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

Daily emollient during infancy for prevention of eczema: the BEEP randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Skin barrier dysfunction precedes eczema development. We tested whether daily use of emollient in the first year could prevent eczema in high-risk children. METHODS: We did a multicentre, pragmatic, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial in 12 hospitals and four primary care sites across the UK. Families were approached via antenatal or postnatal services for recruitment of term infants (at least 37 weeks' gestation) at high risk of developing eczema (ie, at least one first-degree relative with parent-reported eczema, allergic rhinitis, or asthma, diagnosed by a doctor). Term newborns with a family history of atopic disease were randomly assigned (1:1) to application of emollient daily (either Diprobase cream or DoubleBase gel) for the first year plus standard skin-care advice (emollient group) or standard skin-care advice only (control group). The randomisation schedule was created using computer-generated code (stratified by recruiting centre and number of first-degree relatives with atopic disease) and participants were assigned to groups using an internet-based randomisation system. The primary outcome was eczema at age 2 years (defined by UK working party criteria) with analysis as randomised regardless of adherence to allocation for participants with outcome data collected, and adjusting for stratification variables. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN21528841. Data collection for long-term follow-up is ongoing, but the trial is closed to recruitment. FINDINGS: 1394 newborns were randomly assigned to study groups between Nov 19, 2014, and Nov 18, 2016; 693 were assigned to the emollient group and 701 to the control group. Adherence in the emollient group was 88% (466 of 532) at 3 months, 82% (427 of 519) at 6 months, and 74% (375 of 506) at 12 months in those with complete questionnaire data. At age 2 years, eczema was present in 139 (23%) of 598 infants with outcome data collected in the emollient group and 150 (25%) of 612 infants in the control group (adjusted relative risk 0·95 [95% CI 0·78 to 1·16], p=0·61; adjusted risk difference -1·2% [-5·9 to 3·6]). Other eczema definitions supported the results of the primary analysis. Mean number of skin infections per child in year 1 was 0·23 (SD 0·68) in the emollient group versus 0·15 (0·46) in the control group; adjusted incidence rate ratio 1·55 (95% CI 1·15 to 2·09). INTERPRETATION: We found no evidence that daily emollient during the first year of life prevents eczema in high-risk children and some evidence to suggest an increased risk of skin infections. Our study shows that families with eczema, asthma, or allergic rhinitis should not use daily emollients to try and prevent eczema in their newborn. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment

Daily emollient during infancy for prevention of eczema: the BEEP randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Skin barrier dysfunction precedes eczema development. We tested whether daily use of emollient in the first year could prevent eczema in high-risk children. METHODS: We did a multicentre, pragmatic, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial in 12 hospitals and four primary care sites across the UK. Families were approached via antenatal or postnatal services for recruitment of term infants (at least 37 weeks' gestation) at high risk of developing eczema (ie, at least one first-degree relative with parent-reported eczema, allergic rhinitis, or asthma, diagnosed by a doctor). Term newborns with a family history of atopic disease were randomly assigned (1:1) to application of emollient daily (either Diprobase cream or DoubleBase gel) for the first year plus standard skin-care advice (emollient group) or standard skin-care advice only (control group). The randomisation schedule was created using computer-generated code (stratified by recruiting centre and number of first-degree relatives with atopic disease) and participants were assigned to groups using an internet-based randomisation system. The primary outcome was eczema at age 2 years (defined by UK working party criteria) with analysis as randomised regardless of adherence to allocation for participants with outcome data collected, and adjusting for stratification variables. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN21528841. Data collection for long-term follow-up is ongoing, but the trial is closed to recruitment. FINDINGS: 1394 newborns were randomly assigned to study groups between Nov 19, 2014, and Nov 18, 2016; 693 were assigned to the emollient group and 701 to the control group. Adherence in the emollient group was 88% (466 of 532) at 3 months, 82% (427 of 519) at 6 months, and 74% (375 of 506) at 12 months in those with complete questionnaire data. At age 2 years, eczema was present in 139 (23%) of 598 infants with outcome data collected in the emollient group and 150 (25%) of 612 infants in the control group (adjusted relative risk 0·95 [95% CI 0·78 to 1·16], p=0·61; adjusted risk difference -1·2% [-5·9 to 3·6]). Other eczema definitions supported the results of the primary analysis. Mean number of skin infections per child in year 1 was 0·23 (SD 0·68) in the emollient group versus 0·15 (0·46) in the control group; adjusted incidence rate ratio 1·55 (95% CI 1·15 to 2·09). INTERPRETATION: We found no evidence that daily emollient during the first year of life prevents eczema in high-risk children and some evidence to suggest an increased risk of skin infections. Our study shows that families with eczema, asthma, or allergic rhinitis should not use daily emollients to try and prevent eczema in their newborn. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment

