A 24-h helpline for access to expert management advice for food allergy-related anaphylaxis in children: protocol for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVES: Anaphylaxis is an important, potentially life-threatening paediatric emergency. It is responsible for considerable morbidity and, in some cases, death. Poor outcomes may be associated with an inability to differentiate between milder and potentially more severe reactions and an associated reluctance to administer self-injectable adrenaline. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of a 24-h telephone access to specialist paediatric allergy expert advice in improving the quality of life of children and their families with potentially life-threatening food allergy (ie, anaphylaxis) compared with usual clinical care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Children aged less than 16 years with food allergy and who carry an adrenaline autoinjector will be recruited from the Paediatric Allergy Clinic at Cork University Hospital, Ireland and baseline disease-specific quality of life will be ascertained using the validated Food Allergy Quality of Life Questionnaire (FAQLQ). Participants will be randomised for a period of 6 months to the 24-h telephone specialist support line or usual care. The primary outcome measure of interest is a change in FAQLQ scores, which will be assessed at 0, 1 and 6 months postrandomisation. Analysis will be on an intention-to-treat basis using a 2×3 repeated measures within-between analysis of variance. Although lacking power, we will in addition assess the impact of the intervention on a range of relevant process and clinical endpoints. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial protocol has been approved by the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of the Cork Teaching Hospitals. The findings will be presented at international scientific conferences and will be reported on in the peer-reviewed literature in early 2013

Skin care interventions in infants for preventing eczema and food allergy

BackgroundEczema and food allergy are common health conditions that usually begin in early childhood and often occur together in the same people. They can be associated with an impaired skin barrier in early infancy. It is unclear whether trying to prevent or reverse an impaired skin barrier soon after birth is effective in preventing eczema or food allergy.ObjectivesPrimary objectiveTo assess effects of skin care interventions, such as emollients, for primary prevention of eczema and food allergy in infantsSecondary objectiveTo identify features of study populations such as age, hereditary risk, and adherence to interventions that are associated withthe greatest treatment benefit or harm for both eczema and food allergy.Search methodsWe searched the following databases up to July 2020: Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. We searched two trials registers and checked reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We contacted field experts to identify planned trials and to seek information about unpublished or incomplete trials.Selection criteriaRCTs of skin care interventions that could potentially enhance skin barrier function, reduce dryness, or reduce subclinical inflammation in healthy term (> 37 weeks) infants (0 to 12 months) without pre‐existing diagnosis of eczema, food allergy, or other skin condition were included. Comparison was standard care in the locality or no treatment. Types of skin care interventions included moisturisers/emollients; bathing products; advice regarding reducing soap exposure and bathing frequency; and use of water softeners. No minimum follow‐up was required.Data collection and analysisThis is a prospective individual participant data (IPD) meta‐analysis. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures, and primary analyses used the IPD dataset. Primary outcomes were cumulative incidence of eczema and cumulative incidence of immunoglobulin (Ig)E‐mediated food allergy by one to three years, both measured by the closest available time point to two years. Secondary outcomes included adverse events during the intervention period; eczema severity (clinician‐assessed); parent report of eczema severity; time to onset of eczema; parent report of immediate food allergy; and allergic sensitisation to food or inhalant allergen.Main resultsThis review identified 33 RCTs, comprising 25,827 participants. A total of 17 studies, randomising 5823 participants, reported information on one or more outcomes specified in this review. Eleven studies randomising 5217 participants, with 10 of these studies providing IPD, were included in one or more meta‐analysis (range 2 to 9 studies per individual meta‐analysis).Most studies were conducted at children's hospitals. All interventions were compared against no skin care intervention or local standard care. Of the 17 studies that reported our outcomes, 13 assessed emollients. Twenty‐five studies, including all those contributing data to meta‐analyses, randomised newborns up to age three weeks to receive a skin care intervention or standard infant skin care. Eight of the 11 studies contributing to meta‐analyses recruited infants at high risk of developing eczema or food allergy, although definition of high risk varied between studies. Durations of intervention and follow‐up ranged from 24 hours to two years.We assessed most of this review's evidence as low certainty or had some concerns of risk of bias. A rating of some concerns was most often due to lack of blinding of outcome assessors or significant missing data, which could have impacted outcome measurement but was judged unlikely to have done so. Evidence for the primary food allergy outcome was rated as high risk of bias due to inclusion of only one trial where findings varied when different assumptions were made about missing data.Skin care interventions during infancy probably do not change risk of eczema by one to two years of age (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.31; moderate‐certainty evidence; 3075 participants, 7 trials) nor time to onset of eczema (hazard ratio 0.86, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.14; moderate‐certainty evidence; 3349 participants, 9 trials). It is unclear whether skin care interventions during infancy change risk of IgE‐mediated food allergy by one to two years of age (RR 2.53, 95% CI 0.99 to 6.47; 996 participants, 1 trial) or allergic sensitisation to a food allergen at age one to two years (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.69; 1055 participants, 2 trials) due to very low‐certainty evidence for these outcomes. Skin care interventions during infancy may slightly increase risk of parent report of immediate reaction to a common food allergen at two years (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.61; low‐certainty evidence; 1171 participants, 1 trial). However, this was only seen for cow’s milk, and may be unreliable due to significant over‐reporting of cow’s milk allergy in infants. Skin care interventions during infancy probably increase risk of skin infection over the intervention period (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.77; moderate‐certainty evidence; 2728 participants, 6 trials) and may increase risk of infant slippage over the intervention period (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.99; low‐certainty evidence; 2538 participants, 4 trials) or stinging/allergic reactions to moisturisers (RR 2.24, 95% 0.67 to 7.43; low‐certainty evidence; 343 participants, 4 trials), although confidence intervals for slippages and stinging/allergic reactions are wide and include the possibility of no effect or reduced risk.Preplanned subgroup analyses show that effects of interventions were not influenced by age, duration of intervention, hereditary risk, FLG mutation, or classification of intervention type for risk of developing eczema. We could not evaluate these effects on risk of food allergy. Evidence was insufficient to show whether adherence to interventions influenced the relationship between skin care interventions and risk of developing eczema or food allergy.Authors' conclusionsSkin care interventions such as emollients during the first year of life in healthy infants are probably not effective for preventing eczema, and probably increase risk of skin infection. Effects of skin care interventions on risk of food allergy are uncertain.Further work is needed to understand whether different approaches to infant skin care might promote or prevent eczema and to evaluate effects on food allergy based on robust outcome assessments

