eLetters is an online forum for ongoing peer review. To submit an eLetter please go to the article you wish to respond to and click on the link that reads "eLetters: Submit a Response." Submission of eLetters are open to all health care professionals and experts in related fields.

eLetters to:

ARTICLES:
Emily R. Cox, Donna R. Halloran, Sharon M. Homan, Sherry Welliver, and Douglas E. Mager
Trends in the Prevalence of Chronic Medication Use in Children: 2002–2005
Pediatrics 2008; 122: e1053-e1061 [Abstract] [Full text] [PDF]
*eLetters: Submit a response to this article

eLetters published:

[Read eLetters] asthma medication in children
Raoul Harf   (4 November 2008)
[Read eLetters] Percentage increases deceptive
Joan McClusky   (10 November 2008)

asthma medication in children 4 November 2008
Next eLetters Top
Raoul Harf,
MD
Centre Hospitalier Lyon Sud, 69310, Pierre Bénite, France

Send letter to journal:
Re: asthma medication in children

raoul.harf{at}chu-lyon.fr Raoul Harf

Very interesting paper. The data for the various drug categories show a regular linear trend, except for asthma medication for which there is a dramatic increase in the winter season, particularly in younger children indicating a probable prescription for wheezy respiratory infections. Sincerely yours

Conflict of Interest:

None declared
Percentage increases deceptive 10 November 2008
Previous eLetters Top
Joan McClusky,
Medical writer
New York, NY 10003

Send letter to journal:
Re: Percentage increases deceptive

joanmnewyork{at}aol.com Joan McClusky

Regarding the article by Cox et al on use of chronic use of medications in children--the increases in the rates of certain medications, particularly drugs for type 2 diabetes, are being reported in the general press as evidence of the long term health consequences of childhood diabetes.

This study shows nothing of the kind. The percentage of chldren using type 2 antidiabetic medications is, at its highest, around 1%. The overall increase is from 0.3% in 2002 to 0.6% in 2005.

I'm not sure what drives this kind of fear mongering--press releases that focus on whatever is most dramatic? Findings that jibe with the current medicopolitical landscape? Bad medical writing? Whatever it is, the authors of the study should be making clear that the absolute numbers and percentages for a lot of these medications are barely above 0.

Surely this information is as important as anything else in the study.

Conflict of Interest:

None declared