Asthma exacerbation and proximity of residence to major roads: a population-based matched case-control study among the pediatric Medicaid population in Detroit, Michigan

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The relationship between asthma and traffic-related pollutants has received considerable attention. The use of individual-level exposure measures, such as residence location or proximity to emission sources, may avoid ecological biases.</p> <p>Method</p> <p>This study focused on the pediatric Medicaid population in Detroit, MI, a high-risk population for asthma-related events. A population-based matched case-control analysis was used to investigate associations between acute asthma outcomes and proximity of residence to major roads, including freeways. Asthma cases were identified as all children who made at least one asthma claim, including inpatient and emergency department visits, during the three-year study period, 2004-06. Individually matched controls were randomly selected from the rest of the Medicaid population on the basis of non-respiratory related illness. We used conditional logistic regression with distance as both categorical and continuous variables, and examined non-linear relationships with distance using polynomial splines. The conditional logistic regression models were then extended by considering multiple asthma states (based on the frequency of acute asthma outcomes) using polychotomous conditional logistic regression.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Asthma events were associated with proximity to primary roads with an odds ratio of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.94, 0.99) for a 1 km increase in distance using conditional logistic regression, implying that asthma events are less likely as the distance between the residence and a primary road increases. Similar relationships and effect sizes were found using polychotomous conditional logistic regression. Another plausible exposure metric, a reduced form response surface model that represents atmospheric dispersion of pollutants from roads, was not associated under that exposure model.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>There is moderately strong evidence of elevated risk of asthma close to major roads based on the results obtained in this population-based matched case-control study.</p

How safe are the biologicals in treating asthma and rhinitis?

A number of biological agents are available or being investigated for the treatment of asthma and rhinitis. The safety profiles of these biologic agents, which may modify allergic and immunological diseases, are still being elucidated. Subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy, the oldest biologic agent in current use, has the highest of frequency of the most serious and life-threatening reaction, anaphylaxis. It is also one of the only disease modifying interventions for allergic rhinitis and asthma. Efforts to seek safer and more effective allergen immunotherapy treatment have led to investigations of alternate routes of delivery and modified immunotherapy formulations. Sublingual immunotherapy appears to be associated with a lower, but not zero, risk of anaphylaxis. No fatalities have been reported to date with sublingual immunotherapy. Immunotherapy with modified formulations containing Th1 adjuvants, DNA sequences containing a CpG motif (CpG) and 3-deacylated monophospholipid A, appears to provide the benefits of subcutaneous immunotherapy with a single course of 4 to 6 preseasonal injections. There were no serious treatment-related adverse events or anaphylaxis in the clinical trials of these two immunotherapy adjuvants. Omalizumab, a monoclonal antibody against IgE, has been associated with a small risk of anaphylaxis, affecting 0.09% to 0.2% of patients. It may also be associated with a higher risk of geohelminth infection in patients at high risk for parasitic infections but it does not appear to affect the response to treatment or severity of the infection

Safety of ultra-rush titration of sublingual immunotherapy in asthmatic children with tree-pollen allergy

The recommendation to use sublingual-swallow immunotherapy (SLIT) in children and adults with allergic rhinitis has been established over the past decade. Recently, ultra-rush titration of SLIT has become more and more common, raising concerns about its safety in children with asthma. Fifty-four children with asthma and adolescents aged 6-14 with documented allergic disease because of tree pollen (birch and possibly alder and/or hazel) from 14 study centers in Germany participated in a randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled study. Twenty-seven were randomized to receive SLIT with standardized birch pollen allergen extract and the other 27 to receive placebo. An ultra-rush high-dose SLIT titration regimen reaching the maintenance dose of 300 index of reactivity (IR) within 90 min (30-90-150-300 IR) was used. The difference in mean PFR changes during ultra-rush titration between SLIT and placebo was not significant (p = 0.056). A 95% probability that SLIT does not decrease PFR during ultra-rush titration was demonstrated. Neither anaphylactic shock nor else serious systemic reactions to the study drug occurred. No serious adverse event assessed by the investigator as related to study drug treatment was reported