Hydrolysed formula and risk of allergic or autoimmune disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective To determine whether feeding infants with hydrolysed formula reduces their risk of allergic or autoimmune disease. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis, as part of a series of systematic reviews commissioned by the UK Food Standards Agency to inform guidelines on infant feeding. Two authors selected studies by consensus, independently extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Data sources Medline, Embase, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and LILACS searched between January 1946 and April 2015. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Prospective intervention trials of hydrolysed cows’ milk formula compared with another hydrolysed formula, human breast milk, or a standard cows’ milk formula, which reported on allergic or autoimmune disease or allergic sensitisation. Results 37 eligible intervention trials of hydrolysed formula were identified, including over 19 000 participants. There was evidence of conflict of interest and high or unclear risk of bias in most studies of allergic outcomes and evidence of publication bias for studies of eczema and wheeze. Overall there was no consistent evidence that partially or extensively hydrolysed formulas reduce risk of allergic or autoimmune outcomes in infants at high pre-existing risk of these outcomes. Odds ratios for eczema at age 0-4, compared with standard cows’ milk formula, were 0.84 (95% confidence interval 0.67 to 1.07; I2=30%) for partially hydrolysed formula; 0.55 (0.28 to 1.09; I2=74%) for extensively hydrolysed casein based formula; and 1.12 (0.88 to 1.42; I2=0%) for extensively hydrolysed whey based formula. There was no evidence to support the health claim approved by the US Food and Drug Administration that a partially hydrolysed formula could reduce the risk of eczema nor the conclusion of the Cochrane review that hydrolysed formula could allergy to cows’ milk. Conclusion These findings do not support current guidelines that recommend the use of hydrolysed formula to prevent allergic disease in high risk infants

An algorithm for diagnosing IgE-mediated food allergy in study participants who do not undergo food challenge.

BACKGROUND: Food allergy diagnosis in clinical studies can be challenging. Oral food challenges (OFC) are time-consuming, carry some risk and may, therefore, not be acceptable to all study participants. OBJECTIVE: To design and evaluate an algorithm for detecting IgE-mediated food allergy in clinical study participants who do not undergo OFC. METHODS: An algorithm for trial participants in the Barrier Enhancement for Eczema Prevention (BEEP) study who were unwilling or unable to attend OFC was developed. BEEP is a pragmatic, multi-centre, randomized-controlled trial of daily emollient for the first year of life for primary prevention of eczema and food allergy in high-risk infants (ISRCTN21528841). We built on the European iFAAM consensus guidance to develop a novel food allergy diagnosis algorithm using available information on previous allergenic food ingestion, food reaction(s) and sensitization status. This was implemented by a panel of food allergy experts blind to treatment allocation and OFC outcome. We then evaluated the algorithm's performance in both BEEP and Enquiring About Tolerance (EAT) study participants who did undergo OFC. RESULTS: In 31/69 (45%) BEEP and 44/55 (80%) EAT study control group participants who had an OFC the panel felt confident enough to categorize children as "probable food allergy" or "probable no food allergy". Algorithm-derived panel decisions showed high sensitivity 94% (95%CI 68, 100) BEEP; 90% (95%CI 72, 97) EAT and moderate specificity 67% (95%CI 39, 87) BEEP; 67% (95%CI 39, 87) EAT. Sensitivity and specificity were similar when all BEEP and EAT participants with OFC outcome were included. CONCLUSION: We describe a new algorithm with high sensitivity for IgE-mediated food allergy in clinical study participants who do not undergo OFC. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This may be a useful tool for excluding food allergy in future clinical studies where OFC is not conducted

Use of multiple epinephrine doses in anaphylaxis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Regulatory bodies recommend that all patients at risk of anaphylaxis be prescribed 2 epinephrine autoinjectors, which they should carry at all times. This is in contrast to some guidelines. The proportion of anaphylaxis reactions that are treated with multiple doses of epinephrine has not been systematically evaluated. Objective: Our aim was to undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies reporting epinephrine treatment for anaphylaxis in which data relating to the number of doses administered were available. Methods: We searched the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases for relevant studies reporting at least 10 anaphylaxis events (due to food or venom) from 1946 until January 2020. Data were extracted in duplicate for the meta-analysis, and the risk of bias was assessed. The study was registered under the PROSPERO identifier CRD42017069109. Results: A total of 86 studies (36,557 anaphylaxis events) met the inclusion criteria (20 of the studies [23%] were prospective studies; 64 [74%] reported reactions in the community, and 22 [26%] included food challenge data). Risk of bias was assessed as low in 50 studies. Overall, 7.7% of anaphylaxis events from any cause (95% CI = 6.4-9.1) were treated with multiple doses of epinephrine. When only epinephrine-treated reactions for which subsequent doses were administered by a health care professional were considered, 11.1% of food-induced reactions (95% CI = 9.4-13.2) and 17.1% of venom-induced reactions (95% CI = 11.3-25.0) were treated with at least 1 epinephrine dose. Heterogeneity was moderate to high in the meta-analyses, but at sensitivity analysis it was not affected by study design or anaphylaxis definition. Conclusion: Around 1 in 10 anaphylaxis reactions are treated with at least 1 dose of epinephrine

House dust mite reduction and avoidance measures for treating eczema

BACKGROUND: Eczema is an inflammatory skin disease that tends to involve skin creases, such as the folds of the elbows or knees; it is an intensely itchy skin condition, which can relapse and remit over time. As many as a third of people with eczema who have a positive test for allergy to house dust mite have reported worsening of eczema or respiratory symptoms when exposed to dust. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of all house dust mite reduction and avoidance measures for the treatment of eczema. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to 14 August 2014: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library (2014, Issue 8), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), LILACS (from 1982), and the GREAT database. We also searched five trials registers and checked the reference lists of included and excluded studies for further references to relevant studies. We handsearched abstracts from international eczema and allergy meetings. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any of the house dust mite reduction and avoidance measures for the treatment of eczema, which included participants of any age diagnosed by a clinician with eczema as defined by the World Allergy Organization. We included all non‐pharmacological and pharmacological interventions that sought to reduce or avoid exposure to house dust mite and their allergenic faeces. The comparators were any active treatment, no treatment, placebo, or standard care only. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently checked the titles and abstracts identified, and there were no disagreements. We contacted authors of included studies for additional information. We assessed the risk of bias using Cochrane methodology. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven studies of 324 adults and children with eczema. Overall, the included studies had a high risk of bias. Four of the seven trials tested interventions with multiple components, and three tested a single intervention. Two of the seven trials included only children, four included children and adults, and one included only adults. Interventions to reduce or avoid exposure to house dust mite included covers for mattresses and bedding, increased or high‐quality vacuuming of carpets and mattresses, and sprays that kill house dust mites. Four studies assessed our first primary outcome of 'Clinician‐assessed eczema severity using a named scale'. Of these, one study (n = 20) did not show any significant short‐term benefit from allergen impermeable polyurethane mattress encasings and acaricide spray versus allergen permeable cotton mattress encasings and placebo acaricide spray. One study (n = 60) found a modest statistically significant benefit in the Six Area, Six Sign Atopic Dermatitis (SASSAD) scale over six months (mean difference of 4.2 (95% confidence interval 1.7 to 6.7), P = 0.008) in favour of a mite impermeable bedding system combined with benzyltannate spray and high‐filtration vacuuming versus mite permeable cotton encasings, water with a trace of alcohol spray, and a low‐filtration vacuum cleaner. The third study (n = 41) did not compare the change in severity of eczema between the two treatment groups. The fourth study (n = 86) reported no evidence of a difference between the treatment groups. With regard to the secondary outcomes 'Participant‐ or caregiver‐assessed global eczema severity score' and the 'Amount and frequency of topical treatment required', one study (n = 20) assessed these outcomes with similar results being reported for these outcomes in both groups. Four studies (n = 159) assessed 'Sensitivity to house dust mite allergen using a marker'; there was no clear evidence of a difference in sensitivity levels reported between treatments in any of the four trials. None of the seven included studies assessed our second primary outcome 'Participant‐ or caregiver‐assessed eczema‐related quality of life using a named instrument' or the secondary outcome of 'Adverse effects'. We were unable to combine any of our results because of variability in the interventions and paucity of data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We were unable to determine clear implications to inform clinical practice from the very low‐quality evidence currently available. The modest treatment responses reported were in people with atopic eczema, specifically with sensitivity to one or more aeroallergens. Thus, their use in the eczema population as a whole is unknown. High‐quality long‐term trials of single, easy‐to‐administer house dust mite reduction or avoidance measures are worth pursuing

