¿Qué evidencia existe para el tratamiento de sibilancias inducidas por infecciones virales en pacientes pediátricos con montelukast?
Conclusion personal: parece que nos encontramos ante otro medicamento no mejor que un placebo.
| Salbutamal metered dose inhaler. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
In prospective experimental studies in patients with asthma, it is difficult to determine whether responses to placebo differ from the natural course of physiological changes that occur without any intervention.
Placebo effects (i.e., benefits resulting from simulated treatment or the experience of receiving care) are reported to improve signs and symptoms of many diseases in clinical trials and in clinical practice. On this basis, the accepted standards for clinical-trial design specify that the effects of active treatment should ideally be compared with the effects of placebo. Despite this common practice, it is unclear whether placebo effects observed in clinical trials (or those that presumably occur in clinical care) influence both objective and subjective outcomes and whether placebo effects differ from the natural course of disease or regression to the mean.
Our research has important implications both for the treatment of asthma and for clinical-trial design in general. Many patients with asthma have symptoms that remain uncontrolled, and the discrepancy between objective pulmonary function and patients’ self-reports noted in this study suggests that subjective improvement in asthma should be interpreted with caution and that objective outcomes should be more heavily relied on for optimal asthma care. Indeed, although improvement in objective measures of lung function would be expected to correlate with subjective measures, our study suggests that in clinical trials, reliance solely on subjective outcomes may be inherently unreliable, since they may be significantly influenced by placebo effects. However, even though objective physiological measures (e.g., FEV1) are important, other outcomes such as emergency room visits and quality-of-life metrics may be more clinically relevant to patients and physicians. Although placebos remain an essential component of clinical trials to validate objective findings, assessment of the course of the disease without treatment, if medically appropriate, is essential in the evaluation of patient-reported outcomes. (Emphasis mine, PalMD)
■ Pide retirar tratamientos con agonistas LABA en menores de 18 años y de Serevent y Foradil en pacientes de todas las edades
■ La semana próxima consultarán a un panel de expertos
Reuters
Washington, 5 de diciembre. Los reguladores sanitarios de Estados Unidos siguen preocupados por los graves riesgos causados por una clase de fármacos contra el asma, por lo que decidieron pedir asesoría a un grupo de especialistas externos, indicaron documentos publicados el viernes.
Los funcionarios del área de salud consultarán la semana próxima a un panel de asesores sobre si deberían revocar su aprobación para el tratamiento de la enfermedad, agregaron.
El personal de la oficina de seguridad de medicamentos de la Administración de Alimentos y Fármacos de Estados Unidos (FDA, por su siglas en inglés) recomendó de forma unánime retirar la autorización de tratamiento a menores de 18 años a todos los agonistas beta de larga duración (LABA, por sus siglas en inglés).
Las medidas se dan en medio de un aumento del riesgo de muertes y ataques relacionados con asma entre los consumidores de esos fármacos.
Entre los LABA se encuentran Advair y Serevent de GlaxoSmithKline Plc, Symbicort de Astra Zeneca Plc y Foradil de Novartis AG, que en Estados Unidos comercializa Schering-Plough Corp.
Riesgos contra beneficios
El personal de seguridad de medicamentos de la FDA, que controla los riesgos de los fármacos después de su aprobación, también instó a la remoción de la autorización de Serevent y Foradil para el tratamiento del asma en las personas de todas las edades.
Serevent y Foradil sólo contienen LABA, mientras Advair y Symbicort combinan LABA con esteroides inhalables.
Sumar el esteroide protegería contra las complicaciones graves, argumentó Glaxo.
Un “meta análisis” de varios estudios reveló que el riesgo “no se veía” en el caso de Advair o cuando el LABA se usaba con un esteroide, señalaron los documentos de la agencia federal estadunidense.
