No abstract

on behalf of the American Thoracic Society/ European Respiratory Society Working Group on Infant and Young Children Pulmonary Function Testing This official statement of the American Thoracic Society (ATS) and the European Respiratory Society (ERS) was approved by the ATS Board of Directors, September 2006, and the ERS Executive Committee, December 2006 6. Further multidisciplinary work is required to investigate the best combination of tests (e.g., structure, function, inflammation, atopy) and challenges (e.g., pharmaceutical vs. physical) to investigate specific clinical entities during early childhood.

The nasopharynx (NP) is a reservoir for microbes associated with acute respiratory illnesses (ARI). The development of asthma is initiated during infancy, driven by airway inflammation associated with infections. Here, we report viral and bacterial community profiling of NP aspirates across a birth cohort, capturing all lower respiratory illnesses during their first year. Most infants were initially colonized with Staphylococcus or Corynebacterium before stable colonization with Alloiococcus or Moraxella, with transient incursions of Streptococcus, Moraxella or Haemophilus marking virus-associated ARIs. Our data identify the NP microbiome as a determinant for infection spread to the lower airways, severity of accompanying inflammatory symptoms, and risk for future asthma development. Early asymptomatic colonization with Streptococcus was a strong asthma predictor, and antibiotic usage disrupted asymptomatic colonization patterns.

There is poor agreement on definitions of different phenotypes of preschool wheezing disorders. The present Task Force proposes to use the terms episodic (viral) wheeze to describe children who wheeze intermittently and are well between episodes, and multiple-trigger wheeze for children who wheeze both during and outside discrete episodes. Investigations are only needed when in doubt about the diagnosis.Based on the limited evidence available, inhaled short-acting b 2 -agonists by metered-dose inhaler/spacer combination are recommended for symptomatic relief. Educating parents regarding causative factors and treatment is useful. Exposure to tobacco smoke should be avoided; allergen avoidance may be considered when sensitisation has been established. Maintenance treatment with inhaled corticosteroids is recommended for multiple-trigger wheeze; benefits are often small. Montelukast is recommended for the treatment of episodic (viral) wheeze and can be started when symptoms of a viral cold develop.Given the large overlap in phenotypes, and the fact that patients can move from one phenotype to another, inhaled corticosteroids and montelukast may be considered on a trial basis in almost any preschool child with recurrent wheeze, but should be discontinued if there is no clear clinical benefit.Large well-designed randomised controlled trials with clear descriptions of patients are needed to improve the present recommendations on the treatment of these common syndromes.

Protection of "high-risk" children against the effects of severe respiratory infections during infancy may represent an effective strategy for primary asthma prevention. The potential benefits of these strategies merit more careful evaluation in this age group.

long-term treatment instituted, without any objective diagnostic measurements ever being made. Is there any other chronic disease for which objective diagnostic tests are readily available of which this can be said? Although the Commissioners differed in their views on the strength of evidence for diagnosis and management guided by biomarkers, particularly in children, there was a consensus that the incorporation of biomarkers into the diagnosis could only enhance the capacity to diagnose asthma responsive to ICS and lead to a paradigm shift from the current approach to diagnose the umbrella term asthma, to the diagnosis of asthma phenotypes that respond to specific treatments. New drug development Until recently we have not seen the developments in new drug discovery enjoyed by other specialty areas (table 2) 19. This area perhaps exposes the limitations of our current view of 'asthma' and airway disease most obviously. New asthma treatments are largely variants on the old; a browner inhaler, with more potent topical effects, despite increasing concerns about topical immunosuppression 103. When new treatments become available, they are widely prescribed to all comers despite being largely ineffective (Sodium Cromoglycate, Ketotifen) or effective only in subgroups of patients (Omalizumab, Mepolizumab). There has been, until recently, no concept of targeted treatment. Progress in new drug discovery has been slow, with relatively few molecules progressing from the laboratory to the clinic and a depressingly high rate of failure at the later stages of clinical development (table 2) 19. Mepolizumab, a humanised monoclonal antibody that was developed to inhibit eosinophilic airway inflammation by blocking interleukin (IL)-5, is a good example. Mepolizumab was found to be safe and effective at blocking IL-5 and reducing eosinophilic airway inflammation when tested with in vitro systems and in vivo models 104,105. A subsequent clinical trial was designed based around incorporating Mepolizumab into a step-up guideline-based paradigm 106. Within this paradigm, Mepolizumab was investigated in patients who remained symptomatic on current ICS therapy and the clinical trial focused on lung function and asthma symptoms as traditional outcome measures. Despite adequate power, this trial was unexpectedly negative. This led to much soul-searching and the near-abandonment of the drug 107. Investigators who were experienced with non-invasive measures of airway inflammation identified two important problems with this initial clinical trial: first, the heterogeneity of airway inflammation in severe asthma meant that a significant number of the trial participants would not have had eosinophilic airway inflammation and therefore would not be expected to respond; and second, the

No abstract

AIMTo identify health and psychosocial problems associated with bullying victimization and conduct a meta-analysis summarizing the causal evidence.METHODSA systematic review was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, ERIC and PsycINFO electronic databases up to 28 February 2015. The study included published longitudinal and cross-sectional articles that examined health and psychosocial consequences of bullying victimization. All meta-analyses were based on quality-effects models. Evidence for causality was assessed using Bradford Hill criteria and the grading system developed by the World Cancer Research Fund.RESULTSOut of 317 articles assessed for eligibility, 165 satisfied the predetermined inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. Statistically significant associations were observed between bullying victimization and a wide range of adverse health and psychosocial problems. The evidence was strongest for causal associations between bullying victimization and mental health problems such as depression, anxiety, poor general health and suicidal ideation and behaviours. Probable causal associations existed between bullying victimization and tobacco and illicit drug use.CONCLUSIONStrong evidence exists for a causal relationship between bullying victimization, mental health problems and substance use. Evidence also exists for associations between bullying victimization and other adverse health and psychosocial problems, however, there is insufficient evidence to conclude causality. The strong evidence that bullying victimization is causative of mental illness highlights the need for schools to implement effective interventions to address bullying behaviours.