Management of asthma in childhood: study protocol of a systematic evidence update by the Paediatric Asthma in Real Life (PeARL) Think Tank.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical recommendations for childhood asthma are often based on data extrapolated from studies conducted in adults, despite significant differences in mechanisms and response to treatments. The Paediatric Asthma in Real Life (PeARL) Think Tank aspires to develop recommendations based on the best available evidence from studies in children. An overview of systematic reviews (SRs) on paediatric asthma maintenance management and an SR of treatments for acute asthma attacks in children, requiring an emergency presentation with/without hospital admission will be conducted. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Standard methodology recommended by Cochrane will be followed. Maintenance pharmacotherapy of childhood asthma will be evaluated in an overview of SRs published after 2005 and including clinical trials or real-life studies. For evaluating pharmacotherapy of acute asthma attacks leading to an emergency presentation with/without hospital admission, we opted to conduct de novo synthesis in the absence of adequate up-to-date published SRs. For the SR of acute asthma pharmacotherapy, we will consider eligible SRs, clinical trials or real-life studies without time restrictions. Our evidence updates will be based on broad searches of Pubmed/Medline and the Cochrane Library. We will use A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews, V.2, Cochrane risk of bias 2 and REal Life EVidence AssessmeNt Tool to evaluate the methodological quality of SRs, controlled clinical trials and real-life studies, respectively.Next, we will further assess interventions for acute severe asthma attacks with positive clinical results in meta-analyses. We will include both controlled clinical trials and observational studies and will assess their quality using the previously mentioned tools. We will employ random effect models for conducting meta-analyses, and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology to assess certainty in the body of evidence. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required for SRs. Our findings will be published in peer reviewed journals and will inform clinical recommendations being developed by the PeARL Think Tank. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBERS: CRD42020132990, CRD42020171624.

Impact of COVID-19 on Pediatric Asthma: Practice Adjustments and Disease Burden.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether asthma may affect susceptibility or severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in children and how pediatric asthma services worldwide have responded to the pandemic. OBJECTIVE: To describe the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on pediatric asthma services and on disease burden in their patients. METHODS: An online survey was sent to members of the Pediatric Asthma in Real Life think tank and the World Allergy Organization Pediatric Asthma Committee. It included questions on service provision, disease burden, and the clinical course of confirmed cases of COVID-19 infection among children with asthma. RESULTS: Ninety-one respondents, caring for an estimated population of more than 133,000 children with asthma, completed the survey. COVID-19 significantly impacted pediatric asthma services: 39% ceased physical appointments, 47% stopped accepting new patients, and 75% limited patients' visits. Consultations were almost halved to a median of 20 (interquartile range, 10-25) patients per week. Virtual clinics and helplines were launched in most centers. Better than expected disease control was reported in 20% (10%-40%) of patients, whereas control was negatively affected in only 10% (7.5%-12.5%). Adherence also appeared to increase. Only 15 confirmed cases of COVID-19 were reported among the population; the estimated incidence is not apparently different from the reports of general pediatric cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Children with asthma do not appear to be disproportionately affected by COVID-19. Outcomes may even have improved, possibly through increased adherence and/or reduced exposures. Clinical services have rapidly responded to the pandemic by limiting and replacing physical appointments with virtual encounters.

