4.5 Article

International study of wheezing in infants: risk factors in affluent and non-affluent countries during the first year of life

期刊

PEDIATRIC ALLERGY AND IMMUNOLOGY
卷 21, 期 5, 页码 878-888

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-3038.2010.01035.x

关键词

wheezing; asthma; infants; epidemiology; estudio internacional de sibilancias en lactantes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Risk factors for wheezing during the first year of life (a major cause of respiratory morbidity worldwide) are poorly known in non-affluent countries. We studied and compared risk factors in infants living in affluent and non-affluent areas of the world. A population-based study was carried out in random samples of infants from centres in Latin America (LA) and Europe (EU). Parents answered validated questionnaires referring to the first year of their infant's life during routine health visits. Wheezing was stratified into occasional (1-2 episodes, OW) and recurrent (3 + episodes, RW). Among the 28687 infants included, the most important independent risk factors for OW and RW (both in LA and in EU) were having a cold during the first 3 months of life [OR for RW 3.12 (2.60-3.78) and 3.15 (2.51-3.97); population attributable fraction (PAF) 25.0% and 23.7%]; and attending nursery school [OR for RW 2.50 (2.04-3.08) and 3.09 (2.04-4.67); PAF 7.4% and 20.3%]. Other risk factors were as follows: male gender, smoking during pregnancy, family history of asthma/rhinitis, and infant eczema. Breast feeding for > 3 months protected from RW [OR 0.8 (0.71-0.89) in LA and 0.77 (0.63-0.93) in EU]. University studies of mother protected only in LA [OR for OW 0.85 (0.76-0.95) and for RW 0.80 (0.70-0.90)]. Although most risk factors for wheezing are common in LA and EU; their public health impact may be quite different. Avoiding nursery schools and smoking in pregnancy, breastfeeding babies > 3 months, and improving mother's education would have a substantial impact in lowering its prevalence worldwide.

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

4.5
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