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.

New eFlows produce larger droplets and in a narrower size range compared to new LC Plus nebulizers for TOBI, and therefore both devices are not equivalent. Theoretically a larger portion of the aerosol from eFlow is likely to be deposited in the upper airways. The performance of both tested nebulizers decreases after 6 months of use. For the eFlow, timely replacement of the mesh is necessary. These in vitro results underscore the importance of registration studies of new drug-device combinations.

Introduction: Dosing of antibiotics in people with cystic fibrosis (CF) is challenging, due to altered pharmacokinetics, difficulty of lung tissue penetration, and increasing presence of antimicrobial resistance. Areas covered: The purpose of this work is to critically review original data as well as previous reviews and guidelines on pharmacokinetics of systemic and inhaled antibiotics in CF, with the aim to propose strategies for optimization of antibacterial therapy in both children and adults with CF. Expert opinion: For systemic antibiotics, absorption is comparable in CF patients and non-CF controls. The volume of distribution (Vd) of most antibiotics is similar between people with CF with normal body composition and healthy individuals. However, there are a few exceptions, like cefotiam and tobramycin. Many antibiotic class-dependent changes in drug metabolism and excretion are reported, with an increased total body clearance for ß-lactam antibiotics, aminoglycosides, fluoroquinolones, and trimethoprim. We, therefore, recommend following class-specific guidelines for CF, mostly resulting in higher dosages per kg bodyweight in CF compared to non-CF controls. Higher local antibiotic concentrations in the airways can be obtained by inhalation therapy, with which eradication of bacteria may be achieved while minimizing systemic exposure and risk of toxicity.

No abstract

Age appropriateness is a major concern of pulmonary delivery devices, in particular of dry powder inhalers (DPIs), since their performance strongly depends on the inspiratory flow manoeuvre of the patient. Previous research on the use of DPIs by children focused mostly on specific DPIs or single inspiratory parameters. In this study, we investigated the requirements for a paediatric DPI more broadly using an instrumented test inhaler. Our primary aim was to assess the impact of airflow resistance on children’s inspiratory flow profiles. Additionally, we investigated children’s preferences for airflow resistance and mouthpiece design and how these relate to what may be most suitable for them. We tested 98 children (aged 4.7–12.6 years), of whom 91 were able to perform one or more correct inhalations through the test inhaler. We recorded flow profiles at five airflow resistances ranging from 0.025 to 0.055 kPa0.5.min.L−1 and computed various inspiratory flow parameters from these recordings. A sinuscope was used to observe any obstructions in the oral cavity during inhalation. 256 flow profiles were included for analysis. We found that both airflow resistance and the children’s characteristics affect the inspiratory parameters. Our data suggest that a medium-high resistance is both suitable for and well appreciated by children aged 5–12 years. High incidences (up to 90%) of obstructions were found, which may restrict the use of DPIs by children. However, an oblong mouthpiece that was preferred the most appeared to positively affect the passageway through the oral cavity. To accommodate children from the age of 5 years onwards, a DPI should deliver a sufficiently high fine particle dose within an inhaled volume of 0.5 L and at a peak inspiratory flow rate of 25–40 L.min−1. We recommend taking these requirements into account for future paediatric inhaler development.

No abstract