Specific allergen immunotherapy for the treatment of atopic eczema.

BACKGROUND: Specific allergen immunotherapy (SIT) is a treatment that may improve disease severity in people with atopic eczema (AE) by inducing immune tolerance to the relevant allergen. A high quality systematic review has not previously assessed the efficacy and safety of this treatment. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of specific allergen immunotherapy (SIT), including subcutaneous, sublingual, intradermal, and oral routes, compared with placebo or a standard treatment in people with atopic eczema. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to July 2015: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library (Issue 7, 2015), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), LILACS (from 1982), Web of Science™ (from 2005), the Global Resource of EczemA Trials (GREAT database), and five trials databases. We searched abstracts from recent European and North American allergy meetings and checked the references of included studies and review articles for further references to relevant trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of specific allergen immunotherapy that used standardised allergen extracts in people with AE. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently undertook study selection, data extraction (including adverse effects), assessment of risk of bias, and analyses. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 12 RCTs for inclusion in this review; the total number of participants was 733. The interventions included SIT in children and adults allergic to either house dust mite (10 trials), grass pollen, or other inhalant allergens (two trials). They were administered subcutaneously (six trials), sublingually (four trials), orally, or intradermally (two trials). Overall, the risk of bias was moderate, with high loss to follow up and lack of blinding as the main methodological concern.Our primary outcomes were 'Participant- or parent-reported global assessment of disease severity at the end of treatment'; 'Participant- or parent-reported specific symptoms of eczema, by subjective measures'; and 'Adverse events, such as acute episodes of asthma or anaphylaxis'. SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) is a means of measuring the effect of atopic dermatitis by area (A); intensity (B); and subjective measures (C), such as itch and sleeplessness, which we used.For 'Participant- or parent-reported global assessment of disease severity at the end of treatment', one trial (20 participants) found improvement in 7/9 participants (78%) treated with the SIT compared with 3/11 (27%) treated with the placebo (risk ratio (RR) 2.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 7.96; P = 0.04). Another study (24 participants) found no difference: global disease severity improved in 8/13 participants (62%) treated with the SIT compared with 9/11 (81%) treated with the placebo (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.26; P = 0.38). We did not perform meta-analysis because of high heterogeneity between these two studies. The quality of the evidence was low.For 'Participant- or parent-reported specific symptoms of eczema, by subjective measures', two trials (184 participants) did not find that the SIT improved SCORAD part C (mean difference (MD) -0.74, 95% CI -1.98 to 0.50) or sleep disturbance (MD -0.49, 95% CI -1.03 to 0.06) more than placebo. For SCORAD part C itch severity, these two trials (184 participants) did not find that the SIT improved itch (MD -0.24, 95% CI -1.00 to 0.52). One other non-blinded study (60 participants) found that the SIT reduced itch compared with no treatment (MD -4.20, 95% CI -3.69 to -4.71) and reduced the participants' overall symptoms (P < 0.01), but we could not pool these three studies due to high heterogeneity. The quality of the evidence was very low.Seven trials reported systemic adverse reactions: 18/282 participants (6.4%) treated with the SIT had a systemic reaction compared with 15/210 (7.1%) with no treatment (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.49; the quality of the evidence was moderate). The same seven trials reported local adverse reactions: 90/280 participants (32.1%) treated with the SIT had a local reaction compared with 44/204 (21.6%) in the no treatment group (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.81). As these had the same study limitations, we deemed the quality of the evidence to also be moderate.Of our secondary outcomes, there was a significant improvement in 'Investigator- or physician-rated global assessment of disease severity at the end of treatment' (six trials, 262 participants; RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.88). None of the studies reported our secondary outcome 'Parent- or participant-rated eczema severity assessed using a published scale', but two studies (n = 184), which have been mentioned above, used SCORAD part C, which we included as our primary outcome 'Participant- or parent-reported specific symptoms of eczema, by subjective measures'.Our findings were generally inconclusive because of the small number of studies. We were unable to determine by subgroup analyses a particular type of allergen or a particular age or level of disease severity where allergen immunotherapy was more successful. We were also unable to determine whether sublingual immunotherapy was associated with more local adverse reactions compared with subcutaneous immunotherapy. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the quality of the evidence was low. The low quality was mainly due to the differing results between studies, lack of blinding in some studies, and relatively few studies reporting participant-centred outcome measures. We found limited evidence that SIT may be an effective treatment for people with AE. The treatments used in these trials were not associated with an increased risk of local or systemic reactions. Future studies should use high quality allergen formulations with a proven track record in other allergic conditions and should include participant-reported outcome measures

