RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 External Validation of the Predicting Asthma Risk in Children (PARC) tool in a clinical cohort
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2022.03.28.22273062
DO 10.1101/2022.03.28.22273062
A1 Berger, Daria Olena
A1 Pedersen, Eva S L
A1 Mallet, Maria Christina
A1 de Jong, Carmen C M
A1 Usemann, Jakob
A1 Regamey, Nicolas
A1 Spycher, Ben D
A1 Ardura-Garcia, Cristina
A1 Kuehni, Claudia E
A1 ,
YR 2022
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/03/30/2022.03.28.22273062.abstract
AB Rationale The Predicting Asthma Risk in Children (PARC) tool uses questionnaire-based respiratory symptoms collected from preschool children to predict their risk of asthma 5 years later. The tool was originally developed and externally validated in population-based settings and has not yet been validated in a clinical setting.Objective To externally validate the PARC tool in children seen in paediatric pulmonology clinics.Methods The Swiss Paediatric Airway Cohort (SPAC) is a prospective study of children seen in respiratory outpatient clinics across Switzerland. This analysis included children seen at ages 1-6 years for cough or wheeze at baseline and who completed the follow-up questionnaire 2 years later. The outcome was defined as current wheeze plus use of asthma medication. In sensitivity analyses, we explored effects of varied inclusion criteria and outcomes. We assessed performance by describing sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive value (NPV, PPV), area under the curve (AUC), scaled Brier’s score and Nagelkerke’s R2 scores and compared performance in SPAC to that achieved in the original population, the Leicester Respiratory Cohort (LRC).Results Among the 346 children included, 125 (36%) reported the outcome after 2 years. At a PARC score cut-off of 4, sensitivity was higher (95% vs 79%) but specificity lower (14% vs 57%) in SPAC compared to LRC. NPV was comparable (0.84 vs. 0.87) as was PPV (0.37 vs.0.42). Discrimination was lower in SPAC (AUC of 0.71 vs 0.78), as were Nagelkerke’s R2 (0.18 vs 0.28) and scaled Brier’s scores (0.13 vs 0.22). When the outcome was changed to moderately severe asthma (>4 attacks plus use of asthma medication), there were improvements in AUC (0.74), sensitivity (0.97), specificity (0.22) and NPV (0.99), but some deterioration in PPV (0.13), R2 (0.15) and scaled Brier score (0.09).Conclusion While the PARC tool performs well in a population-based setting and has some clinical utility, in particular for ruling out the development of asthma, this study highlights the need for new prognostic prediction tools to be developed specifically for the clinical setting.Funding SNSF:320030_182628, SLA2019-03_641670Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementFunding SNSF:320030_182628, SLA2019-03_641670Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The ethics committee of the University of Bern gave ethical approval for this work (Kantonale Ethikkomission Bern 2016-02176).I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.ALSPACAvon Longitudinal Study of Parents and ChildrenAPIAsthma Predictive IndexAUCArea under the curveFeNOFractional exhaled nitric oxideIgEImmunoglobulin EIoWIsle of WightIQRinter-quartile rangeISAACInternational Study of Asthma and Allergies in ChildhoodLASSOleast absolute shrinkage and selection operatorLRLikelihood RatioLRCLeicester Respiratory CohortMASMulti-centre Allergy StudyPAPSPersistent Asthma Predicting ScorePARCPredicting Asthma Risk in ChildrenPIAMAPrevalence and Incidence of Asthma and Mite AllergyROCReceiver operator curvesSPACSwiss Paediatric Airway Cohort