Montelukast and Neuropsychiatric Events in Children with Asthma: A Nested Case–Control Study - 23/05/19
Abstract |
Objective |
To examine the association between montelukast prescription and neuropsychiatric events in children with asthma.
Study design |
A matched, nested case–control design was used to identify cases and controls from a cohort of children aged 5-18 years with physician-diagnosed asthma from 2004 to 2015, in Ontario, Canada, prescribed an asthma maintenance medication. Cases were children with a hospitalization or emergency department visit for a neuropsychiatric event. Cases were matched to up to 4 controls on birth year, year of asthma diagnosis, and sex. The exposures were dispensed prescriptions for montelukast (yes/no) and number of dispensed montelukast prescriptions in the year before the index date. Conditional logistic regression was used to measure the unadjusted OR and aOR and 95% CIs for montelukast prescription and neuropsychiatric events. Covariates in the adjusted model included sociodemographic factors and measures of asthma severity.
Results |
In total, 898 cases with a neuropsychiatric event and 3497 matched controls were included. Children who experienced a new-onset neuropsychiatric event had nearly 2 times the odds of having been prescribed montelukast, compared with controls (OR 1.91, 95% CI 1.15-3.18; P = .01). Most cases presented for anxiety (48.6%) and/or sleep disturbance (26.1%).
Conclusions |
Children with asthma who experienced a new-onset neuropsychiatric event had nearly twice the odds of having been prescribed montelukast in the year before their event. Clinicians should be aware of the association between montelukast and neuropsychiatric events in children with asthma, to inform prescribing practices and clinical follow-up.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Keywords : montelukast, asthma, neuropsychiatric events, drug safety, children
Abbreviations : ED, FDA, LHIN, LTRA, ODB, ON-Marg
Plan
Supported by the SickKids Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario. This study was also supported by the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES), which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC). The opinions, results, and conclusions reported in this paper are those of the authors and are independent from the funding sources. No endorsement by ICES or the Ontario MOHLTC is intended or should be inferred. Parts of this material are based on data and information compiled and provided by the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI). However, the analyses, conclusions, opinions, and statements expressed herein are those of the author, and not necessarily those of CIHI. The funding source had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; and preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. |
Vol 209
P. 176 - juin 2019 Retour au numéroBienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?