3.9 Article

Short-term effects of airborne pollens on asthma attacks as seen by general practitioners in the Greater Paris area, 2003-2007

Journal

PRIMARY CARE RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
Volume 19, Issue 3, Pages 254-259

Publisher

PRIMARY CARE RESPIRATORY SOC-PCRS UK
DOI: 10.4104/pcrj.2010.00027

Keywords

asthma; exacerbations; pollen; consultations; GPs; epidemiology

Funding

  1. Caisse Primaire d'Assurance Maladies, France

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims: To investigate for the first time the short-term effects of airborne pollen counts on general practitioner (GP) consultations for asthma attacks in the Greater Paris area between 2003-2007. Methods: Counts were available for common pollens (Betula, Cupressa, Fraxinus and Poaceae). Weekly data on GP visits for asthma attacks were obtained from the French GP Sentinel Network. A quasi-Poisson regression with generalised additive models was implemented. Short-term effects of pollen counts were assessed using single and multi-pollen models after adjustment for air pollution and influenza. Results: A mean weekly incidence rate of 25.4 cases of asthma attacks per 100,000 inhabitants was estimated during the study period. The strongest significant association between asthma attacks and pollen counts was registered for grass (Poaceae) in the same week of asthma attacks, with a slight reduction of the effect observed in the multi-pollen model. Adjusted relative risk for Poaceae was 1.54 (95% CI: 1.33-1.79) with an inter-quartile range increase of 17.6 grains/m(3) during the pollen season. Conclusions: For the first time, a significant short-term association was observed between Poaceae pollen counts and consultations for asthma attacks as seen by GPs. These findings need to be confirmed by more consistent time-series and investigations on a daily basis. (c) 2010 Primary Care Respiratory Society UK. All rights reserved. I Annesi-Maesano et al. Prim Care Resp J 2010; 19(3): 254-259 doi:10.4104/pcrj.2010.00027

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available