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

Skin barrier impairment at birth predicts food allergy at 2 years of age

Background Transcutaneous exposure to food allergens can lead to food sensitisation (FS)/food allergy (FA). We measured skin barrier function in early infancy and related it to the later development of FS/FA at 2 years. Methods Infants in the BASELINE birth cohort had transepidermal water loss (TEWL) measured in the early newborn period and at 2 and 6 months. At 2 years, infants had FS/FA screening using skin prick testing and oral food challenge (OFC). Results 1903 infants were enrolled. 1355 were retained to 2 years, 1260 underwent FS screening. 6.27% had FS (79/1260, 95% CI 4.93 ? 7.61%), FA prevalence was 4.45% (56/1258, 95%CI 3.38-5.74). Egg was the most prevalent allergen (2.94%), then peanut (1.75%) and cow?s milk (0.74%). Day 2 upper quartile TEWL (>9gwater/m2/hr) was a significant predictor of FA at 2 years (OR 4.1 95% CI 1.5-4.8). 75% of children with FA at 2 years had day 2 TEWL values in the upper quartile. Even in those without atopic dermatitis, infants with upper quartile day 2 TEWL were 3.5 times more likely to have FA at 2 years than infants in the lowest quartile. (CI 1.3 -11.1, p=0.04). Conclusion Neonatal skin barrier dysfunction predicts FA at two years, supporting the concept of transcutaneous allergen sensitisation even in infants who do not develop atopic dermatitis. TEWL could be used for stratifying infants in the first few days of life, before development of 3 atopic dermatitis or food allergy, for targeted intervention studies to potentially alter the atopic march

Prevention of food allergy – skin barrier interventions

The relationship between infant skin health and food allergy pathogenesis is the focus of intense research activity, on the basis that interventions to improve infant skin health may potentially lead to the prevention of food allergy. Current evidence does not provide conclusive findings on the mechanisms of food allergy development but does support the possibility that food allergy develops through transcutaneous sensitisation to allergenic peptides. In this article, we review the evidence for this model of food allergy development, assess strategies currently being tested for prevention of food allergy through cutaneous interventions, and identify key knowledge gaps which might be explored in future work

Emollients for prevention of atopic dermatitis:5-year findings from the BEEP randomized 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