Products from Amazon.com
Price: $10.03Was: $13.99
Price: Check on Amazon
Price: $131.21Was: $149.99
Price: $16.00Was: $17.00
Price: $8.42Was: $9.49
Price: $9.53Was: $17.99
Newborns born during the high pollen and mould seasons, linked with the presence of allergens, are more likely to develop early symptoms of asthma, suggests a new study.
.CLICK & SEE
University of California, Berkeley (UC-B) researchers found that such children born in the high mould season, coinciding with the last quarter of the year, have three times the odds of developing wheezing, often an early sign of asthma, compared with those born at other times of the year.
The study may help shed light on why such babies appear to have a higher risk of eventually developing asthma than children born in the summer.
A 2008 study of birth and medical records found that babies born in autumn are at greater risk of later developing childhood asthma.
That study suggested an influence from early exposure to respiratory viruses, which is more common during the peak of cold and flu season.
“In our study, we took a different tack to understand the link between month of birth and asthma by considering ambient concentrations of fungal spores and pollen, which follow distinct seasonal patterns,” said Kim Harley, associate director at UC-B Centre for Children’s Environmental Health Research and co-author of the study.
They identified 27 spore and 48 pollen groups in the study, recording the average daily concentrations for the groups that accounted for more than 3% of the total during the first three months of life for each child in the study.
The researchers found that babies born in autumn and winter have triple the odds of developing early wheezing, often a precursor to asthma, by 24 months of age, said an UC-B release.
The results were reported online in Thorax.
Sources:The Times Of India
Related articles by Zemanta
- Scorpios Get More Asthma, but Astrology Isn’t to Blame (nytimes.com)
- Fall Babies May Have Higher Asthma Risk (abcnews.go.com)
- Better a fox than a hedgehog (economist.com)