Un memorándum que resume los temas a tratar en el encuentro del panel asesor señaló que la FDA preguntará a los especialistas externos si las medicinas aún deberían tener aprobación para el tratamiento de asma. El panel se reunirá el miércoles y jueves próximos.
El doctor Badrul Chowdhury, director de la división de la FDA que revisa los fármacos pulmonares y antialérgicos, dijo que existe un “riesgo de seguridad grave e importante”, pero añadió que las muertes vinculadas con el asma eran “numéricamente escasas” y los beneficios no eran triviales.
“La remoción del mercado de los LABA inhalables como tratamiento para el asma es una forma de controlar el riesgo que implican estos medicamentos, pero se trataría de un enfoque extremo que podría resultar problemático”, escribió Chowdhury.
Los fármacos también están aprobados para el tratamiento de la enfermedad pulmonar obstructiva crónica (EPOC) y se mantendrían disponibles para los pacientes con esa dolencia.
Los fabricantes de las medicinas, en documentos separados preparados para el encuentro, indicaron que los beneficios superan a los riesgos cuando se utilizan como es indicado.
■ Pide retirar tratamientos con agonistas LABA en menores de 18 años y de Serevent y Foradil en pacientes de todas las edades
■ La semana próxima consultarán a un panel de expertos
Reuters
Washington, 5 de diciembre. Los reguladores sanitarios de Estados Unidos siguen preocupados por los graves riesgos causados por una clase de fármacos contra el asma, por lo que decidieron pedir asesoría a un grupo de especialistas externos, indicaron documentos publicados el viernes.
Los funcionarios del área de salud consultarán la semana próxima a un panel de asesores sobre si deberían revocar su aprobación para el tratamiento de la enfermedad, agregaron.
El personal de la oficina de seguridad de medicamentos de la Administración de Alimentos y Fármacos de Estados Unidos (FDA, por su siglas en inglés) recomendó de forma unánime retirar la autorización de tratamiento a menores de 18 años a todos los agonistas beta de larga duración (LABA, por sus siglas en inglés).
Las medidas se dan en medio de un aumento del riesgo de muertes y ataques relacionados con asma entre los consumidores de esos fármacos.
Entre los LABA se encuentran Advair y Serevent de GlaxoSmithKline Plc, Symbicort de Astra Zeneca Plc y Foradil de Novartis AG, que en Estados Unidos comercializa Schering-Plough Corp.
Riesgos contra beneficios
El personal de seguridad de medicamentos de la FDA, que controla los riesgos de los fármacos después de su aprobación, también instó a la remoción de la autorización de Serevent y Foradil para el tratamiento del asma en las personas de todas las edades.
Serevent y Foradil sólo contienen LABA, mientras Advair y Symbicort combinan LABA con esteroides inhalables.
Sumar el esteroide protegería contra las complicaciones graves, argumentó Glaxo.
Un “meta análisis” de varios estudios reveló que el riesgo “no se veía” en el caso de Advair o cuando el LABA se usaba con un esteroide, señalaron los documentos de la agencia federal estadunidense.
Un memorándum que resume los temas a tratar en el encuentro del panel asesor señaló que la FDA preguntará a los especialistas externos si las medicinas aún deberían tener aprobación para el tratamiento de asma. El panel se reunirá el miércoles y jueves próximos.
El doctor Badrul Chowdhury, director de la división de la FDA que revisa los fármacos pulmonares y antialérgicos, dijo que existe un “riesgo de seguridad grave e importante”, pero añadió que las muertes vinculadas con el asma eran “numéricamente escasas” y los beneficios no eran triviales.
“La remoción del mercado de los LABA inhalables como tratamiento para el asma es una forma de controlar el riesgo que implican estos medicamentos, pero se trataría de un enfoque extremo que podría resultar problemático”, escribió Chowdhury.
Los fármacos también están aprobados para el tratamiento de la enfermedad pulmonar obstructiva crónica (EPOC) y se mantendrían disponibles para los pacientes con esa dolencia.
