BACKGROUND: Dampness and mould in buildings have been associated with adverse respiratory symptoms, asthma and respiratory infections of inhabitants. Moisture damage is a very common problem in private houses, workplaces and public buildings such as schools. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of remediating buildings damaged by dampness and mould in order to reduce or prevent respiratory tract symptoms, infections and symptoms of asthma. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 2), which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1951 to June week 1, 2011), EMBASE (1974 to June 2011), CINAHL (1982 to June 2011), Science Citation Index (1973 to June 2011), Biosis Previews (1989 to June 2011), NIOSHTIC (1930 to November 2010) and CISDOC (1974 to November 2010). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs (cRCTs), interrupted time series studies and controlled before-after (CBA) studies of the effects of remediating dampness and mould in a building on respiratory symptoms, infections and asthma. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight studies (6538 participants); two RCTs (294 participants), one cRCT (4407 participants) and five CBA studies (1837 participants). The interventions varied from thorough renovation to cleaning only. We found moderate-quality evidence in adults that repairing houses decreased asthma-related symptoms (among others, wheezing (odds ratio (OR) 0.64; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 0.75) and respiratory infections (among others, rhinitis (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.49 to 0.66)). For children, we found moderate-quality evidence that the number of acute care visits (among others mean difference (MD) -0.45; 95% CI -0.76 to -0.14)) decreased in the group receiving thorough remediation. One CBA study showed very low-quality evidence that after repairing a mould-damaged office building, asthma-related and other respiratory symptoms decreased. For children and staff in schools, there was very low-quality evidence that asthma-related and other respiratory symptoms in mould-damaged schools were similar to those of children and staff in non-damaged schools, both before and after intervention. For children, respiratory infections might have decreased after the intervention. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found moderate to very low-quality evidence that repairing mould-damaged houses and offices decreases asthma-related symptoms and respiratory infections compared to no intervention in adults. There is very low-quality evidence that although repairing schools did not significantly change respiratory symptoms in staff or children, pupils' visits to physicians due to a common cold were less frequent after remediation of the school. Better research, preferably with a cRCT design and with more validated outcome measures, is needed.
BACKGROUND: Dampness and mould in buildings have been associated with adverse respiratory symptoms, asthma and respiratory infections of inhabitants. Moisture damage is a very common problem in private houses, workplaces and public buildings such as schools. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of remediating buildings damaged by dampness and mould in order to reduce or prevent respiratory tract symptoms, infections and symptoms of asthma. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 2), which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1951 to June week 1, 2011), EMBASE (1974 to June 2011), CINAHL (1982 to June 2011), Science Citation Index (1973 to June 2011), Biosis Previews (1989 to June 2011), NIOSHTIC (1930 to November 2010) and CISDOC (1974 to November 2010). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs (cRCTs), interrupted time series studies and controlled before-after (CBA) studies of the effects of remediating dampness and mould in a building on respiratory symptoms, infections and asthma. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight studies (6538 participants); two RCTs (294 participants), one cRCT (4407 participants) and five CBA studies (1837 participants). The interventions varied from thorough renovation to cleaning only. We found moderate-quality evidence in adults that repairing houses decreased asthma-related symptoms (among others, wheezing (odds ratio (OR) 0.64; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 0.75) and respiratory infections (among others, rhinitis (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.49 to 0.66)). For children, we found moderate-quality evidence that the number of acute care visits (among others mean difference (MD) -0.45; 95% CI -0.76 to -0.14)) decreased in the group receiving thorough remediation. One CBA study showed very low-quality evidence that after repairing a mould-damaged office building, asthma-related and other respiratory symptoms decreased. For children and staff in schools, there was very low-quality evidence that asthma-related and other respiratory symptoms in mould-damaged schools were similar to those of children and staff in non-damaged schools, both before and after intervention. For children, respiratory infections might have decreased after the intervention. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found moderate to very low-quality evidence that repairing mould-damaged houses and offices decreases asthma-related symptoms and respiratory infections compared to no intervention in adults. There is very low-quality evidence that although repairing schools did not significantly change respiratory symptoms in staff or children, pupils' visits to physicians due to a common cold were less frequent after remediation of the school. Better research, preferably with a cRCT design and with more validated outcome measures, is needed.
Authors: T L Croston; A P Nayak; A R Lemons; W T Goldsmith; J K Gu; D R Germolec; D H Beezhold; B J Green Journal: Clin Exp Allergy Date: 2016-09-16 Impact factor: 5.018
Authors: Diane R Gold; Gary Adamkiewicz; Syed Hasan Arshad; Juan C Celedón; Martin D Chapman; Ginger L Chew; Donald N Cook; Adnan Custovic; Ulrike Gehring; James E Gern; Christine C Johnson; Suzanne Kennedy; Petros Koutrakis; Brian Leaderer; Herman Mitchell; Augusto A Litonjua; Geoffrey A Mueller; George T O'Connor; Dennis Ownby; Wanda Phipatanakul; Victoria Persky; Matthew S Perzanowski; Clare D Ramsey; Päivi M Salo; Julie M Schwaninger; Joanne E Sordillo; Avrum Spira; Shakira F Suglia; Alkis Togias; Darryl C Zeldin; Elizabeth C Matsui Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2017-05-10 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Claire Slinger; Syed B Mehdi; Stephen J Milan; Steven Dodd; Jessica Matthews; Aashish Vyas; Paul A Marsden Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-07-23
Authors: Gerhard A Wiesmüller; Birger Heinzow; Ute Aurbach; Karl-Christian Bergmann; Albrecht Bufe; Walter Buzina; Oliver A Cornely; Steffen Engelhart; Guido Fischer; Thomas Gabrio; Werner Heinz; Caroline E W Herr; Jörg Kleine-Tebbe; Ludger Klimek; Martin Köberle; Herbert Lichtnecker; Thomas Lob-Corzilius; Rolf Merget; Norbert Mülleneisen; Dennis Nowak; Uta Rabe; Monika Raulf; Hans Peter Seidl; Jens-Oliver Steiß; Regine Szewszyk; Peter Thomas; Kerttu Valtanen; Julia Hurraß Journal: Allergo J Int Date: 2017-02-28