BackgroundRT amplification reaction has revealed that various single viruses or viral co-infections caused acute bronchiolitis in infants, and RV appeared to have a growing involvement in early respiratory diseases. Because remaining controversial, the objective was to determine prospectively the respective role of RSV, RV, hMPV and co-infections on the severity of acute bronchiolitis in very young infants.Methods and Principal Findings209 infants (median age: 2.4 months) were enrolled in a prospective study of infants <1 year old, hospitalized for a first episode of bronchiolitis during the winter epidemic season and with no high risk for severe disease. The severity was assessed by recording SaO2% at admission, a daily clinical score (scale 0–18), the duration of oxygen supplementation and the length of hospitalization. Viruses were identified in 94.7% by RT amplification reaction: RSV only (45.8%), RV only (7.2%), hMPV only (3.8%), dual RSV/RV (14.3%), and other virus only (2%) or coinfections (9%). RV compared respectively with RSV and dual RSV/RV infection caused a significant less severe disease with a lower clinical score (5[3.2–6] vs. 6[4–8], p = 0.01 and 5.5[5–7], p = 0.04), a shorter time in oxygen supplementation (0[0–1] days vs. 2[0–3] days, p = 0.02 and 2[0–3] days, p = 0.03) and a shorter hospital stay (3[3–4.7] days vs.6 [5–8] days, p = 0.001 and 5[4–6] days, p = 0.04). Conversely, RSV infants had also longer duration of hospitalization in comparison with RSV/RV (p = 0.01) and hMPV (p = 0.04). The multivariate analyses showed that the type of virus carried was independently associated with the duration of hospitalization.ConclusionThis study underlined the role of RV in early respiratory diseases, as frequently carried by young infants with a first acute bronchiolitis. RSV caused the more severe disease and conversely RV the lesser severity. No additional effect of dual RSV/RV infection was observed on the severity.

What is already known about this topic? Coronavirus disease 2019 has a mild disease course in children and adolescents. Chronic respiratory conditions, including asthma, have been suggested as risk factors; however, asthma in children is highly variable in both triggers and severity.What does this article add to our knowledge? During the pandemic, pediatric asthma services limited consultations and established virtual clinics. However, respondents perceived their patients' asthma control to be retained or even improved, while treatment adherence was considered increased. Children with asthma were not disproportionately affected by coronavirus disease 2019.How does this study impact current management guidelines? Trigger avoidance and treatment adherence can rapidly improve asthma control in children, even under lockdown pressure. Children/adolescents with asthma do not appear to need additional prophylactic measures from coronavirus disease 2019 when asthma is well-treated.

No abstract

Local side-effects of ICS are common in asthmatic children of all ages, and the device used constitutes the most influential factor.

Background The interplay between COVID‐19 pandemic and asthma in children is still unclear. We evaluated the impact of COVID‐19 pandemic on childhood asthma outcomes. Methods The PeARL multinational cohort included 1,054 children with asthma and 505 non‐asthmatic children aged between 4 and 18 years from 25 pediatric departments, from 15 countries globally. We compared the frequency of acute respiratory and febrile presentations during the first wave of the COVID‐19 pandemic between groups and with data available from the previous year. In children with asthma, we also compared current and historical disease control. Results During the pandemic, children with asthma experienced fewer upper respiratory tract infections, episodes of pyrexia, emergency visits, hospital admissions, asthma attacks, and hospitalizations due to asthma, in comparison with the preceding year. Sixty‐six percent of asthmatic children had improved asthma control while in 33% the improvement exceeded the minimal clinically important difference. Pre‐bronchodilatation FEV 1 and peak expiratory flow rate were improved during the pandemic. When compared to non‐asthmatic controls, children with asthma were not at increased risk of LRTIs, episodes of pyrexia, emergency visits, or hospitalizations during the pandemic. However, an increased risk of URTIs emerged. Conclusion Childhood asthma outcomes, including control, were improved during the first wave of the COVID‐19 pandemic, probably because of reduced exposure to asthma triggers and increased treatment adherence. The decreased frequency of acute episodes does not support the notion that childhood asthma may be a risk factor for COVID‐19. Furthermore, the potential for improving childhood asthma outcomes through environmental control becomes apparent.