New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Children May Breathe Easier If Antibiotics Are Avoided in Infancy

A new study of 13,000 children from infancy to age seven links early use of antibiotics to respiratory ills

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Asthma is on the rise worldwide. Virtually unknown at the dawn of the 20th century, the wheezing respiratory disease caused 255,000 deaths globally in 2005, according to the World Health Organization. These recurring attacks of breathlessness from the swelling of bronchial tubes in the lungs is now the most common chronic disease among children—and no one knows why. Theories range from an increase in smog—an attack trigger—to a rise in the use of antibiotics. Now a new study of 13,116 children from birth to age seven reveals that use of certain antibiotics during infancy increases the risk of developing childhood asthma.

Drug epidemiologist Anita Kozyrskyj of the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg and her colleagues used health care and prescription databases to find that children who had received antibiotics during their first year of life had a significantly greater risk of developing asthma by age seven. "Children who had received more than four courses of antibiotics were almost twice as likely to have asthma develop," the researchers wrote in the journal Chest.

Previous studies that found similar results have been challenged on the grounds that many antibiotic treatments in infancy are for respiratory infections, which may also lead to asthma. To rule that out, the researchers isolated 148 children who had received antibiotics for skin or urinary tract infections. They found that these kids had an even greater chance of developing asthma than children with respiratory infections who had been treated with antibiotics. "The risk of asthma was twofold higher in antibiotic use for nonrespiratory tract infections," Kozyrskyj says. And "the antibiotic effect did not go away when the analysis was adjusted for upper respiratory tract infections, including ear infections and colds, meaning there wasn't a separate effect."


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The researchers also found that the presence of a dog in the home lowered asthma risk (perhaps because they carry germs that engage children's immune systems), whereas treatment with so-called broad-spectrum antibiotics that wipe out many different kinds of microbes (as opposed to those targeting specific bacteria) increased the risk. In addition, rural kids had less of a chance of developing asthma than urban children, overall. The researchers speculate that this may have to do with the differing microbes that colonize the guts of city and rural children as well as country kids' wider exposure to a variety of microorganisms.

"Evidence for this hypothesis comes from epidemiologic studies, which link variations in gastrointestinal microflora and probiotic administration with less allergy and asthma," Kozyrskyj says. "Perhaps the gut microflora in urban children has already undergone change and the addition of an antibiotic makes no difference." The authors note that more research is needed. In the meantime, they suggest carefully weighing the risks and benefits of antibiotic use before age one.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe