IMPORTANCE Professionally delivered integrated pest management (IPM) interventions can reduce home mouse allergen concentrations, but whether they reduce asthma morbidity among mouse-sensitized and exposed children and adolescents is unknown.OBJECTIVE To determine the effect of an IPM intervention on asthma morbidity among mouse-sensitized and exposed children and adolescents with asthma.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Randomized clinical trial conducted in Baltimore, Maryland, and Boston, Massachusetts. Participants were mouse-sensitized and exposed children and adolescents (aged 5-17 years) with asthma randomized to receive professionally delivered IPM plus pest management education or pest management education alone. Enrollment occurred between May 2010 and August 2014; the final follow-up visit occurred on September 25, 2015.INTERVENTIONS Integrated pest management consisted of application of rodenticide, sealing of holes that could serve as entry points for mice, trap placement, targeted cleaning, allergen-proof mattress and pillow encasements, and portable air purifiers. Infestation was assessed every 3 months, and if infestation persisted or recurred, additional treatments were delivered. All participants received pest management education, which consisted of written material and demonstration of the materials needed to set traps and seal holes. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome was maximal symptom days defined as the highest number of days of symptoms in the previous 2 weeks among 3 types of symptoms (days of slowed activity due to asthma; number of nights of waking with asthma symptoms; and days of coughing, wheezing, or chest tightness) across 6, 9, and 12 months. RESULTSOf 361 children and adolescents who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 9.8 [3.2] years; 38% female; 181 in IPM plus pest management education group and 180 in pest management education alone group), 334 were included in the primary analysis. For the primary outcome, there was no statistically significant between-group difference for maximal symptom days across 6, 9, and 12 months with a median of 2.0 (interquartile range, 0.7-4.7) maximal symptom days in the IPM plus pest management education group and 2.7 (interquartile range, 1.3-5.0) maximal symptom days in the pest management education alone group (P = .16) and a ratio of symptom frequencies of 0.86 (95% CI, 0.69-1.06).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among mouse-sensitized and exposed children and adolescents with asthma, an intensive year-long integrated pest management intervention plus pest management education vs pest management education alone resulted in no significant difference in maximal symptom days from 6 to 12 months.

Background The interplay between COVID‐19 pandemic and asthma in children is still unclear. We evaluated the impact of COVID‐19 pandemic on childhood asthma outcomes. Methods The PeARL multinational cohort included 1,054 children with asthma and 505 non‐asthmatic children aged between 4 and 18 years from 25 pediatric departments, from 15 countries globally. We compared the frequency of acute respiratory and febrile presentations during the first wave of the COVID‐19 pandemic between groups and with data available from the previous year. In children with asthma, we also compared current and historical disease control. Results During the pandemic, children with asthma experienced fewer upper respiratory tract infections, episodes of pyrexia, emergency visits, hospital admissions, asthma attacks, and hospitalizations due to asthma, in comparison with the preceding year. Sixty‐six percent of asthmatic children had improved asthma control while in 33% the improvement exceeded the minimal clinically important difference. Pre‐bronchodilatation FEV 1 and peak expiratory flow rate were improved during the pandemic. When compared to non‐asthmatic controls, children with asthma were not at increased risk of LRTIs, episodes of pyrexia, emergency visits, or hospitalizations during the pandemic. However, an increased risk of URTIs emerged. Conclusion Childhood asthma outcomes, including control, were improved during the first wave of the COVID‐19 pandemic, probably because of reduced exposure to asthma triggers and increased treatment adherence. The decreased frequency of acute episodes does not support the notion that childhood asthma may be a risk factor for COVID‐19. Furthermore, the potential for improving childhood asthma outcomes through environmental control becomes apparent.

Asthma is the most common chronic disease of childhood in the United States, causes significant morbidity, particularly in the inner-city, and accounts for billions of dollars in health care utilization. Home environments are established sources of exposure that exacerbate symptoms and home-based interventions are effective. However, elementary school children spend 7 to 12 h a day in school, primarily in one classroom. From the observational School Inner-City Asthma Study we learned that student classroom-specific exposures are associated with worsening asthma symptoms and decline in lung function. We now embark on a randomized, blinded, sham-controlled school environmental intervention trial, built on our extensively established school/community partnerships, to determine the efficacy of a school-based intervention to improve asthma control. This factorial school/classroom based environmental intervention will plan to enroll 300 students with asthma from multiple classrooms in 40 northeastern inner-city elementary schools. Schools will be randomized to receive either integrated pest management versus control and classrooms within these schools to receive either air purifiers or sham control. The primary outcome is asthma symptoms during the school year. This study is an unprecedented opportunity to test whether a community of children can benefit from school or classroom environmental interventions. If effective, this will have great impact as an efficient, cost-effective intervention for inner city children with asthma and may have broad public policy implications.

No abstract