4.5 Article

Sensitisation to airborne moulds and severity of asthma: cross sectional study from European Community respiratory health survey

期刊

BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL
卷 325, 期 7361, 页码 411-414

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.325.7361.411

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [2 S07 RR05521-28] Funding Source: Medline
  2. Wellcome Trust Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To assess whether the.. severity of asthma is associated with sensitisation to airborne moulds rather than to other seasonal or perennial allergens. Design Multicentre epidemiological survey in 30 centres. Setting European Community respiratory health survey. Participants 1132 adults. aged 20-44 years with current asthma and with skin prick test results. Main outcome measure Severity of asthma according to score based on forced expiratory volume in one second, number of asthma attacks, hospital admissions for breathing problems, and use of corticosteroids in past 12 months. Results The frequency of sensitisation to moulds (Alternaria alternata or Cladosporium herbarum, or both) increased significantly with increasing asthma severity (odds ratio 2.34 (95% confidence interval 1.56 to 3.52) for either for severe v mild asthma). This association existed in all of the study areas (gathered into regions), although there were differences in the frequency of sensitisation. There was no association between asthma severity and sensitisation to pollens or cats. Sensitisation to Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus was also positively associated with severity. In multivariable logistic regressions including sensitisation to moulds, pollens, D pteronyssinus, and cats simultaneously, the odds ratios for sensitisation to moulds were 1.48 (0.97 to 2.26) for moderate v mild asthma and 2.16 (1.37 to 3.35) for severe v mild asthma (P < 0.001 for trend)., Conclusions Sensitisation to moulds is a powerful risk factor for severe asthma in adults. This should be taken into account in primary prevention, management and patients' education.

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