3.8 Article

Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infection and Bronchiolitis

期刊

PEDIATRICS IN REVIEW
卷 35, 期 12, 页码 519-530

出版社

AMER ACAD PEDIATRICS
DOI: 10.1542/pir.35-12-519

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute of the National Institute of Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Practice Gaps 1. Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is the most common respiratory pathogen in infants and young children worldwide. Although the most effective management of this infection remains supportive care, many patients continue to be managed with therapies that lack the support of scientific evidence. 2. Although the quest for a safe and effective vaccine remains unsuccessful, themore vulnerable patients can be protected with passive prophylaxis. Because of limited clinical benefits and high costs, RSV prophylaxis should be limited to high-risk infants as directed by the most current evidence-based guidelines that, however, are not consistently followed. 3. The acute phase of this infection is often followed by episodes of wheezing that recur for months or years and usually lead to a physician diagnosis of asthma. The phenotype of post-RSV wheezing is different from atopic asthma, yet it is usually managed using the same pharmacologic therapy with often ineffective results. Objectives After reading this article, readers should be able to: 1. Understand the microbiology, epidemiology, pathophysiology, and clinical manifestations of RSV bronchiolitis in infants and children. 2. Know the scientific evidence relevant to prophylactic and therapeutic strategies currently available and recognize the lack of evidence concerning several pharmacologic agents commonly used in the management of bronchiolitis. 3. Be aware of alternative pharmacologic strategies currently being evaluated. 4. Learn the epidemiologic and experimental information suggesting the existence of a link between early-life infection with RSV and the subsequent development of recurrent wheezing and asthma in childhood and adolescence.

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

3.8
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