Los fabricantes de las medicinas, en documentos separados preparados para el encuentro, indicaron que los beneficios superan a los riesgos cuando se utilizan como es indicado.
■ Pide retirar tratamientos con agonistas LABA en menores de 18 años y de Serevent y Foradil en pacientes de todas las edades
■ La semana próxima consultarán a un panel de expertos
Reuters
Washington, 5 de diciembre. Los reguladores sanitarios de Estados Unidos siguen preocupados por los graves riesgos causados por una clase de fármacos contra el asma, por lo que decidieron pedir asesoría a un grupo de especialistas externos, indicaron documentos publicados el viernes.
Los funcionarios del área de salud consultarán la semana próxima a un panel de asesores sobre si deberían revocar su aprobación para el tratamiento de la enfermedad, agregaron.
El personal de la oficina de seguridad de medicamentos de la Administración de Alimentos y Fármacos de Estados Unidos (FDA, por su siglas en inglés) recomendó de forma unánime retirar la autorización de tratamiento a menores de 18 años a todos los agonistas beta de larga duración (LABA, por sus siglas en inglés).
Las medidas se dan en medio de un aumento del riesgo de muertes y ataques relacionados con asma entre los consumidores de esos fármacos.
Entre los LABA se encuentran Advair y Serevent de GlaxoSmithKline Plc, Symbicort de Astra Zeneca Plc y Foradil de Novartis AG, que en Estados Unidos comercializa Schering-Plough Corp.
Riesgos contra beneficios
El personal de seguridad de medicamentos de la FDA, que controla los riesgos de los fármacos después de su aprobación, también instó a la remoción de la autorización de Serevent y Foradil para el tratamiento del asma en las personas de todas las edades.
Serevent y Foradil sólo contienen LABA, mientras Advair y Symbicort combinan LABA con esteroides inhalables.
Sumar el esteroide protegería contra las complicaciones graves, argumentó Glaxo.
Un “meta análisis” de varios estudios reveló que el riesgo “no se veía” en el caso de Advair o cuando el LABA se usaba con un esteroide, señalaron los documentos de la agencia federal estadunidense.
Un memorándum que resume los temas a tratar en el encuentro del panel asesor señaló que la FDA preguntará a los especialistas externos si las medicinas aún deberían tener aprobación para el tratamiento de asma. El panel se reunirá el miércoles y jueves próximos.
El doctor Badrul Chowdhury, director de la división de la FDA que revisa los fármacos pulmonares y antialérgicos, dijo que existe un “riesgo de seguridad grave e importante”, pero añadió que las muertes vinculadas con el asma eran “numéricamente escasas” y los beneficios no eran triviales.
“La remoción del mercado de los LABA inhalables como tratamiento para el asma es una forma de controlar el riesgo que implican estos medicamentos, pero se trataría de un enfoque extremo que podría resultar problemático”, escribió Chowdhury.
Los fármacos también están aprobados para el tratamiento de la enfermedad pulmonar obstructiva crónica (EPOC) y se mantendrían disponibles para los pacientes con esa dolencia.
Los fabricantes de las medicinas, en documentos separados preparados para el encuentro, indicaron que los beneficios superan a los riesgos cuando se utilizan como es indicado.
WASHINGTON — Two federal drug officials have concluded that asthma sufferers risk death if they continue to use four hugely popular asthma drugs — Advair, Symbicort, Serevent and Foradil. But the officials’ views are not universally shared within the government.
The two officials, who work in the safety division of the Food and Drug Administration, wrote in an assessment on the agency’s Web site on Friday that asthma sufferers of all ages should no longer take the medicines. A third drug-safety official concluded that Advair and Symbicort could be used by adults but that all four drugs should no longer be used by people age 17 and under.
Dr. Badrul A. Chowdhury, director of the division of pulmonary and allergy products at the agency, cautioned in his own assessment that the risk of death associated with the drugs was small and that banning their use “would be an extreme approach” that could lead asthmatics to rely on other risky medications.
