Study protocol of a phase 2, dual-centre, randomised, controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of probiotic and egg oral immunotherapy at inducing desensitisation or sustained unresponsiveness (remission) in participants with egg allergy compared with placebo (probiotic egg allergen oral immunotherapy for treatment of egg allergy: PEAT study)

Introduction Egg allergy is the most common food allergy in children but recent studies have shown persistence or delayed resolution into adolescence. As there is currently no effective long-term treatment, definitive treatments that improve quality of life and prevent fatalities for food allergies are required. We have previously shown that a novel treatment comprising a combination of the probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus CGMCC 1.3724 with peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) is highly effective at inducing sustained unresponsiveness, with benefit persisting to 4 years after treatment cessation in the majority of initial treatment responders. In this study, we plan to extend the probiotic food OIT platform to another allergen, namely egg. We describe the protocol for a phase 2, dual-centre, randomised, controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of probiotic and egg OIT at inducing desensitisation or sustained unresponsiveness (remission) in participants with egg allergy compared with placebo. Methods and analysis 80 participants aged 5-30 years of age with current egg allergy confirmed by double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge at study screening will be recruited from Australia and Singapore. There are two intervention arms - probiotic and egg OIT (active) or placebo. Interventions are administered once daily for 18 months. The primary outcome is the proportion of participants who attain 8-week sustained unresponsiveness in the active group versus placebo group. Ethics and dissemination This study has been approved by the Human Research Ethics Committees at the Royal Children's Hospital (HREC 2019.082) and the National Healthcare Group Domain Specific Review Board (2019/00029). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated via presentations at international conferences. Trial registration number ACTRN12619000480189

PLASER: Pronunciation Learning via Automatic Speech Recognition

PLASER is a multimedia tool with instant feedback designed to teach English pronunciation for high-school students of Hong Kong whose mother tongue is Cantonese Chinese. The objective is to teach correct pronunciation and not to assess a student's overall pronunciation quality. Major challenges related to speech recognition technology include: allowance for non-native accent, reliable and corrective feedbacks, and visualization of errors

A systematic review of quality and consistency of clinical practice guidelines on the primary prevention of food allergy and atopic dermatitis

Background and aims: With an increasing number of Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) addressing primary prevention of food allergy and atopic dermatitis, it is timely to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the quality and consistency of recommendations and evaluation of their implementability in different geographical settings. Methods: We systematically reviewed CPGs from 8 international databases and extensive website searches. Seven reviewers screened records in any language and then used the AGREE II and AGREE REX instruments to critically appraise CPGs published between January 2011 and April 2022. Results: Our search identified 2138 relevant articles, of which 30 CPGs were eventually included. Eight (27%) CPGs were shortlisted based on our predefined quality criteria of achieving scores \u3e70% in the “Scope and Purpose” and “Rigour of Development” domains of the AGREE II instrument. Among the shortlisted CPGs, scores on the “Applicability” domain were generally low, and only 3 CPGs rated highly in the “Implementability” domain of AGREE-REX, suggesting that the majority of CPGs fared poorly on global applicability. Recommendations on maternal diet and complementary feeding in infants were mostly consistent, but recommendations on use of hydrolysed formula and supplements varied considerably. Conclusion: The overall quality of a CPG for Food Allergy and Atopic Dermatitis prevention did not correlate well with its global applicability. It is imperative that CPG developers consider stakeholders’ preferences, local applicability, and adapt existing recommendations to each individual population and healthcare system to ensure successful implementation. There is a need for development of high-quality CPGs for allergy prevention outside of North America and Europe. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021265689

Quality and consistency of clinical practice guidelines on the prevention of food allergy and atopic dermatitis : systematic review protocol

BACKGROUND AND AIMS : Allergy prevention strategies have gained significant traction as a means to attenuate the growing burden of allergic diseases over the past decade. As the evidence base for primary prevention of food allergy (FA) and atopic dermatitis (AD) is constantly advancing, clinical practice guideline (CPG) recommendations on interventions for FA and AD prevention vary in quality and consistency among professional organizations. We present a protocol for a systematic review of CPGs on primary prevention of FA and AD. METHODS : We will systematically review and appraise all CPGs addressing primary prevention of FA and AD and report our findings according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Electronic databases and manual website searches from January 2011 to March 2021 without language or geographical restrictions, and supplemented by author contact, will generate the list of potentially relevant CPGs to screen. Evaluation of the methodological quality, consistency, and global applicability of shortlisted CPGs will be performed by members of the Allergy Prevention Work Group of the World Allergy Organization (WAO) using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II and AGREE-REX (Recommendations EXcellence). instruments. Guideline contents, consistency, and quality of the recommendations will be summarised in tabular and narrative formats. We aim to present consolidated recommendations from international guidelines of the highest methodological quality and applicability, as determined by AGREE II and AGREE-REX. DISSEMINATION : This systematic review will provide a succinct overview of the quality and consistency of recommendations across all existing CPGs for FA and AD prevention, as well as crucial perspectives on applicability of individual recommendations in different geographical contexts. Results from this systematic review will be reported in a peer-reviewed journal. It will also inform a position statement by WAO to provide a practical framework to guide the development of future guidelines for allergy prevention worldwide. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER : CRD42021265689.Hong Kong Research Grant Council & TS Lo Foundation; the Hong Kong Health and Medical Research Fund – Research Fellowship Scheme and the National Medical Research Council (NMRC).https://www.journals.elsevier.com/world-allergy-organization-journalhj2022Paediatrics and Child Healt

A systematic review of quality and consistency of clinical practice guidelines on the primary prevention of food allergy and atopic dermatitis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS : With an increasing number of Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) addressing primary prevention of food allergy and atopic dermatitis, it is timely to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the quality and consistency of recommendations and evaluation of their implementability in different geographical settings. METHODS : We systematically reviewed CPGs from 8 international databases and extensive website searches. Seven reviewers screened records in any language and then used the AGREE II and AGREE REX instruments to critically appraise CPGs published between January 2011 and April 2022. RESULTS : Our search identified 2138 relevant articles, of which 30 CPGs were eventually included. Eight (27%) CPGs were shortlisted based on our predefined quality criteria of achieving scores >70% in the “Scope and Purpose” and “Rigour of Development” domains of the AGREE II instrument. Among the shortlisted CPGs, scores on the “Applicability” domain were generally low, and only 3 CPGs rated highly in the “Implementability” domain of AGREE-REX, suggesting that the majority of CPGs fared poorly on global applicability. Recommendations on maternal diet and complementary feeding in infants were mostly consistent, but recommendations on use of hydrolysed formula and supplements varied considerably. CONCLUSION : The overall quality of a CPG for Food Allergy and Atopic Dermatitis prevention did not correlate well with its global applicability. It is imperative that CPG developers consider stakeholders’ preferences, local applicability, and adapt existing individual population and healthcare system to ensure successful implementation. There is a need for development of high-quality CPGs for allergy prevention outside of North America and Europehttps://www.journals.elsevier.com/world-allergy-organization-journal/Paediatrics and Child Healt

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

Background A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials