4.6 Article

The Burden of Childhood Asthma and Late Preterm and Early Term Births

期刊

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
卷 164, 期 2, 页码 295-+

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2013.09.057

关键词

-

资金

  1. Pohjois-Savo Hospital District EVO-funding for health science research
  2. Medical Research Council [MR/K006525/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. MRC [MR/K006525/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To evaluate the association between gestational age at birth and the risk of subsequent development of asthma. Study design We conducted a retrospective observational hospital-based birth case-control study in a university-based obstetrics and gynecology department in Finland. A total of 44 173 women delivering between 1989 and 2008 were linked with the social insurance register to identify asthma reimbursements for their offspring (n = 2661). Pregnancy factors were recorded during pregnancy. Infants were categorized as moderately preterm (<= 32 weeks), late preterm (33-36 weeks), early term (37-38 weeks), term (39-40 weeks), or late term and postterm (>= 41 weeks). The main outcome measure was asthma among the infants. Results Children born moderately preterm (<= 32 weeks gestation) had a significantly increased risk of asthma (aOR, 3.9; 95% CI, 3.2-4.8). The risk of asthma was also increased in those born late preterm (aOR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.4-2.0) and early term (aOR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.1-1.4). In contrast, delivery at 41 weeks or later seemed to decrease the risk of asthma (aOR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.8-1.0). The burden of asthma associated with preterm birth was associated mainly with early term infants, in whom 108 extra cases of asthma were observed. Conclusion Even though the individual risk of asthma was inversely correlated with gestational age at birth, the overall burden brought about by delivery before term was associated with late preterm and early term deliveries. Furthermore, delivery after term was protective against asthma.

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

4.6
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