Retrospective cross-sectional study assessing airway outcomes related to aeroallergen sensitization in children from lake-influenced areas.
Objective: To characterize regional aeroallergen sensitization patterns in Eastern Anatolia and assess their association with spirometrically defined airway outcomes among children with asthma from lake-adjacent districts of Van Province and inland districts in other Eastern Anatolian provinces.Methods: In this retrospective cross-sectional study, 235 children aged 6–18 years were stratified by residence (lake-adjacent districts of Van Province vs inland districts in other Eastern Anatolian provinces). Sensitization burden was defined as the number of positive aeroallergen groups. Spirometry was available for 137 children with physician-diagnosed asthma. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify independent predictors of airway obstruction (FEV₁/FVC < 0.80), adjusting for age, sex, eosinophilia, and log-transformed IgE.Results: Sensitization profiles differed by region: house dust mite sensitization was more prevalent in lake-adjacent districts, whereas sensitization to grass and weed pollen was more frequent in inland districts. Among children who underwent spirometry, 22.6% had airway obstruction. Obstruction prevalence increased across sensitization burden categories (0, 1, and ≥2 aeroallergen groups) (8.5%, 20.0%, and 35.0%; p = 0.033). FEV₁/FVC and FEF₂₅-₇₅ declined with increasing sensitization burden (p = 0.007 and p = 0.012, respectively). In adjusted analysis, sensitization burden was independently associated with airway obstruction (adjusted OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.24–2.85; p = 0.003). Model discrimination was modest (AUC 0.68, 95% CI 0.59–0.77).Conclusion: Regional ecological context was associated with distinct patterns of aeroallergen sensitization and clinically relevant differences in airway function. Cumulative sensitization burden was independently associated with spirometrically defined airway obstruction in this pediatric cohort.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Serdar Göktaş (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: