4.2 Article

Asthma Therapy During the First 8 Years of Life: A PIAMA Cohort Study

期刊

JOURNAL OF ASTHMA
卷 47, 期 2, 页码 209-213

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/02770900903483790

关键词

asthma; children; data collection; longitudinal; medication use

资金

  1. Dutch Asthma Fonds
  2. ZON-MW Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development
  3. Stichting Astmabestrijding
  4. Ministry of the Environment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. Many studies evaluated asthma medication use in children in a cross-sectional manner, yet little is known about longitudinal use patterns. This study describes the formation of a longitudinal data set on asthma medication use and shows first results regarding the prevalence and incidence of medication use. Methods. The PIAMA (Prevention and Incidence of Asthma and Mite Allergy) study is a prospective birth cohort study among 3963 Dutch children. Recruitment took place in 1996-1997. The data of the PIAMA birth cohort study were complemented with pharmacy data. Prescription information of family members was used to determine whether medication histories were complete from birth until age 8. The prevalence and incidence of asthma medication use was studied in children for whom complete medication histories were available. Results. A first prescription for asthma medication was filled before age 8 by 280 (36%) children, with 88% starting therapy before age 5. Of all children who started therapy, 91.1% received short-acting beta(2)-agonists and 61.1% inhaled corticosteroids. Conclusion. The applied method of data collection rendered a data set including 777 children with complete medication histories for their first 8 years of life. This data set provides the opportunity to study longitudinal medication use patterns. First analyses show that asthma medication is initiated in a rather high percentage of children in this cohort and mainly at an age at which an asthma diagnosis cannot yet be firmly established.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据