Quality of life in caregivers of children with asthma: Validity and reliability of the IFABI-R questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: Parents'/caregivers' quality of life is an important aspect to consider when handling paediatric asthma, but there is a paucity of valid and reliable instruments to measure it. The Family Impact of Childhood Bronchial Asthma (IFABI-R) is a recently developed questionnaire to facilitate the assessment of asthma-related parents'/caregivers' quality of life. This study researches the psychometric properties of IFABI-R. METHODS: Parents/main caregivers of 462 children between 4 and 14 years of age with active asthma were included in the sample. IFABI-R was administered on two different occasions and a number of other variables related to the parents'/caregivers' quality of life were measured: child's asthma control, family functioning, and parents'/caregivers' perception of asthma symptoms in the child. IFABI-R evaluative and discriminative properties were analysed, and the minimal important change in the IFABI-R score was identified. RESULTS: IFABI-R showed high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha=0.941), cross-sectional construct validity (correlation with the degree of child's asthma control, family functioning and parent/caregiver perception of the child's asthma symptoms), longitudinal construct validity (correlation of changes in the IFABI-R with changes in asthma control and changes in the perception of symptoms), sensitivity to change and test-retest reliability. An absolute change of 0.3 units in IFABI-R related to a minimal significant change in the parents'/caregivers' quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: IFABI-R is a reliable and valid instrument to study the quality of life of parents/caregivers of children with asthma.

Asociación entre la exposición a paracetamol y el asma: estado de la cuestión y recomendaciones prácticas / Association between paracetamol exposure and asthma: update and practice guidelines

La prevalencia del asma ha aumentado en las últimas décadas, especialmente en los países desarrollados, por motivos no bien esclarecidos. En los últimos años se ha observado una asociación entre el uso de paracetamol en distintas etapas de la vida, incluyendo la gestación y la infancia, y la prevalencia de asma. El carácter observacional de los estudios publicados no permite establecer una relación causal. Sería necesario realizar ensayos clínicos para comprobar la naturaleza de la asociación, que podría deberse a la presencia de diversos factores de confusión. Las sociedades pediátricas españolas firmantes de este artículo consideran que los datos disponibles hasta la fecha no son suficientes para desaconsejar el uso de paracetamol durante la gestación ni en niños asmáticos o con riesgo de asma (AU)

Asthma prevalence has increased over the last few decades, especially in developed countries, and possibly due to different reasons. An association between paracetamol use or exposure at different periods of life, including gestation and childhood, and asthma prevalence has been observed in the last few years. Causality can not be established from observational reports, due to the arguable presence of many confounding factors and biases. Randomised trials are needed to elucidate the nature of this association. The Spanish Paediatric societies subscribing to this paper consider that current evidence is insufficient to discourage the use of paracetamol during gestation or in children with or at risk of asthma (AU)

[Association between paracetamol exposure and asthma: update and practice guidelines]. / Asociación entre la exposición a paracetamol y el asma: estado de la cuestión y recomendaciones prácticas.

Asthma prevalence has increased over the last few decades, especially in developed countries, and possibly due to different reasons. An association between paracetamol use or exposure at different periods of life, including gestation and childhood, and asthma prevalence has been observed in the last few years. Causality can not be established from observational reports, due to the arguable presence of many confounding factors and biases. Randomised trials are needed to elucidate the nature of this association. The Spanish Paediatric societies subscribing to this paper consider that current evidence is insufficient to discourage the use of paracetamol during gestation or in children with or at risk of asthma.