Once unheard of, public disagreements among agency experts have occurred on occasion in recent years. The agency is convening a committee of experts on Wednesday and Thursday to sort out the disagreement, which has divided not only the F.D.A. but also clinicians and experts for more than a decade.
Sudden deaths among asthmatics still clutching their inhalers have fed the debate. But trying to determine whether the deaths were caused by patients’ breathing problems or the inhalers has proved difficult.
The stakes for drug makers are high. Advair sales last year were $6.9 billion and may approach $8 billion this year, making the medication GlaxoSmithKline’s biggest seller and one of the biggest-selling drugs in the world. Glaxo also sells Serevent, which had $538 million in sales last year. Symbicort is made by AstraZeneca and Foradil by Novartis.
Whatever the committee’s decision, the drugs will almost certainly remain on the market because even the agency’s drug-safety officials concluded that they were useful in patients suffering from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, nearly all of whom are elderly.
Dr. Katharine Knobil, global clinical vice president for Glaxo, dismissed the conclusions of the agency’s drug-safety division as “not supported by their own data.” Dr. Knobil said that Advair was safe and that Serevent was safe when used with a steroid.
Michele Meeker, a spokeswoman for AstraZeneca, said that the F.D.A.’s safety division improperly excluded most studies of Symbicort in its analysis, and that a review of all of the information shows that the drug does not increase the risks of death or hospitalization.
Dr. Daniel Frattarelli, a Detroit pediatrician and member of the American Academy of Pediatrics’s committee on drugs, said that he was treating children with Advair and that his committee had recently discussed the safety of the medicines.
“Most of us felt these were pretty good drugs,” Dr. Frattarelli said. “I’m really looking forward to hearing what the F.D.A. committee decides.”
About 9 percent of Advair’s prescriptions go to those age 17 and under, according to Glaxo. Ms. Meeker could not provide similar figures for Symbicort.
In 1994, Serevent was approved for sale, and the F.D.A. began receiving reports of deaths. A letter to the New England Journal of Medicine described two elderly patients who died holding Serevent inhalers. Glaxo warned patients that the medicine, unlike albuterol, does not work instantly and should not be used during an attack.
In 1996, Glaxo began a study of Serevent’s safety, but the company refused for years to report the results publicly. In 2001, the company introduced Advair, whose sales quickly cannibalized those of Serevent and then far surpassed them.
Finally in 2003, Glaxo reported the results of its Serevent study, which showed that those given the medicine were more likely to die than those given placebo inhalers. Glaxo said problems with the trial made its results impossible to interpret.
Asthma is caused when airways within the lungs spasm and swell, restricting the supply of oxygen. The two primary treatments are steroids, which reduce swelling, and beta agonists, which treat spasms. Rescue inhalers usually contain albuterol, which is a beta agonist with limited duration. Serevent and Foradil are both beta agonists but have a longer duration than albuterol and were intended to be taken daily to prevent attacks.
Advair contains Serevent and a steroid. Symbicort, introduced last year, contains Foradil and a steroid. In the first nine months of this year, Symbicort had $209 million in sales.
The problem with albuterol is that it seems to make patients’ lungs more vulnerable to severe attacks, which is why asthmatics are advised to use their rescue inhalers only when needed. The long-acting beta agonists may have the same risks.
But drug makers say this risk disappears when long-acting beta agonists are paired with steroids. The labels that accompany Serevent and Foradil instruct doctors to pair the medicines with an inhaled steroid.