Outcomes and Complications With Off-Label Use of Drug-Eluting Stents Results From the STENT (Strategic Transcatheter Evaluation of New Therapies) Group

ObjectivesThis study evaluates outcomes and complications in patients treated with drug-eluting stents (DES) for “off-label” indications.BackgroundDrug-eluting stents have been effective in randomized trials, but their safety and efficacy for off-label indications has not been well studied.MethodsThe STENT (Strategic Transcatheter Evaluation of New Therapies) Registry is the largest multicenter U.S. registry evaluating outcomes of DES. Off-label indications included ostial, left main, long, bifurcation, and in-stent restenotic lesions, saphenous vein grafts, chronic total occlusions, small or large vessels, multilesion or multivessel percutaneous coronary interventions, and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Outcomes were adjusted using Cox proportional hazards regression and propensity analyses.ResultsDrug-eluting stents were used in an off-label manner in 59% of patients. The patients who received off-label treatment were more often male, had a higher incidence of prior infarction and bypass surgery, and lower ejection fractions. Off-label versus “on-label” use of DES was associated with higher rates of death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, major adverse cardiac events, and stent thrombosis at 9 months and 2 years. Off-label use of DES compared with off-label use of bare-metal stents (BMS) had lower rates of death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, and major adverse cardiac events at 9 months and 2 years and lower rates of stent thrombosis at 9 months.ConclusionsOff-label use of DES is associated with higher event rates compared with on-label use of DES, which is consistent with a higher risk clinical and lesion profile. However, event rates with off-label use of DES are lower compared with off-label use of BMS. Pending results from randomized trials, our data support the use of DES for off-label indications in selected patients

Prevalence and risk factors for milk allergy overdiagnosis in the BEEP trial cohort.

BACKGROUND: Cow's milk allergy (CMA) overdiagnosis in young children appears to be increasing and has not been well characterised. We used a clinical trial population to characterise CMA overdiagnosis and identify individual-level and primary care practice-level risk factors. METHODS: We analysed data from 1394 children born in England in 2014-2016 (BEEP trial, ISRCTN21528841). Participants underwent formal CMA diagnosis at ≤2 years. CMA overdiagnosis was defined in three separate ways: parent-reported milk reaction; primary care record of milk hypersensitivity symptoms; and primary care record of low-allergy formula prescription. RESULTS: CMA was formally diagnosed in 19 (1.4%) participants. CMA overdiagnosis was common: 16.1% had parent-reported cow's milk hypersensitivity, 11.3% primary care recorded milk hypersensitivity and 8.7% had low-allergy formula prescription. Symptoms attributed to cow's milk hypersensitivity in participants without CMA were commonly gastrointestinal and reported from a median age of 49 days. Low-allergy formula prescriptions in participants without CMA lasted a median of 10 months (interquartile range 1, 16); the estimated volume consumed was a median of 272 litres (26, 448). Risk factors for CMA overdiagnosis were high practice-based low-allergy formula prescribing in the previous year and maternal report of antibiotic prescription during pregnancy. Exclusive formula feeding from birth was associated with increased low-allergy formula prescription. There was no evidence that practice prescribing of paediatric adrenaline auto-injectors or anti-reflux medications, or maternal features such as anxiety, age, parity and socioeconomic status were associated with CMA overdiagnosis. CONCLUSION: CMA overdiagnosis is common in early infancy. Risk factors include high primary care practice-based low-allergy formula prescribing and maternal report of antibiotic prescription during pregnancy

N-Palmitoyl Glycine, a Novel Endogenous Lipid That Acts As a Modulator of Calcium Influx and Nitric Oxide Production in Sensory Neurons

N-arachidonoyl glycine is an endogenous arachidonoyl amide that activates the orphan G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) GPR18 in a pertussis toxin (PTX)-sensitive manner and produces antinociceptive and antiinflammatory effects. It is produced by direct conjugation of arachidonic acid to glycine and by oxidative metabolism of the endocannabinoid anandamide. Based on the presence of enzymes that conjugate fatty acids with glycine and the high abundance of palmitic acid in the brain, we hypothesized the endogenous formation of the saturated N-acyl amide N-palmitoyl glycine (PalGly). PalGly was partially purified from rat lipid extracts and identified using nano-high-performance liquid chromatography/hybrid quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry. Here, we show that PalGly is produced after cellular stimulation and that it occurs in high levels in rat skin and spinal cord. PalGly was up-regulated in fatty acid amide hydrolase knockout mice, suggesting a pathway for enzymatic regulation. PalGly potently inhibited heat-evoked firing of nociceptive neurons in rat dorsal horn. In addition, PalGly induced transient calcium influx in native adult dorsal root ganglion (DRG) cells and a DRG-like cell line (F-11). The effect of PalGly on the latter cells was characterized by strict structural requirements, PTX sensitivity, and dependence on the presence of extracellular calcium. PalGly-induced calcium influx was blocked by the nonselective calcium channel blockers ruthenium red, 1-(beta-[3-(4-methoxyphenyl)propoxy]-4-methoxyphenethyl)-1H-imidazole (SK&F96365), and La3+. Furthermore, PalGly contributed to the production of NO through calcium-sensitive nitric-oxide synthase enzymes present in F-11 cells and was inhibited by the nitric-oxide synthase inhibitor 7-nitroindazole

Emollients for prevention of atopic dermatitis; 5‐year findings from the BEEP randomised trial

Background The effectiveness of emollients for preventing atopic dermatitis/eczema is controversial. The Barrier Enhancement for Eczema Prevention trial evaluated the effects of daily emollients during the first year of life on atopic dermatitis and atopic conditions to age 5 years. Methods 1394 term infants with a family history of atopic disease were randomized (1:1) to daily emollient plus standard skin-care advice (693 emollient group) or standard skin-care advice alone (701 controls). Long-term follow-up at ages 3, 4 and 5 years was via parental questionnaires. Main outcomes were parental report of a clinical diagnosis of atopic dermatitis and food allergy. Results Parents reported more frequent moisturizer application in the emollient group through to 5 years. A clinical diagnosis of atopic dermatitis between 12 and 60 months was reported for 188/608 (31%) in the emollient group and 178/631 (28%) in the control group (adjusted relative risk 1.10, 95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.30). Although more parents in the emollient group reported food reactions in the previous year at 3 and 4 years, cumulative incidence of doctor-diagnosed food allergy by 5 years was similar between groups (92/609 [15%] emollients and 87/632 [14%] controls, adjusted relative risk 1.11, 95% confidence interval 0.84 to 1.45). Findings were similar for cumulative incidence of asthma and hay fever. Conclusions Daily emollient application during the first year of life does not prevent atopic dermatitis, food allergy, asthma or hay fever

Emollients for preventing atopic eczema: Cost-effectiveness analysis of the BEEP trial.

