105 research outputs found

    H1-antihistamines for primary mast cell activation syndromes: a systematic review

    Get PDF
    Background Primary mast cell activation syndromes (MCAS) are a group of disorders presenting with symptoms of mast cell mediator release. Objectives To assess the effectiveness and safety of orally administered H1-antihistamines in the treatment of primary MCAS compared with placebo and other pharmacologic treatments. Methods We systematically searched five databases and three trial repositories and contacted an international panel of experts to identify published and unpublished trials. Results A total of 36 potentially relevant studies were identified. Of these, five crossover trials, enrolling a total of 71 patients (63 adults), met the eligibility criteria. All five of these studies were judged to be at moderate or high risk of bias. Two studies compared an H1-antihistamine with placebo, two compared two different H1-antihistamines, and one study compared H1- and H2-antihistamines with oral cromolyn sodium. Four of the five randomized controlled trials were historic (reported from 1983–1993), small (enrolling 8–15 patients), and used agents and/or dosing regimens that are now less commonly used in clinical practice (i.e. azelastine, chlorpheniramine, hydroxyzine, and ketotifen). The fifth trial, which enrolled 33 adults with cutaneous and systemic mastocytosis found 4 weeks of treatment with the second-generation H1-antihistamine rupatadine, compared with placebo, resulted in significant improvements in quality of life, symptom control (itching, wheals and flares, flushing, tachycardia, and headache, but not gastrointestinal symptoms), and reduction in itching and whealing after standardized skin provocation to elicit Darier's sign. Conclusions There is an urgent need for large, well-designed, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trials investigating the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and safety of second-generation H1-antihistamines in treatment of primary MCAS

    Vitamin D for the management of asthma

    Get PDF
    Background Several clinical trials of vitamin D to prevent asthma exacerbation and improve asthma control have been conducted in children and adults, but a meta-analysis restricted to double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trials of this intervention is lacking. Objectives To evaluate the efficacy of administration of vitamin D and its hydroxylated metabolites in reducing the risk of severe asthma exacerbations (defined as those requiring treatment with systemic corticosteroids) and improving asthma symptom control. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Trial Register and reference lists of articles. We contacted the authors of studies in order to identify additional trials. Date of last search: January 2016. Selection criteria Double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trials of vitamin D in children and adults with asthma evaluating exacerbation risk or asthma symptom control or both. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently applied study inclusion criteria, extracted the data, and assessed risk of bias. We obtained missing data from the authors where possible. We reported results with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Main results We included seven trials involving a total of 435 children and two trials involving a total of 658 adults in the primary analysis. Of these, one trial involving 22 children and two trials involving 658 adults contributed to the analysis of the rate of exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids. Duration of trials ranged from four to 12 months, and the majority of participants had mild to moderate asthma. Administration of vitamin D reduced the rate of exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids (rate ratio 0.63, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.88; 680 participants; 3 studies; high-quality evidence), and decreased the risk of having at least one exacerbation requiring an emergency department visit or hospitalisation or both (odds ratio (OR) 0.39, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.78; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome, 27; 963 participants; 7 studies; high-quality evidence). There was no effect of vitamin D on % predicted forced expiratory volume in one second (mean difference (MD) 0.48, 95% CI -0.93 to 1.89; 387 participants; 4 studies; high-quality evidence) or Asthma Control Test scores (MD -0.08, 95% CI -0.70 to 0.54; 713 participants; 3 studies; high-quality evidence). Administration of vitamin D did not influence the risk of serious adverse events (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.89; 879 participants; 5 studies; moderate-quality evidence). One trial comparing low-dose versus high-dose vitamin D reported two episodes of hypercalciuria, one in each study arm. No other study reported any adverse event potentially attributable to administration of vitamin D. No participant in any included trial suffered a fatal asthma exacerbation. We did not perform a subgroup analysis to determine whether the effect of vitamin D on risk of severe exacerbation was modified by baseline vitamin D status, due to unavailability of suitably disaggregated data. We assessed two trials as being at high risk of bias in at least one domain; neither trial contributed data to the analysis of the outcomes reported above. Authors' conclusions Meta-analysis of a modest number of trials in people with predominantly mild to moderate asthma suggests that vitamin D is likely to reduce both the risk of severe asthma exacerbation and healthcare use. It is as yet unclear whether these effects are confined to people with lower baseline vitamin D status; further research, including individual patient data meta-analysis of existing datasets, is needed to clarify this issue. Children and people with frequent severe asthma exacerbations were under-represented; additional primary trials are needed to establish whether vitamin D can reduce the risk of severe asthma exacerbation in these groups

    Antibiotic exposure and the risk of colorectal adenoma and carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

    Get PDF
    The Incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) is increasing, and evidence suggests that maladaptation of the bowel microbiome may be associated with colorectal carcinogenesis. Consumption of antibiotics may cause imbalance of the bowel microbiome but research assessing an association between antibiotic exposure and CRC is inconsistent. The aim of this systematic review and meta‐analysis was to appraise and synthesize the available evidence

    Allergen immunotherapy for IgE-mediated food allergy : a systematic review and meta-analysis