Revisión sistemática sobre la eficacia de racecadotrilo en el tratamiento de la diarrea aguda / Systematic review of the efficacy of racecadotril in the treatment of acute diarrhoea

Objetivo: Obtener un estimador de la eficacia del racecadotrilo en el tratamiento de la diarrea aguda mediante revisión sistemática y metaanálisis. Material y métodos: Se seleccionaron ensayos clínicos de calidad realizados en niños en los que se compara la eficacia del racecadotrilo frente a placebo en cuanto a duración de los síntomas, cantidad de deposiciones y efectos secundarios. La búsqueda se ha realizado en bases electrónicas (Med-line, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, mRCT, Pascal), en las referencias de los artículos recuperados y mediante contacto con el fabricante, hasta diciembre de 2007. Dos evaluadores independientes han evaluado la calidad. Resultados: Se seleccionaron dos ensayos de muestra pequeña (135 y 172 niños, todos hospitalizados) y de calidad media. Éstos incluyen a niños de edades comprendidas entre 3 meses y 4 años con diarrea aguda de menos de 5 días de evolución a quienes al tratamiento habitual se añade racecadotrilo o placebo. No existen diferencias en la proporción de niños enfermos al quinto día (riesgo relativo [RR] = 0,73; intervalo de confianza [IC] del 95 %, 0,29-1,81). Se demuestra una eficacia leve en el volumen de las deposiciones en las primeras 48 h (diferencia estandarizada de medias [DEM] = -0,65; IC 95 %, -0,88 a -0,42). No se observan diferencias en los efectos secundarios (vómitos, RR = 1,16; IC 95 %, 0,64-2,12). Conclusión: La proporción de curados al quinto día no mejora añadiendo racecadotrilo al tratamiento habitual, si bien disminuye el volumen de deposiciones en las primeras 48 h. Sería interesante estudiar la eficacia en atención primaria valorando el número y volumen de las deposiciones y la duración y número de ingresos (AU)

Objective: To estimate, through a systematic review of the literature, the efficacy of racecadotril in the treatment of acute diarrhoea. Material and methods: Randomised trials carried out in children comparing racecadotril with placebo in terms of diarrhoea recovery, stools output and adverse effects were selected. Electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, mRCT, Pascal) and bibliographies of retrieved articles were searched, and the drug developer was contacted. Two authors independently assessed the quality of the retrieved articles and extracted the data. Results: Two small sample size randomised trials (135 and 172 children) of moderate quality were selected. They included children with less than five days diarrhoea and aged between 3 months and 4 years. There was no difference in the proportion of children who recovered by day 5 (RR = 0.73, CI95 % 0.29 to 1.81), although the stools volume during the first 48 hours was less in the racecadotril group (SMD = -0.65, CI95 % -0.88 to -0.52). There is no difference in the risk of vomiting (RR = 1.16, CI95 % 0.64 to 2.12). Conclusion: The proportion of recoveries by the 5th day is the same, although the stool volumes during the first 48 hours are less in the racecadotril treated children. It would be interesting to study the efficacy in a primary care setting assessing the cure rate, the stool volumes and the admission rate to elucidate if there is room for this drug (AU)

[Systematic review of the efficacy of racecadotril in the treatment of acute diarrhoea]. / Revisión sistemática sobre la eficacia de racecadotrilo en el tratamiento de la diarrea aguda.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate, through a systematic review of the literature, the efficacy of racecadotril in the treatment of acute diarrhoea. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Randomised trials carried out in children comparing racecadotril with placebo in terms of diarrhoea recovery, stools output and adverse effects were selected. Electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, mRCT, Pascal) and bibliographies of retrieved articles were searched, and the drug developer was contacted. Two authors independently assessed the quality of the retrieved articles and extracted the data. RESULTS: Two small sample size randomised trials (135 and 172 children) of moderate quality were selected. They included children with less than five days diarrhoea and aged between 3 months and 4 years. There was no difference in the proportion of children who recovered by day 5 (RR=0.73, CI 95% 0.29 to 1.81), although the stools volume during the first 48 hours was less in the racecadotril group (SMD=-0.65, CI 95% -0.88 to -0.52). There is no difference in the risk of vomiting (RR=1.16, CI 95% 0.64 to 2.12). CONCLUSION: The proportion of recoveries by the 5th day is the same, although the stool volumes during the first 48 hours are less in the racecadotril treated children. It would be interesting to study the efficacy in a primary care setting assessing the cure rate, the stool volumes and the admission rate to elucidate if there is room for this drug.