4.4 Article

Risk factors for initial acquisition of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in children with cystic fibrosis identified by newborn screening

Journal

PEDIATRIC PULMONOLOGY
Volume 35, Issue 4, Pages 257-262

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ppul.10230

Keywords

cystic fibrosis; acquisition; Pseudomonas aeruginosa; risk factors

Funding

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [M01 RR00069] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The objective of this study was to identify risk factors for initial detection of Pseudomonas aeruginosa (P. aeruginosa) in children with cystic fibrosis (CF) identified by newborn screening. Life history data on 180 patients, collected prospectively in a follow-up study of infants and children diagnosed with CF, were examined. for factors associated with the initial detection of P. aeruginosa ascertained by oropharyngeal cultures. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to assess the effect of baseline and time-varying covariates on age at first positive culture for P. aeruginosa. Seventy-nine patients (44%) had at least one culture positive for P. aeruginosa during the study. The median age of detection was 8.1 years (95% CI, 7.0, 10.0). Median length of follow-up was 4.1 years, ranging from 0.2-15.5 years. Multivariate Cox regression analysis identified female gender (RR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.14, 3.01), the DeltaF508 homozygous genotype (RR, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.30, 3.80), and S. aureus isolations (RR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.11, 1.52) to be independently associated with acquisition of P. aeruginosa. Other marginally independent associations were found with days hospitalized and increased height. We conclude that female gender, homozygous DeltaF508 mutation, and S. aureus isolations are important risk factors for early P. aeruginosa detection in children with CF identified through newborn screening. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2003; 35:257-262. (C) 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available