e.g., “puffer,” or unique names). Clinical characteristics and asthma morbidity measures were evaluated at baseline: self-reported asthma exacerbations one year before enrollment (i.e., systemic corticosteroid bursts, emergency department (ED)/urgent care (UC) visits, or hospitalizations), and asthma control and quality of life. Multivariable regression models tested the relationship between non-standard names and asthma morbidity measures, with adjustments. Results: Forty-four percent (502/1150) of participants used non-standard inhaler names. These participants were more likely to be Black (p=0.006), from the Southeast (p<0.001), and have fewer years with asthma (p=0.012) relative to those who used standard names. Non-standard inhaler names was associated with an incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 1.29 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-1.50, p=0.001; 1.8 vs. 1.5 events) for corticosteroid bursts for asthma, an IRR=1.43 (95% CI, 1.21-1.69, p<0.001; 1.9 vs. 1.4 events) for ED/UC visits for asthma, and an odds ratio=1.57 (95% CI, 1.12-2.18, p=0.008; 0.5 vs. 0.3 events) for asthma hospitalizations after adjustment. Conclusions: Patients who use non-standard names for asthma inhalers experience increased asthma morbidity. Ascertaining what patients call their inhalers may be a quick method to identify those at higher risk of poor outcomes.

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.

Purpose:To describe the socioeconomic and healthcare-related effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, and willingness to receive a free COVID-19 vaccine, among African American/Black (AA/B) and Hispanic/Latinx (H/L) adults with asthma currently enrolled in a large trial. Methods:The present analysis is a sub-study of the PeRson EmPowered Asthma RElief (PREPARE) study, a pragmatic study of 1201 AA/B and H/L adults with asthma. A monthly questionnaire was completed by a subset of PREPARE participants (n =325) during May-August, 2020. The 5-item questionnaire assessed self-reported Impact of COVID-19 on respondents' ability to obtain asthma medications. medical care quality, employment, income and ability to pay bits; and willingness to get a free COVID-19 vaccine. Bivariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression were performed to investigate factors associated with vaccine hesitancy. Results:Of 325 survey respondents (25% AA/8, 75% H/L), the majority reported no impact of COVID-19 on medical care or ability to get asthma medications. Approximately half of employed respondents experienced a tower levet of employment or job loss. and approximately half reported having difficulty paying bills during the pandemic. Thirty-five percent of respondents reported unwillingness and 31% reported being somewhat likely to receive a free COVID-19 vaccine. AA/8 race/ethnicity and poorer reported physical health were associated with a higher likelihood of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Conclusion:AA/B and H/L adults with asthma may experience changes in the quality of their asthma care and increased socioeconomic stressors as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and may be hesitant or unwilling to receive a COVID-19 vaccine.

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.

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).

BACKGROUND:Asthma prevalence, morbidity, and mortality disproportionately impact African American/Black (AA/B) and Hispanic/Latinx (H/L) communities. Adherence to daily inhaled corticosteroid (ICS), recommended by asthma guidelines in all but the mildest cases of asthma, is generally poor. As-needed ICS has shown promise as a patient-empowering asthma management strategy, but it has not been rigorously studied in AA/B or H/L patients or in a real-world setting. Design and Aim The PeRson EmPowered Asthma RElief (PREPARE) Study is a randomized, open-label, pragmatic study which aims to assess whether a patient-guided, reliever-triggered ICS strategy called PARTICS (Patient-Activated Reliever-Triggered Inhaled CorticoSteroid) can improve asthma outcomes in AA/B and H/L adult patient populations. In designing and implementing the study, the PREPARE research team has relied heavily on advice from AA/B and H/L Patient Partners and other stakeholders. Methods PREPARE is enrolling 1200 adult participants (600 AA/Bs, 600H/Ls) with asthma. Participants are randomized to PARTICS + Usual Care (intervention) versus Usual Care (control). Following a single in-person enrollment visit, participants complete monthly questionnaires for 15 months. The primary endpoint is annualized asthma exacerbation rate. Secondary endpoints include asthma control; preference-based quality of life; and days lost from work, school, or usual activities. Discussion The PREPARE study features a pragmatic design allowing for the real-world assessment of a patient-centered, reliever-triggered ICS strategy in AA/B and H/L patients. Outcomes of this study have the potential to offer powerful evidence supporting PARTICS as an effective asthma management strategy in patient populations that suffer disproportionately from asthma morbidity and mortality.

