OBJECTIVE: To test an air cleaner and health coach intervention to reduce secondhand smoke exposure compared with air cleaners alone or no air cleaners in reducing particulate matter (PM), air nicotine, and urine cotinine concentrations and increasing symptom-free days in children with asthma residing with a smoker. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial, with randomization embedded in study database. SETTINGS: The Johns Hopkins Hospital Children's Center and homes of children. PARTICIPANTS: Children with asthma, residing with a smoker, randomly assigned to interventions consisting of air cleaners only (n = 41), air cleaners plus a health coach (n = 41), or delayed air cleaner (control) (n = 44). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Changes in PM, air nicotine, and urine cotinine concentrations and symptom-free days during the 6-month study. RESULTS: The overall follow-up rate was high (91.3%). Changes in mean fine and coarse PM (PM(2.5) and PM(2.5-10)) concentrations (baseline to 6 months) were significantly lower in both air cleaner groups compared with the control group (mean differences for PM(2.5) concentrations: control, 3.5 μg/m(3); air cleaner only, -19.9 μg/m(3); and air cleaner plus health coach, -16.1 μg/m(3); P = .003; and PM(2.5-10) concentrations: control, 2.4 μg/m(3); air cleaner only, -8.7 μg/m(3); and air cleaner plus health coach, -10.6 μg/m(3); P = .02). No differences were noted in air nicotine or urine cotinine concentrations. The health coach provided no additional reduction in PM concentrations. Symptom-free days were significantly increased [corrected] in both air cleaner groups compared with the control group (P = .03). CONCLUSION: Although the use of air cleaners can result in a significant reduction in indoor PM concentrations and a significant increase in symptom-free days, it is not enough to prevent exposure to secondhand smoke.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To test an air cleaner and health coach intervention to reduce secondhand smoke exposure compared with air cleaners alone or no air cleaners in reducing particulate matter (PM), air nicotine, and urine cotinine concentrations and increasing symptom-free days in children with asthma residing with a smoker. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial, with randomization embedded in study database. SETTINGS: The Johns Hopkins Hospital Children's Center and homes of children. PARTICIPANTS: Children with asthma, residing with a smoker, randomly assigned to interventions consisting of air cleaners only (n = 41), air cleaners plus a health coach (n = 41), or delayed air cleaner (control) (n = 44). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Changes in PM, air nicotine, and urine cotinine concentrations and symptom-free days during the 6-month study. RESULTS: The overall follow-up rate was high (91.3%). Changes in mean fine and coarse PM (PM(2.5) and PM(2.5-10)) concentrations (baseline to 6 months) were significantly lower in both air cleaner groups compared with the control group (mean differences for PM(2.5) concentrations: control, 3.5 μg/m(3); air cleaner only, -19.9 μg/m(3); and air cleaner plus health coach, -16.1 μg/m(3); P = .003; and PM(2.5-10) concentrations: control, 2.4 μg/m(3); air cleaner only, -8.7 μg/m(3); and air cleaner plus health coach, -10.6 μg/m(3); P = .02). No differences were noted in air nicotine or urine cotinine concentrations. The health coach provided no additional reduction in PM concentrations. Symptom-free days were significantly increased [corrected] in both air cleaner groups compared with the control group (P = .03). CONCLUSION: Although the use of air cleaners can result in a significant reduction in indoor PM concentrations and a significant increase in symptom-free days, it is not enough to prevent exposure to secondhand smoke.
Authors: Wanda Phipatanakul; Petros Koutrakis; Brent A Coull; Choong-Min Kang; Jack M Wolfson; Stephen T Ferguson; Carter R Petty; Mihail Samnaliev; Amparito Cunningham; William J Sheehan; Jonathan M Gaffin; Sachin N Baxi; Peggy S Lai; Perdita Permaul; Liming Liang; Peter S Thorne; Gary Adamkiewicz; Kasey J Brennan; Andrea A Baccarelli; Diane R Gold Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2017-06-12 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Jennie Cox; Kelechi Isiugo; Patrick Ryan; Sergey A Grinshpun; Michael Yermakov; Colleen Desmond; Roman Jandarov; Stephen Vesper; James Ross; Steven Chillrud; Karen Dannemiller; Tiina Reponen Journal: Indoor Air Date: 2018-09-17 Impact factor: 5.770
Authors: Christine James; David I Bernstein; Jennie Cox; Patrick Ryan; Christopher Wolfe; Roman Jandarov; Nicholas Newman; Reshmi Indugula; Tiina Reponen Journal: Indoor Air Date: 2019-12-08 Impact factor: 5.770
Authors: L M Paulin; G B Diette; M Scott; M C McCormack; E C Matsui; J Curtin-Brosnan; D L Williams; A Kidd-Taylor; M Shea; P N Breysse; N N Hansel Journal: Indoor Air Date: 2014-01-11 Impact factor: 5.770
Authors: Stuart Batterman; Liuliu Du; Edith Parker; Thomas Robins; Toby Lewis; Bhramar Mukherjee; Erminia Ramirez; Zachary Rowe; Wilma Brakefield-Caldwell Journal: Air Qual Atmos Health Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 3.763
Authors: Roger D Peng; Arlene M Butz; Amber J Hackstadt; D'Ann L Williams; Gregory B Diette; Patrick N Breysse; Elizabeth C Matsui Journal: J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc Date: 2014-07-15 Impact factor: 2.483
Authors: Nadia N Hansel; Meredith C McCormack; Andrew J Belli; Elizabeth C Matsui; Roger D Peng; Charles Aloe; Laura Paulin; D'Ann L Williams; Gregory B Diette; Patrick N Breysse Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2013-05-15 Impact factor: 21.405