Incidence of fatal food anaphylaxis in people with food allergy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Food allergy is a common cause of anaphylaxis, but the incidence of fatal food anaphylaxis is not known. The aim of this study was to estimate the incidence of fatal food anaphylaxis for people with food allergy and relate this to other mortality risks in the general population. METHODS: We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis, using the generic inverse variance method. Two authors selected studies by consensus, independently extracted data and assessed the quality of included studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa assessment scale. We searched Medline, Embase, PsychInfo, CINAHL, Web of Science, LILACS or AMED, between January 1946 and September 2012, and recent conference abstracts. We included registries, databases or cohort studies which described the number of fatal food anaphylaxis cases in a defined population and time period and applied an assumed population prevalence rate of food allergy. RESULTS: We included data from 13 studies describing 240 fatal food anaphylaxis episodes over an estimated 165 million food-allergic person-years. Study quality was mixed, and there was high heterogeneity between study results, possibly due to variation in food allergy prevalence and data collection methods. In food-allergic people, fatal food anaphylaxis has an incidence rate of 1.81 per million person-years (95%CI 0.94, 3.45; range 0.63, 6.68). In sensitivity analysis with different estimated food allergy prevalence, the incidence varied from 1.35 to 2.71 per million person-years. At age 0–19, the incidence rate is 3.25 (1.73, 6.10; range 0.94, 15.75; sensitivity analysis 1.18–6.13). The incidence of fatal food anaphylaxis in food-allergic people is lower than accidental death in the general European population. CONCLUSION: Fatal food anaphylaxis for a food-allergic person is rarer than accidental death in the general population

Toxic metal enrichment and boating intensity: sediment records of antifoulant copper in shallow lakes of eastern England

Tributyltin (TBT), an aqueous biocide derived from antifouling paint pollution, is known to have impacted coastal marine ecosystems, and has been reported in the sediment of the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads, a network of rivers and shallow lakes in eastern England. In the marine environment, the 1987 TBT ban has resulted in expanded use of alternative biocides, raising the question of whether these products too have impacted the Broads ecosystem and freshwaters in general. Here we examine the lake sediment record in the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads for contamination by copper (Cu) (as an active biocide agent) and zinc (Zn) (as a component of booster biocides), to assess their occurrence and potential for causing environmental harm in freshwater ecosystems. We find that, after the introduction of leisure boating, there is a statistically significant difference in Cu enrichment between heavily and lightly boated sites, while no such difference exists prior to this time. At the heavily boated sites the onset of Cu enrichment coincides with a period of rapid increase in leisure boating. Such enrichment is maintained to the present day, with some evidence of continued increase. We conclude that Cu-based antifouling has measurably contaminated lakes exposed to boating, at concentrations high enough to cause ecological harm. Similar findings can be expected at other boated freshwater ecosystems elsewhere in the world