Our objective was to test the hypothesis that aberrantly modified forms of superoxide dismutase (SOD1) influence the disease course for sporadic amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (SALS). We probed for anti-SOD1 antibodies (IgM and IgG) against both the normal and aberrantly oxidized-SOD1 (SODox) antigens in sera from patients with SALS, subjects diagnosed with other neurological disorders and healthy individuals, and correlated the levels of these antibodies to disease duration and/or severity. Anti-SOD1 antibodies were detected in all cohorts; however, a subset of similar to 5-10% of SALS cases exhibited elevated levels of anti-SOD1 antibodies. Those SALS cases with relatively high levels of IgM antibodies against SODox exhibit a longer survival of 6.4 years, compared to subjects lacking these antibodies. By contrast, SALS subjects expressing higher levels of IgG antibodies reactive for the normal WT-SOD1 antigen exhibit a shorter survival of 4.1 years. Anti-SOD1 antibody levels did not correlate with disease severity in either the Alzheimer's or Parkinson's disease cohorts. In conclusion, the association of longer survival with elevated levels of anti-SODox antibodies suggests that these antibodies may be protective. By extension, these data implicate aberrantly modified forms of WT-SOD1 (e. g. oxidized SOD1) in SALS pathogenesis. In contrast, an immune response against the normal WT-SOD1 appears to be disadvantageous in SALS, possibly because the anti-oxidizing activity of normal WT-SOD1 is beneficial to SALS individuals.

BACKGROUND:Mutations in the α-synuclein gene (SNCA) cause autosomal dominant forms of Parkinson's disease, but the substantial risk conferred by this locus to the common sporadic disease has only recently emerged from genome-wide association studies. METHODS:We genotyped a prioritized noncoding variant in SNCA intron 4 in 344 patients with Parkinson's disease and 275 controls from the longitudinal Harvard NeuroDiscovery Center Biomarker Study. RESULTS:The common minor allele of rs2736990 was associated with elevated disease susceptibility (odds ratio, 1.40; P = .0032). CONCLUSIONS:This result increases confidence in the notion that in many clinically well-characterized patients, genetic variation in SNCA contributes to "sporadic" disease.

Disease prevention models have shown individuals are more likely to engage in precautionary behavior if they have confidence in their ability to identify disease symptoms and understand health risks. In immigrant populations, communicating the risks poses greater challenges since linguistic and cultural barriers may impede acceptance of the new behavior. The Brazilian population on Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts, is at high risk for Lyme disease (LD), the most common vector-borne illness in the United States largely preventable by limiting tick exposure. We surveyed 103 Brazilians on MV about their health beliefs and perceptions of LD risk and assessed their level of precautionary behaviors and the cultural factors influencing them. The population had only a moderate perception of risk and little understanding of LD. Forty-one percent did not think LD posed a risk, while 79% were not sure they could recognize symptoms. Accordingly, the population as a whole reported taking few precautions.