Research Priorities in Pediatric Asthma: Results of a Global Survey of Multiple Stakeholder Groups by the Pediatric Asthma in Real Life (PeARL) Think Tank.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric asthma remains a public health challenge with enormous impact worldwide. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify and prioritize unmet clinical needs in pediatric asthma, which could be used to guide future research and policy activities. METHODS: We first identified unmet needs through an open-question survey administered to international experts in pediatric asthma who were members of the Pediatric Asthma in Real Life Think Tank. Prioritization of topics was then achieved through a second, extensive survey with global reach, of multiple stakeholders (leading experts, researchers, clinicians, patients, policy makers, and the pharmaceutical industry). Differences across responder groups were compared. RESULTS: A total of 57 unmet clinical need topics identified by international experts were prioritized by 412 participants from 5 continents and 60 countries. Prevention of disease progression and prediction of future risk, including persistence into adulthood, emerged as the most urgent research questions. Stratified care, based on biomarkers, clinical phenotypes, the children's age, and demographics were also highly rated. The identification of minimum diagnostic criteria in different age groups, cultural perceptions of asthma, and best treatment by age group were priorities for responders from low-middle-income countries. There was good agreement across different stakeholder groups in all domains with some notable exceptions that highlight the importance of involving the whole range of stakeholders in formulation of recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Different stakeholders agree in the majority of research and strategic (eg, prevention, personalized approach) priorities for pediatric asthma. Stakeholder diversity is crucial for highlighting divergent issues that future guidelines should consider.

Allergy alerts in electronic health records for hospitalized patients.

BACKGROUND: Electronic health records (EHRs) are used to register important health-related information, such as allergic conditions, and contribute to the safety and quality of medical care. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the use of allergy alert entries in EHRs and to establish the allergy profile of hospitalized patients. METHODS: Allergy data recorded in EHRs were analyzed in a cross-sectional, observational, descriptive study of patients admitted to the hospital from January 1 through June 30, 2011. RESULTS: A total of 15,534 patients were admitted to the hospital during the study period. The rate of inclusion of allergy information in the EHRs was 64.4%. In 2,106 patients an alert was activated to declare an allergy, intolerance, or any other type of adverse reaction. Drugs were the most common responsible agent (74.4%), followed by foods (12.6%) and materials (4.8%). Entries for drug allergy or intolerance were more common in females (64.8%) than males, with a significant statistical difference (P < .01), and increased proportionally with age. Entries for food allergy or intolerance were also more common in females (58.0%) than males (P < .01), but this trend was reversed in the 0- to 15-year-old age group. By contrast, the entries for food allergy or intolerance decreased proportionally with age. In 7,907 cases the EHRs revealed that patients were free of allergies, intolerances, or any other type of adverse reactions. CONCLUSION: Drug allergy was the most frequently reported allergic condition, followed by foods and materials. Allergy alerts vary depending on age and sex. The proper use of a system for allergy alerts included in EHRs provides valuable information about hospitalized patients, contributing to the improvement of clinical practice.

Allergy Diagnosis in Children and Adults: Performance of a New Point-of-Care Device, ImmunoCAP Rapid.

BACKGROUND: : Allergy is a serious problem affecting approximately 1 of 4 individuals. The symptoms with and without allergy etiology are often difficult to distinguish from each other without using an IgE antibody test. The aim of this study was to investigate the performance of a new point-of-care (POC) test for IgE antibodies to relevant allergens in Europe. METHODS: : IgE antibodies from children and adults with allergies recruited from allergy clinics in Sweden and Spain were analyzed for 10 allergens, suitable for the age groups, using the new POC test and ImmunoCAP laboratory test. The IgE antibody level best discriminating between positive and negative results (the cutoff point) for the different allergens of the POC test and the efficacy of the POC and the ImmunoCAP laboratory tests for diagnosing allergy compared with that of clinical diagnosis were investigated. RESULTS: : The estimated cutoffs for the different allergens in the POC test ranged from 0.70 to 2.56 kUA/L. Taking into account all positive allergen results in a given patient, the POC test could identify 95% of the patients with allergies. Seventy-eight percent of the allergen-specific physicians' diagnoses were identified and 97% of the negative ones. Most allergens exhibited good performance, identifying about 80% of clinically relevant cases. However, dog, mugwort, and wall pellitory would benefit from improvement. CONCLUSIONS: : The POC test will be a valuable adjunct in the identification or exclusion of patients with allergies and their most likely offending allergens, both in specialist and general care settings.