Department of Medicine, One Medical Center Blvd, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC 27157, USA. sosingh@wfubmc.edu
CONTEXT: Inhaled anticholinergics (ipratropium bromide or tiotropium bromide) are widely used in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) but their effect on the risk of cardiovascular outcomes is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To ascertain the cardiovascular risks of inhaled anticholinergics, including cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke. DATA SOURCES: Systematic searches were conducted on March 19, 2008, of relevant articles in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of systematic reviews, regulatory authority Web sites in the United States and the United Kingdom, and manufacturers' trial registries with no date restrictions. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials of any inhaled anticholinergic for treatment of COPD that had at least 30 days of treatment and reported on cardiovascular events. DATA EXTRACTION: The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke. The secondary outcome was all-cause mortality. Relative risks (RRs) were estimated using fixed-effects models and statistical heterogeneity was estimated with the I(2) statistic. DATA SYNTHESIS: After a detailed screening of 103 articles, 17 trials enrolling 14 783 patients were analyzed. Follow-up duration ranged from 6 weeks to 5 years. Cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke occurred in 135 of 7472 patients (1.8%) receiving inhaled anticholinergics and 86 of 7311 patients (1.2%) receiving control therapy (RR, 1.58 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.21-2.06]; P < .001, I(2) = 0%). Among individual components of the primary end point, inhaled anticholinergics significantly increased the risk of MI (RR, 1.53 [95% CI 1.05-2.23]; P = .03, I(2) = 0%) and cardiovascular death (RR, 1.80 [95% CI, 1.17-2.77]; P = .008, I(2) = 0%) without a statistically significant increase in the risk of stroke (RR, 1.46 [95% CI, 0.81-2.62]; P = .20, I(2) = 0%). All-cause mortality was reported in 149 of the patients treated with inhaled anticholinergics (2.0%) and 115 of the control patients (1.6%) (RR, 1.26 [95% CI, 0.99-1.61]; P = .06, I(2) = 2%). A sensitivity analysis restricted to 5 long-term trials (>6 months) confirmed the significantly increased risk of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke (2.9% of patients treated with anticholinergics vs 1.8% of the control patients; RR, 1.73 [95% CI, 1.27-2.36]; P < .001, I(2) = 0%). CONCLUSION: Inhaled anticholinergics are associated with a significantly increased risk of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke among patients with COPD.
Department of Medicine, One Medical Center Blvd, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC 27157, USA. sosingh@wfubmc.edu
CONTEXT: Inhaled anticholinergics (ipratropium bromide or tiotropium bromide) are widely used in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) but their effect on the risk of cardiovascular outcomes is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To ascertain the cardiovascular risks of inhaled anticholinergics, including cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke. DATA SOURCES: Systematic searches were conducted on March 19, 2008, of relevant articles in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of systematic reviews, regulatory authority Web sites in the United States and the United Kingdom, and manufacturers' trial registries with no date restrictions. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials of any inhaled anticholinergic for treatment of COPD that had at least 30 days of treatment and reported on cardiovascular events. DATA EXTRACTION: The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke. The secondary outcome was all-cause mortality. Relative risks (RRs) were estimated using fixed-effects models and statistical heterogeneity was estimated with the I(2) statistic. DATA SYNTHESIS: After a detailed screening of 103 articles, 17 trials enrolling 14 783 patients were analyzed. Follow-up duration ranged from 6 weeks to 5 years. Cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke occurred in 135 of 7472 patients (1.8%) receiving inhaled anticholinergics and 86 of 7311 patients (1.2%) receiving control therapy (RR, 1.58 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.21-2.06]; P < .001, I(2) = 0%). Among individual components of the primary end point, inhaled anticholinergics significantly increased the risk of MI (RR, 1.53 [95% CI 1.05-2.23]; P = .03, I(2) = 0%) and cardiovascular death (RR, 1.80 [95% CI, 1.17-2.77]; P = .008, I(2) = 0%) without a statistically significant increase in the risk of stroke (RR, 1.46 [95% CI, 0.81-2.62]; P = .20, I(2) = 0%). All-cause mortality was reported in 149 of the patients treated with inhaled anticholinergics (2.0%) and 115 of the control patients (1.6%) (RR, 1.26 [95% CI, 0.99-1.61]; P = .06, I(2) = 2%). A sensitivity analysis restricted to 5 long-term trials (>6 months) confirmed the significantly increased risk of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke (2.9% of patients treated with anticholinergics vs 1.8% of the control patients; RR, 1.73 [95% CI, 1.27-2.36]; P < .001, I(2) = 0%). CONCLUSION: Inhaled anticholinergics are associated with a significantly increased risk of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke among patients with COPD.
