Phenotypic characteristics, healthcare use, and treatment in children with night cough compared with children with wheeze.

OBJECTIVES: Population-based studies of children with dry night cough alone compared with those who also wheeze are few and inconclusive. We compared how children with dry night cough differ from those who wheeze. METHODS: LuftiBus in the school is a population-based study of schoolchildren conducted between 2013 and 2016 in Zurich, Switzerland. We divided children into four mutually exclusive groups based on reported dry night cough (henceforth referred as "cough") and wheeze and compared parent-reported symptoms, comorbidities, exposures, FeNO, spirometry, and healthcare use and treatment. RESULTS: Among 3457 schoolchildren aged 6-17 years, 294 (9%) reported "cough," 181 (5%) reported "wheeze," 100 (3%) reported "wheeze and cough," and 2882 (83%) were "asymptomatic." Adjusting for confounders in a multinomial regression, children with "cough" reported more frequent colds, rhinitis, and snoring than "asymptomatic" children; children with "wheeze" or "wheeze and cough" more often reported hay fever, eczema, and parental histories of asthma. FeNO and spirometry were similar among "asymptomatic" and children with "cough," while children with "wheeze" or "wheeze and cough" had higher FeNO and evidence of bronchial obstruction. Children with "cough" used healthcare less often than those with "wheeze," and they attended mainly primary care. Twenty-two children (7% of those with "cough") reported a physician diagnosis of asthma and used inhalers. These had similar characteristics as children with wheeze. CONCLUSION: Our representative population-based study confirms that children with dry night cough without wheeze clearly differed from those with wheeze. This suggests asthma is unlikely, and they should be investigated for alternative aetiologies, particularly upper airway disease.

External validation of the Predicting Asthma Risk in Children tool in a clinical cohort.

INTRODUCTION: The Predicting Asthma Risk in Children (PARC) tool uses questionnaire-based respiratory symptoms collected from preschool children to predict asthma risk 5 years later. The tool was developed and validated in population cohorts but not validated using a clinical cohort. We aimed to externally validate the PARC tool in a pediatric pulmonology clinic setting. METHODS: The Swiss Paediatric Airway Cohort (SPAC) is a prospective cohort of children seen in pediatric pulmonology clinics across Switzerland. We included children aged 1-6 years with cough or wheeze at baseline who completed the 2-year follow-up questionnaire. The outcome was defined as current wheeze plus use of asthma medication. We assessed performance using: sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV) and positive predictive value (PPV), area under the curve (AUC), scaled Brier's score, and Nagelkerke's R2 scores. We compared performance in SPAC to that in the original population, the Leicester Respiratory Cohort (LRC). RESULTS: Among 346 children included, 125 (36%) reported the outcome after 2 years. At a PARC score of 4: sensitivity was higher (95% vs. 79%), specificity lower (14% vs. 57%), and NPV and PPV comparable (0.84 vs. 0.87 and 0.37 vs. 0.42) in SPAC versus LRC. AUC (0.71 vs. 0.78), R2 (0.18 vs. 0.28) and Brier's scores (0.13 vs. 0.22) were lower in SPAC. CONCLUSIONS: The PARC tool shows some clinical utility, particularly for ruling out the development of asthma in young children, but performance limitations highlight the need for new prediction tools to be developed specifically for the clinical setting.