4.5 Article

Skin Barrier Function and Infant Tidal Flow-Volume Loops-A Population-Based Observational Study

期刊

CHILDREN-BASEL
卷 10, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/children10010088

关键词

eczema; filaggrin; infant; PreventADALL; respiratory function tests; transepidermal water loss

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to investigate the association between high transepidermal water loss (TEWL), eczema, Filaggrin (FLG) mutations and lung function in three-month-old infants. The results showed that high TEWL was associated with lower lung function, while eczema or FLG mutations were not.
Background: The relationship between the skin barrier- and lung function in infancy is largely unexplored. We aimed to explore if reduced skin barrier function by high transepidermal water loss (TEWL), or manifestations of eczema or Filaggrin (FLG) mutations, were associated with lower lung function in three-month-old infants. Methods: From the population-based PreventADALL cohort, 899 infants with lung function measurements and information on either TEWL, eczema at three months of age and/or FLG mutations were included. Lower lung function by tidal flow-volume loops was defined as a ratio of time to peak tidal expiratory flow to expiratory time (t(PTEF)/t(E)) t(PTEF) <0.17 s (<25th percentile). A high TEWL >8.83 g/m(2)/h (>75th percentile) denoted reduced skin barrier function, and DNA was genotyped for FLG mutations (R501X, 2282del4 and R2447X). Results: Neither a high TEWL, nor eczema or FLG mutations, were associated with a lower t(PTEF)/t(E). While a high TEWL was associated with a lower t(PTEF); adjusted OR (95% CI) 1.61 (1.08, 2.42), the presence of eczema or FLG mutations were not. Conclusions: Overall, a high TEWL, eczema or FLG mutations were not associated with lower lung function in healthy three-month-old infants. However, an inverse association between high TEWL and t(PTEF) was observed, indicating a possible link between the skin barrier- and lung function in early infancy.

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