Department of Medicine, One Medical Center Blvd, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC 27157, USA. sosingh@wfubmc.edu
CONTEXT: Inhaled anticholinergics (ipratropium bromide or tiotropium bromide) are widely used in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) but their effect on the risk of cardiovascular outcomes is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To ascertain the cardiovascular risks of inhaled anticholinergics, including cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke. DATA SOURCES: Systematic searches were conducted on March 19, 2008, of relevant articles in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of systematic reviews, regulatory authority Web sites in the United States and the United Kingdom, and manufacturers' trial registries with no date restrictions. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials of any inhaled anticholinergic for treatment of COPD that had at least 30 days of treatment and reported on cardiovascular events. DATA EXTRACTION: The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke. The secondary outcome was all-cause mortality. Relative risks (RRs) were estimated using fixed-effects models and statistical heterogeneity was estimated with the I(2) statistic. DATA SYNTHESIS: After a detailed screening of 103 articles, 17 trials enrolling 14 783 patients were analyzed. Follow-up duration ranged from 6 weeks to 5 years. Cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke occurred in 135 of 7472 patients (1.8%) receiving inhaled anticholinergics and 86 of 7311 patients (1.2%) receiving control therapy (RR, 1.58 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.21-2.06]; P < .001, I(2) = 0%). Among individual components of the primary end point, inhaled anticholinergics significantly increased the risk of MI (RR, 1.53 [95% CI 1.05-2.23]; P = .03, I(2) = 0%) and cardiovascular death (RR, 1.80 [95% CI, 1.17-2.77]; P = .008, I(2) = 0%) without a statistically significant increase in the risk of stroke (RR, 1.46 [95% CI, 0.81-2.62]; P = .20, I(2) = 0%). All-cause mortality was reported in 149 of the patients treated with inhaled anticholinergics (2.0%) and 115 of the control patients (1.6%) (RR, 1.26 [95% CI, 0.99-1.61]; P = .06, I(2) = 2%). A sensitivity analysis restricted to 5 long-term trials (>6 months) confirmed the significantly increased risk of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke (2.9% of patients treated with anticholinergics vs 1.8% of the control patients; RR, 1.73 [95% CI, 1.27-2.36]; P < .001, I(2) = 0%). CONCLUSION: Inhaled anticholinergics are associated with a significantly increased risk of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke among patients with COPD.
Prof Richard Beasley DSc
a
, Tadd Clayton MSc b, Prof Julian CraneMBBS c, Prof Erika von Mutius MD d, Prof Christopher KW Lai DM e, ProfStephen Montefort PhD f and Alistair Stewart BSc g, for the ISAAC Phase Three Study Group
‡Members listed at end of paper
Exposure to paracetamol during intrauterine life, childhood, and adult life may increase the risk of developing asthma. We studied 6–7-year-old children from Phase Three of the International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood (ISAAC) programme to investigate the association between paracetamol consumption and asthma.
As part of Phase Three of ISAAC, parents or guardians of children aged 6–7 years completed written questionnaires about symptoms of asthma, rhinoconjunctivitis, and eczema, and several risk factors, including the use of paracetamol for fever in the child's first year of life and the frequency of paracetamol use in the past 12 months. The primary outcome variable was the odds ratio (OR) of asthma symptoms in these children associated with the use of paracetamol for fever in the first year of life, as calculated by logistic regression.
