4.7 Article

Hyperbilirubinemia, Phototherapy, and Childhood Asthma

Journal

PEDIATRICS
Volume 142, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

AMER ACAD PEDIATRICS
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2018-0662

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality [R01HS020618]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study of 109212 infants with measured bilirubin levels, we examine if hyperbilirubinemia or phototherapy is associated with childhood asthma as some previous studies have revealed. OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to quantify the associations of both hyperbilirubinemia and phototherapy with childhood asthma using a population-based cohort with total serum bilirubin (TSB) levels.METHODS:Retrospective cohort study of infants born at 35 weeks' gestation in the Kaiser Permanente Northern California health system (n = 109212) from 2010 to 2014. Cox models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for a diagnosis of asthma.RESULTS:In the study, 16.7% of infants had a maximum TSB level of 15 mg/dL, 4.5% of infants had a maximum TSB level of 18 mg/dL, and 11.5% of infants received phototherapy. Compared with children with a maximum TSB level of 3 to 5.9 mg/L, children with a TSB level of 9 to 11.9 mg/dL, 12 to 14.9 mg/dL, and 15 to 17.9 mg/dL were at an increased risk for asthma (HR: 1.22 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.11-1.3], HR: 1.18 [95% CI: 1.08-1.29], and HR: 1.30 [95% CI: 1.18-1.43], respectively). Children with a TSB level of 18 mg/dL were not at an increased risk for asthma (HR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.90-1.20). In propensity-adjusted analyses, phototherapy was not associated with asthma (HR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.96-1.20).CONCLUSIONS:Modest levels of hyperbilirubinemia were associated with an increased risk of asthma, but an association was not seen at higher levels. No dose-response relationship was seen. Using phototherapy to prevent infants from reaching these modest TSB levels is unlikely to be protective against asthma.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available