Diagnosing asthma in children represents an important clinical challenge. There is no single gold standard test to confirm the diagnosis. Consequently, both over-, and under-diagnosis of asthma are frequent in children.A Task Force (TF) supported by the European Respiratory Society has developed these evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis of asthma in children aged 5–16 years using nine PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator and Outcome) questions. The TF conducted systematic literature searches for all PICO questions and screened the outputs from these, including relevant full text articles. All TF members approved the final decision for inclusion of research papers. The TF assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.The TF then developed a diagnostic algorithm based on the critical appraisal of the PICO questions, preferences expressed by lay members and test availability. Proposed cut-offs were determined based on the best available evidence. The TF formulated recommendations using the GRADE Evidence to Decision framework.Based on the critical appraisal of the evidence and the Evidence to Decision Framework the TF recommends spirometry, bronchodilator reversibility testing and FeNO as first line diagnostic tests in children under investigation for asthma. The TF recommends against diagnosing asthma in children based on clinical history alone or following a single abnormal objective test. Finally, this guideline also proposes a set of research priorities to improve asthma diagnosis in children in the future.

The goal of asthma treatment is to obtain clinical control and reduce future risks to the patient. To reach this goal in children with asthma, ongoing monitoring is essential. While all components of asthma, such as symptoms, lung function, bronchial hyperresponsiveness and inflammation, may exist in various combinations in different individuals, to date there is limited evidence on how to integrate these for optimal monitoring of children with asthma. The aims of this ERS Task Force were to describe the current practise and give an overview of the best available evidence on how to monitor children with asthma.22 clinical and research experts reviewed the literature. A modified Delphi method and four Task Force meetings were used to reach a consensus.This statement summarises the literature on monitoring children with asthma. Available tools for monitoring children with asthma, such as clinical tools, lung function, bronchial responsiveness and inflammatory markers, are described as are the ways in which they may be used in children with asthma. Management-related issues, comorbidities and environmental factors are summarised.Despite considerable interest in monitoring asthma in children, for many aspects of monitoring asthma in children there is a substantial lack of evidence. @ERSpublications ERS statement summarising and discussing the available literature on monitoring children with asthma

eHealth is an appealing medium to improve healthcare and its value (in addition to standard care) has been assessed in previous studies. We aimed to assess whether an eHealth intervention could improve asthma control while reducing 50% of routine outpatient visits.In a multicentre, randomised controlled trial with a 16-month follow-up, asthmatic children (6-16 years) treated in eight Dutch hospitals were randomised to usual care (4-monthly outpatient visits) and online care using a virtual asthma clinic (VAC) (8-monthly outpatient visits with monthly web-based monitoring). Outcome measures were the number of symptom-free days in the last 4 weeks of the study, asthma control, forced expiratory volume in 1 s, exhaled nitric oxide fraction, asthma exacerbations, unscheduled outpatient visits, hospital admissions, daily dose of inhaled corticosteroids and courses of systemic corticosteroids.We included 210 children. After follow-up, symptom-free days differed statistically between the usual care and VAC groups (difference of 1.23 days, 95% CI 0.42-2.04; p=0.003) in favour of the VAC. In terms of asthma control, the Childhood Asthma Control Test improved more in the VAC group (difference of 1.17 points, 95% CI 0.09-2.25; p=0.03). No differences were found for other outcome measures.Routine outpatient visits can partly be replaced by monitoring asthmatic children eHealth.