205 487 children aged 6–7 years from 73 centres in 31 countries were included in the analysis. In the multivariate analyses, use of paracetamol for fever in the first year of life was associated with an increased risk of asthma symptoms when aged 6–7 years (OR 1·46 [95% CI 1·36–1·56]). Current use of paracetamol was associated with a dose-dependent increased risk of asthma symptoms (1·61 [1·46–1·77] and 3·23 [2·91–3·60] for medium and high use vs no use, respectively). Use of paracetamol was similarly associated with the risk of severe asthma symptoms, with population-attributable risks between 22% and 38%. Paracetamol use, both in the first year of life and in children aged 6–7 years, was also associated with an increased risk of symptoms of rhinoconjunctivitis and eczema.
Use of paracetamol in the first year of life and in later childhood, is associated with risk of asthma, rhinoconjunctivitis, and eczema at age 6 to 7 years. We suggest that exposure to paracetamol might be a risk factor for the development of asthma in childhood.
The BUPA Foundation, the Health Research Council of New Zealand, the Asthma and Respiratory Foundation of New Zealand, the Hawke's Bay Medical Research Foundation, the Waikato Medical Research Foundation, Glaxo Wellcome New Zealand, the New Zealand Lottery Board, Astra Zeneca New Zealand, and Glaxo Wellcome International Medical Affairs.
Correspondence to: Prof Richard Beasley, Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, PO Box 10055, Wellington 6143, New Zealand
Prof Richard Beasley DSc
a
, Tadd Clayton MSc b, Prof Julian CraneMBBS c, Prof Erika von Mutius MD d, Prof Christopher KW Lai DM e, ProfStephen Montefort PhD f and Alistair Stewart BSc g, for the ISAAC Phase Three Study Group
‡Members listed at end of paper
Exposure to paracetamol during intrauterine life, childhood, and adult life may increase the risk of developing asthma. We studied 6–7-year-old children from Phase Three of the International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood (ISAAC) programme to investigate the association between paracetamol consumption and asthma.
As part of Phase Three of ISAAC, parents or guardians of children aged 6–7 years completed written questionnaires about symptoms of asthma, rhinoconjunctivitis, and eczema, and several risk factors, including the use of paracetamol for fever in the child's first year of life and the frequency of paracetamol use in the past 12 months. The primary outcome variable was the odds ratio (OR) of asthma symptoms in these children associated with the use of paracetamol for fever in the first year of life, as calculated by logistic regression.
205 487 children aged 6–7 years from 73 centres in 31 countries were included in the analysis. In the multivariate analyses, use of paracetamol for fever in the first year of life was associated with an increased risk of asthma symptoms when aged 6–7 years (OR 1·46 [95% CI 1·36–1·56]). Current use of paracetamol was associated with a dose-dependent increased risk of asthma symptoms (1·61 [1·46–1·77] and 3·23 [2·91–3·60] for medium and high use vs no use, respectively). Use of paracetamol was similarly associated with the risk of severe asthma symptoms, with population-attributable risks between 22% and 38%. Paracetamol use, both in the first year of life and in children aged 6–7 years, was also associated with an increased risk of symptoms of rhinoconjunctivitis and eczema.
Use of paracetamol in the first year of life and in later childhood, is associated with risk of asthma, rhinoconjunctivitis, and eczema at age 6 to 7 years. We suggest that exposure to paracetamol might be a risk factor for the development of asthma in childhood.
The BUPA Foundation, the Health Research Council of New Zealand, the Asthma and Respiratory Foundation of New Zealand, the Hawke's Bay Medical Research Foundation, the Waikato Medical Research Foundation, Glaxo Wellcome New Zealand, the New Zealand Lottery Board, Astra Zeneca New Zealand, and Glaxo Wellcome International Medical Affairs.
Correspondence to: Prof Richard Beasley, Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, PO Box 10055, Wellington 6143, New Zealand