BACKGROUND: Recent discoveries have led to the suggestion that enhancing skin barrier from birth might prevent eczema and food allergy. OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of daily all-over-body application of emollient during the first year of life for preventing atopic eczema in high-risk children at 2 years from a health service perspective. We also considered a 5-year time horizon as a sensitivity analysis. METHODS: A within-trial economic evaluation using data on health resource use and quality of life captured as part of the BEEP trial alongside the trial data. Parents/carers of 1394 infants born to families at high risk of atopic disease were randomised 1:1 to the emollient group, which were advised to apply emollient (Doublebase Gel or Diprobase Cream) to their child at least once daily to the whole body during the first year of life or usual care. Both groups received advice on general skin care. The main economic outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), defined as incremental cost per percentage decrease in risk of eczema in the primary cost-effectiveness analysis. Secondary analysis, undertaken as a cost-utility analysis, reports incremental cost per Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) where child utility was elicited using the proxy CHU-9D at 2 years. RESULTS: At 2 years, the adjusted incremental cost was £87.45 (95% CI -54.31, 229.27) per participant, whilst the adjusted proportion without eczema was 0.0164 (95% CI -0.0329, 0.0656). The ICER was £5337 per percentage decrease in risk of eczema. Adjusted incremental QALYs were very slightly improved in the emollient group, 0.0010 (95% CI -0.0069, 0.0089). At 5 years, adjusted incremental costs were lower for the emollient group, -£106.89 (95% CI -354.66, 140.88) and the proportion without eczema was -0.0329 (95% CI -0.0659, 0.0002). The 5-year ICER was £3201 per percentage decrease in risk of eczema. However, when inpatient costs due to wheezing were excluded, incremental costs were lower and incremental effects greater in the usual care group. CONCLUSIONS: In line with effectiveness endpoints, advice given in the BEEP trial to apply daily emollient during infancy for eczema prevention in high-risk children does not appear cost-effective

Emollients for preventing atopic eczema: Cost‐effectiveness analysis of the BEEP trial

BackgroundRecent discoveries have led to the suggestion that enhancing skin barrier from birth might prevent eczema and food allergy. ObjectiveTo determine the cost‐effectiveness of daily all‐over‐body application of emollient during the first year of life for preventing atopic eczema in high‐risk children at 2 years from a health service perspective. We also considered a 5‐year time horizon as a sensitivity analysis. MethodsA within‐trial economic evaluation using data on health resource use and quality of life captured as part of the BEEP trial alongside the trial data. Parents/carers of 1394 infants born to families at high risk of atopic disease were randomised 1:1 to the emollient group, which were advised to apply emollient (Doublebase Gel or Diprobase Cream) to their child at least once daily to the whole body during the first year of life or usual care. Both groups received advice on general skin care. The main economic outcomes were incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER), defined as incremental cost per percentage decrease in risk of eczema in the primary cost‐effectiveness analysis. Secondary analysis, undertaken as a cost‐utility analysis, reports incremental cost per Quality‐Adjusted Life Year (QALY) where child utility was elicited using the proxy CHU‐9D at 2 years. ResultsAt 2 years, the adjusted incremental cost was £87.45 (95% CI −54.31, 229.27) per participant, whilst the adjusted proportion without eczema was 0.0164 (95% CI −0.0329, 0.0656). The ICER was £5337 per percentage decrease in risk of eczema. Adjusted incremental QALYs were very slightly improved in the emollient group, 0.0010 (95% CI −0.0069, 0.0089). At 5 years, adjusted incremental costs were lower for the emollient group, −£106.89 (95% CI −354.66, 140.88) and the proportion without eczema was −0.0329 (95% CI −0.0659, 0.0002). The 5‐year ICER was £3201 per percentage decrease in risk of eczema. However, when inpatient costs due to wheezing were excluded, incremental costs were lower and incremental effects greater in the usual care group. ConclusionsIn line with effectiveness endpoints, advice given in the BEEP trial to apply daily emollient during infancy for eczema prevention in high‐risk children does not appear cost‐effective