4.6 Article

The management of childhood asthma in the community

Journal

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
Volume 20, Issue 6, Pages 1476-1482

Publisher

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOC JOURNALS LTD
DOI: 10.1183/09031936.02.00281102

Keywords

childhood asthma; International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood; management; population-based

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of the present study was to assess the management of children with asthma in the community. Community-based random samples of children aged 5-7 and 9-11 yrs in Dresden and Munich, Germany, were studied in 1995-1996 using the phase II protocol of the International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood. Detailed information on the use of antiasthma drugs and accessory treatment in the past year was collected by parental questionnaire. A total of 11,094 (response rate 83%) children participated. Among children with wheeze in the last year, 36 /4 had used bronchodilators and 19% were on regular anti-inflammatory treatment. The strongest determinant of treatment was a physician's diagnosis of asthma. Forty-seven per cent of the children with current wheeze had not been diagnosed as asthmatics and received hardly any treatment (9% bronchodilators and 2% anti-inflammatory drugs), despite an increased prevalence of severe asthma symptoms, bronchial hyperresponsiveness and atopic sensitisation compared with children without asthma symptoms. The proportion of children regularly using inhaled steroids was small (6%) among current wheezers and reached only 21% among children with diagnosed asthma and >12 wheezing attacks in the last year. Inhaled steroid use was lower in Munich than in Dresden and inversely related to the use of alternative remedies. Further efforts to improve the diagnosis and treatment of childhood asthma are needed. These should aim to increase awareness of the chronic nature of asthma and the need for treatment according to current guidelines.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available