Bedding materials and early infant wheezing: A randomised controlled trial.

IF 4.3 2区 医学 Q2 ALLERGY
Caroline Halley, Janice Kang, Phillipa Barnes, Michael Keall, Robert Siebers, Cheryl Davies, Philippa Howden-Chapman, Julian Crane
{"title":"Bedding materials and early infant wheezing: A randomised controlled trial.","authors":"Caroline Halley, Janice Kang, Phillipa Barnes, Michael Keall, Robert Siebers, Cheryl Davies, Philippa Howden-Chapman, Julian Crane","doi":"10.1111/pai.70073","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Various observational studies have suggested that infants and young children who regularly sleep in synthetic bedding materials are more likely to experience wheezing and asthma, while children who use feather duvets and/or feather pillows are less likely to wheeze.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In Wellington, New Zealand, we conducted a three-armed, parallel, randomised trial of 460 infants who were assigned to use different bedding materials: synthetic, wool or feather bedding in the form of sleepsacks from 3 months of age to 2 years of age to test the hypothesis that children exposed to feather materials are less likely to develop wheezing. Pregnant women were recruited before birth. Parents were unaware of the primary research hypothesis and were told this was a study of child warmth and wheezing. We have reported wheezing (parental and GP), a variety of respiratory health parameters and atopic status at 2 years.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One hundred and forty-seven infants received a synthetic sleepsack, 150 wool and 144 feather. We have found no significant differences in reported or doctor-diagnosed wheezing or other respiratory health measures by bedding material used. For frequency of wheezing presentation at GP surgery, there was a significant increased rate for children using feather materials compared to synthetic, relative rate 2.00 (95% CI: 1.14, 3.52).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study does not support earlier observational studies that suggest higher rates of wheezing for children using synthetic bedding or lower rates for feather materials, at least for early childhood wheezing. Our study suggests that the explanation for the observational study findings may lie in selection bias, where the parents of at-risk children avoid feather bedding materials.</p>","PeriodicalId":19929,"journal":{"name":"Pediatric Allergy and Immunology","volume":"36 4","pages":"e70073"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11960039/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pediatric Allergy and Immunology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/pai.70073","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ALLERGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Various observational studies have suggested that infants and young children who regularly sleep in synthetic bedding materials are more likely to experience wheezing and asthma, while children who use feather duvets and/or feather pillows are less likely to wheeze.

Methods: In Wellington, New Zealand, we conducted a three-armed, parallel, randomised trial of 460 infants who were assigned to use different bedding materials: synthetic, wool or feather bedding in the form of sleepsacks from 3 months of age to 2 years of age to test the hypothesis that children exposed to feather materials are less likely to develop wheezing. Pregnant women were recruited before birth. Parents were unaware of the primary research hypothesis and were told this was a study of child warmth and wheezing. We have reported wheezing (parental and GP), a variety of respiratory health parameters and atopic status at 2 years.

Results: One hundred and forty-seven infants received a synthetic sleepsack, 150 wool and 144 feather. We have found no significant differences in reported or doctor-diagnosed wheezing or other respiratory health measures by bedding material used. For frequency of wheezing presentation at GP surgery, there was a significant increased rate for children using feather materials compared to synthetic, relative rate 2.00 (95% CI: 1.14, 3.52).

Conclusion: This study does not support earlier observational studies that suggest higher rates of wheezing for children using synthetic bedding or lower rates for feather materials, at least for early childhood wheezing. Our study suggests that the explanation for the observational study findings may lie in selection bias, where the parents of at-risk children avoid feather bedding materials.

背景:多项观察性研究表明,经常使用合成纤维寝具的婴幼儿更容易出现喘息和哮喘,而使用羽毛被和/或羽毛枕头的婴幼儿则较少出现喘息:在新西兰惠灵顿,我们对 460 名婴儿进行了一项三臂、平行、随机试验,分配他们在 3 个月到 2 岁期间使用不同的寝具材料:合成纤维、羊毛或羽毛睡袋,以验证接触羽毛材料的儿童患喘息的可能性较低这一假设。孕妇在出生前被招募。家长并不知道主要的研究假设,并被告知这是一项关于儿童保暖和喘息的研究。我们报告了喘息(父母和 GP)、各种呼吸系统健康参数和 2 岁时的特应性状态:结果:147 名婴儿使用了合成纤维睡袋,150 名婴儿使用了羊毛睡袋,144 名婴儿使用了羽毛睡袋。我们发现,所使用的寝具材料在报告或医生诊断的喘息或其他呼吸健康指标方面没有明显差异。在全科医生手术中出现喘息的频率方面,使用羽毛材料的儿童比使用合成材料的儿童显著增加,相对比率为 2.00(95% CI:1.14, 3.52):本研究并不支持早先的观察性研究,这些研究表明,至少在儿童早期喘息中,使用合成纤维寝具的儿童喘息率较高,而使用羽毛材料的儿童喘息率较低。我们的研究表明,观察性研究结果的原因可能在于选择偏差,即高危儿童的父母避免使用羽毛寝具材料。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
9.10%
发文量
200
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Pediatric Allergy and Immunology is the world''s leading journal in pediatric allergy, publishing original contributions and comprehensive reviews related to the understanding and treatment of immune deficiency and allergic inflammatory and infectious diseases in children. Other areas of interest include: development of specific and accessory immunity; the immunological interaction during pregnancy and lactation between mother and child. As Pediatric Allergy and Immunology promotes communication between scientists engaged in basic research and clinicians working with children, we publish both clinical and experimental work.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信