External validation of the Predicting Asthma Risk in Children tool in a clinical cohort. Issue 11 (12th August 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Berger, Daria O.; Pedersen, Eva S. L.; Mallet, Maria C.; de Jong, Carmen C. M.; Usemann, Jakob; Regamey, Nicolas; Spycher, Ben D.; Ardura‐Garcia, Cristina; Kuehni, Claudia E.
• Is Part Of: Pediatric pulmonology. Volume 57:Issue 11(2022)
• Page Start: 2715
• Page End: 2723
• Publication Date: 2022-08-12
• Subjects: asthma -- children -- external validation -- PARC -- prediction -- preschool -- risk -- SPAC -- wheeze; Pediatric respiratory diseases -- Periodicals; Pediatrics -- Periodicals; 618.922
• DOI: 10.1002/ppul.26088
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 8755-6863

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: The Predicting Asthma Risk in Children (PARC) tool uses questionnaire‐based respiratory symptoms collected from preschool children to predict asthma risk 5 years later. The tool was developed and validated in population cohorts but not validated using a clinical cohort. We aimed to externally validate the PARC tool in a pediatric pulmonology clinic setting. Methods: The Swiss Paediatric Airway Cohort (SPAC) is a prospective cohort of children seen in pediatric pulmonology clinics across Switzerland. We included children aged 1–6 years with cough or wheeze at baseline who completed the 2‐year follow‐up questionnaire. The outcome was defined as current wheeze plus use of asthma medication. We assessed performance using: sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV) and positive predictive value (PPV), area under the curve (AUC), scaled Brier's score, and Nagelkerke's R 2 scores. We compared performance in SPAC to that in the original population, the Leicester Respiratory Cohort (LRC). Results: Among 346 children included, 125 (36%) reported the outcome after 2 years. At a PARC score of 4: sensitivity was higher (95% vs. 79%), specificity lower (14% vs. 57%), and NPV and PPV comparable (0.84 vs. 0.87 and 0.37 vs. 0.42) in SPAC versus LRC. AUC (0.71 vs. 0.78), R 2 (0.18 vs. 0.28) and Brier's scores (0.13 vs. 0.22) were lower in SPAC. Conclusions: The PARC tool shows some clinical utility, particularly for ruling out the development of asthma in young children, but performance limitations highlight the need for new prediction tools to be developed specifically for the clinical setting.