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.

A Novel Case of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Following Radiofrequency Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation.

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is a minimally invasive cardiac catheterization procedure employed in patients whose atrial fibrillation (AF) is not well-controlled on medical therapy. While serious complications after the RFA are uncommon, we present the unique case of a 71-year-old male who suffered from acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and pneumomediastinum post-procedure. He presented to the ED with dyspnea, non-massive hemoptysis, and fever three days following RFA. Admission CT thorax demonstrated patchy ground glass opacities (GGOs) and stable fibrotic changes. He was admitted for suspected pneumonia, however, he failed to significantly improve on broad-spectrum antibiotics. Bronchoscopy found blood in proximal airways, however, lavage with serial aliquots were without worsening hemorrhage, ruling out suspected diffuse alveolar hemorrhage. Cytology resulted in rare iron polymorphonuclear neutrophils and no malignant cells. With worsening clinical status, the patient was eventually intubated. Repeat CT thorax showed new moderate pneumopericardium, small pneumomediastinum, and progressed GGOs. The respiratory course continued to worsen, and the patient passed away approximately one month after admission. We also present a brief literature review with the aim of identifying prognostic risk factors regarding post-RFA ARDS development. Additionally, this case identifies a novel complication of RFA, as post-procedural pneumomediastinum has not been previously described.

Strategies for choosing a biologic for your patient with allergy or asthma.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize the therapeutic effects and safety of biologics either approved or in clinical development for asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, urticaria, nasal polyps, atopic dermatitis, and eosinophilic esophagitis. This review attempts to provide some guidance when choosing among agents. DATA SOURCES: Recently published articles obtained through PubMed database searches including research articles, review articles, and case reports. STUDY SELECTIONS: PubMed database searches were conducted using the following keywords: biologics, asthma, COPD, urticaria, atopic dermatitis, food allergy, nasal polyps, and eosinophilic esophagitis. RESULTS: The approval of omalizumab by the Food and Drug Administration in 2003 for patients with asthma paved the way for the development of multiple biologics for a variety of respiratory and allergic diseases. Agents approved by the Food and Drug Administration include mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab, and several more are in the late stages of clinical development. Owing to the overlap in the pathogenesis of respiratory and allergic diseases, many of these biologics target multiple respiratory and allergic diseases simultaneously. CONCLUSION: The numerous biologic options have made the selection of the best biologic for each patient a potential conundrum for clinicians. Adequate point of care biomarkers to facilitate personalized medical therapy are generally lacking. Furthermore, although clinically effective and generally safe, none of the biologics discussed in this review have induced long-standing disease remission. Nevertheless, these agents have given us the opportunity to treat the most severe patients and to better understand the biology of respiratory and allergic diseases. As knowledgeable physicians, we should embrace and be educated on these novel therapies and the pathways they target.