Objective. Low-dose aspirin may reduce the risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis (RA) through its effect on cyclooxygenase activity and its antioxidant pathways. Previous randomized trial data have demonstrated a beneficial effect of low-dose aspirin in reducing other inflammatory diseases, such as asthma and colorectal adenomas, but no trial has evaluated the role of aspirin in RA prevention.Methods. The Women's Health Study is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted between 1992 and 2004 designed to evaluate the risks and benefits of low-dose aspirin (100 mg every other day) and vitamin E in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and cancer among 39,876 female health care professionals age >= 45 years throughout the US. After excluding women with RA at baseline, 39,144 women were evaluated for the present study. A definite diagnosis of RA was assessed during followup by self-report and confirmed using a connective tissue disease screening questionnaire, followed by a medical record review by a rheumatologist for American College of Rheumatology criteria.Results. During an average followup of 10 years, 106 women developed definite RA (48 women in the aspirin group and 58 in the placebo group). There was a nonsignificant risk for RA (relative risk [RR] 0.83, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.56-1.21; P = 0.33) associated with aspirin. There were 64 seropositive RA cases (60%) and 42 seronegative RA cases (40%). Aspirin also had no significant effect on either seropositive RA (RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.61-1.63) or seronegative RA (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.33-1.15).Conclusion. One hundred milligrams of aspirin taken every other day was not associated with a significant reduction in the risk of developing RA among women in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE Tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF) inhibitors have transformed management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA); however, many patients discontinue TNF inhibitors. Our goal was to determine the discontinuation rate of TNF inhibitors and identify predictors associated with discontinuation. METHODS Enrollees in the Brigham RA Sequential Study (BRASS) formed the eligible cohort. Patients reporting use of a TNF inhibitor with at least 6 months of followup were followed until reporting TNF inhibitor discontinuation or their last study visit if they continued therapy. Potential predictor variables, including demographic and clinical data assessed at baseline and 6 months prior to study endpoint, were identified using a Cox proportional regression. RESULTS Among 961 patients in BRASS, 503 were using a TNF inhibitor with at least 6 months of followup in BRASS (mean length of followup 39 mo, SD 13). Two hundred ten patients (42%) reported discontinuation of TNF inhibitor. Higher physician global scores (hazard ratio 1.27, 95% CI 1.18-1.38) and RA Disease Activity Index scores (HR 1.13, 95% CI 1.05-1.22) 6 months prior to stopping the TNF inhibitor and higher number of TNF inhibitors used previously (HR 1.30, 95% CI 1.03-1.66) were associated with discontinuation of TNF inhibitor. Prior use of synthetic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.34-0.72) and more years of cumulative methotrexate use (HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.12-0.47) were inversely associated with discontinuation of TNF inhibitor. CONCLUSION These data demonstrate that a significant number of patients with RA discontinue TNF inhibitors. Several easily characterized clinical variables have a modest predictive association with reduced probability of TNF inhibitor discontinuation.

BACKGROUNDThe purpose of this study was to examine whether levels of C-reactive protein (CRP), a sensitive marker of disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), are associated with increased risk of subsequent RA.METHODSEligible subjects were 39 876 healthy women from the Women's Health Study, a completed randomized trial of aspirin and vitamin E in cardiovascular disease and cancer prevention, begun in 1992. We included 27 939 women who provided blood samples at baseline that could be assayed for CRP.RESULTSDuring 9.9 years of follow-up, 398 women reported a new diagnosis of RA. Of these, 90 cases were confirmed on medical chart review using American College of Rheumatology criteria. In age-adjusted analysis, the relative risks for developing confirmed, incident RA associated with increasing tertiles of CRP (first, second, and third) were 1.00 (reference value), 0.94 (0.54-1.61), and 1.29 (0.78-2.12) (P = .30 for trend). Further adjustment for randomized treatment, age, body mass index, and smoking demonstrated corresponding relative risks of 1.00 (reference value), 0.95 (0.55-1.65), and 1.33 (0.77-2.30) (P = .48 for trend). When we examined whether CRP levels predicted incident RA within 4 years, between 5 to 8 years, and 9 or more years after CRP measurement, we found no significant associations for any time period.CONCLUSIONSIn this prospective study of healthy women, a single CRP level did not predict increased risk of RA. Furthermore, CRP measurement closer to the time of diagnosis was not predictive. The consistency of this effect throughout different time periods from diagnosis suggests that CRP does not have a large effect in predicting incident RA.