Prevention of asthma in genetically susceptible children: A multifaceted intervention trial focussed on feasibility in general practice

Abstract

Other primary preventive asthma-reducing interventions were shown to be effective in reducing the occurrence of asthma for at least the first 7-8 yr of life. The multifaceted PREVASC allergic asthma primary preventive intervention was effective in reducing the exposure to inhalant and food allergens, but was not feasible for the parents. A lack of sufficient room for improvement focus on stimulating adherence seemed to be involved. It is suggested that a multifaceted environmental exposure-reducing intervention may have to be adapted to the personal circumstances of patients at baseline.

Multifaceted allergen avoidance during infancy reduces asthma during childhood with the effect persisting until age 18 years

“…The Canadian Childhood Asthma Primary Prevention Study at their 7-year follow-up found a significant reduction in the prevalence of asthma in the intervention group compared with their control group (14.9% vs 23%) 26. The requirement for the combination of dietary modification in addition to house dust mite avoidance and the additional need for prolonged breast feeding/delayed introduction of allergens into the infants' diet may account for the lack of success of single-intervention trials of house dust mite avoidance,27 28 or dietary modification,29 to significantly reduce the prevalence of asthma. Manchester Asthma and Allergy Study is the epitome of single-allergen intervention where extensive mite allergen-avoidance measures resulted in reducing HDM levels to very low levels, and yet, failed to prevent asthma 30.…”

Early-life origins of chronic respiratory diseases: understanding and promoting healthy ageing

“…Various publications have reported the beneficial effects of such efforts on hospitalisation rates and emergency department visits, and on the prevalence of asthma during childhood [55,56]. Stopping women from smoking before or during pregnancy remains a challenge, however, as illustrated by the conflicting outcomes of intervention studies [55,57,58]. A randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing nicotine patches with placebo in pregnant smokers showed no significant effects on mothers' smoking rate or reported respiratory symptoms in their offspring at 2 years of age [57].…”

Meta-analysis of Parental Protection of Children From Tobacco Smoke Exposure

“…Seventy-five full-text articles were read. Forty-five studies were excluded for the following reasons: no relevant outcomes, 18 studies [38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55] ; the trial did not include a control group, 7 studies 56-62 ; the interventions were not aimed at parents of young children, 3 studies [63][64][65] ; the reporting period was ,1 month, 2 studies 66,67 ; data necessary for analysis were missing, 10 studies [68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77] ; the paper was a review article, 1 study 78 ; the article was a protocol, 2 studies 79,80 ; the article was a follow-up of a previous study, 1 study 81 ; there was no true control group (eg, 2 active interventions were compared), 1 study 82 .Thirty studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. [20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31]…”