    Get PDF
    Background: The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is developing Guidelines for Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) for IgE-mediated Food Allergy. To inform the development of clinical recommendations, we sought to critically assess evidence on the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of AIT in the management of food allergy. Methods: We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis that involved searching nine international electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized studies (NRS). Eligible studies were independently assessed by two reviewers against predefined eligibility criteria. The quality of studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for RCTs and the Cochrane ACROBAT-NRS tool for quasi-RCTs. Random-effects meta-analyses were undertaken, with planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses. Results: We identified 1814 potentially relevant papers from which we selected 31 eligible studies, comprising of 25 RCTs and six NRS, studying a total of 1259 patients. Twenty-five trials evaluated oral immunotherapy (OIT), five studies investigated sublingual immunotherapy, and one study evaluated epicutaneous immunotherapy. The majority of these studies were in children. Twenty-seven studies assessed desensitization, and eight studies investigated sustained unresponsiveness postdiscontinuation of AIT. Meta-analyses demonstrated a substantial benefit in terms of desensitization (risk ratio (RR) = 0.16, 95% CI 0.10, 0.26) and suggested, but did not confirm sustained unresponsiveness (RR = 0.29, 95% CI 0.08, 1.13). Only one study reported on disease-specific quality of life (QoL), which reported no comparative results between OIT and control group. Meta-analyses revealed that the risk of experiencing a systemic adverse reaction was higher in those receiving AIT, with a more marked increase in the risk of local adverse reactions. Sensitivity analysis excluding those studies judged to be at high risk of bias demonstrated the robustness of summary estimates of effectiveness and safety of AIT for food allergy. None of the studies reported data on health economic analyses. Conclusions: AIT may be effective in raising the threshold of reactivity to a range of foods in children with IgE-mediated food allergy whilst receiving (i.e. desensitization) and post-discontinuation of AIT. It is, however, associated with a modest increased risk in serious systemic adverse reactions and a substantial increase in minor local adverse reactions. More data are needed in relation to adults, long term effects, the impact on QoL and the cost-effectiveness of AIT.Peer reviewe

    Key components of anaphylaxis management plans: consensus findings from a national electronic Delphi study

    Get PDF
    OBJECTIVES: There is no international consensus on the components of anaphylaxis management plans and responsibility for their design and delivery is contested. We set out to establish consensus among relevant specialist and generalist clinicians on this issue to inform future randomized controlled trials. DESIGN: A two-round electronic Delphi study completed by a 25-person, multidisciplinary expert panel. Participants scored the importance of a range of statements on anaphylaxis management, identified from a systematic review of the literature, on a five-point scale ranging from 'very important' to 'irrelevant'. Consensus was defined a priori as being achieved if 80% or more of panel members rated a statement as 'important' or 'very important' after Round 2. SETTING: Primary and secondary care and academic settings in the UK and Ireland. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-five medical, nursing and allied health professionals. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Consensus on the key components of anaphylaxis management plans. RESULTS: The response rate was 84% (n = 21) for Round 1 and 96% (n = 24) for Round 2. The key components of emergency care on which consensus was achieved included: awareness of trigger factors (100%); recognition and emergency management of reactions of different severity (100%); and clear information on adrenaline (epinephrine) use (100%). Consensus on longer-term management issues included: clear written guidelines on anaphylaxis management (96%); annual review of plans (87%); and plans that were tailored to individual needs (82%). CONCLUSIONS: This national consensus-building exercise generated widespread agreement that emergency plans need to be simple, clear and generic, making them easy to implement in a crisis. In contrast, long-term plans need to be negotiated between patient/carers and professionals, and tailored to individual needs. The effectiveness of this expert-agreed long-term plan now needs to be evaluated rigorously

    Monitoring of coronavirus infection in the kyrgyz population

    Get PDF
    Purpose of the study: to study the dynamics of developing herd immunity against SARS-CoV-2 in the population of the Republic of Kyrgyzstan during COVID-19. Materials and methods. The work was carried out using the methodology for assessing population immunity developed by Rospotrebnadzor (Russia) as well as the Ministry of Health (Kypgyzstan) and the St. Petersburg Pasteur Institute. The selection of participants was carried out by questionnaire using a cloud (Internet server) service. To monitor population immunity, a cohort of 2421 subjects was formed, who participated in all stages of seromonitoring. Volunteers were randomized according to age groups (1–17, 18–29, 30–39, 40–49, 50–59, 60–69, 70+ years), regional and professional factors. Antibodies (Abs) against SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (Nc) and the receptor binding domain (RBD) of S-glycoprotein were determined by qualitative and quantitative methods. The study was carried out in 3 stages according to a single scheme: 1st stage — 06/28–07/03/2021, 2nd — 21–25/02/2022 and 3rd — 31/10–04/11/2022. Since 2021, Kyrgyzstan has been vaccinating the population against SARS-CoV-2 mainly using inactivated whole-virion vaccines. Results. Population immunity against SARS-CoV-2 was predominantly accounted for by both Ab types (Nc+RBD+). By the 3rd stage, the percentage of such persons reached 99.2%, Nc–RBD– volunteers — up to 0.8%. At the 1st stage, middle-aged people dominated, but age differences were leveled out by the 2nd stage. The greatest impact on seroprevalence was found among medical workers, the smallest — among businessmen and industrial workers. Populational vaccination significantly impacted on the state of herd immunity that reached 25% by the 3rd stage. The refusals of the population in Kyrgyz Republic from vaccination noted at the 2nd and especially 3rd stages did not significantly affect level of herd immunity, which could probably be associated with asymptomatic cases of COVID-19, against which primary vaccination had a booster effect. Conclusion. The dynamics of population humoral immunity against SARS-CoV-2 included a number of changes in the level of circulating antibodies (Nc, RBD), caused by both primary infection and vaccination. The herd immunity formed in population of Kyrgyzstan allowed to reduce the incidence of COVID-19 to almost sporadic level

    WAO consensus on DEfinition of Food Allergy SEverity (DEFASE).

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: While several scoring systems for the severity of anaphylactic reactions have been developed, there is a lack of consensus on definition and categorisation of severity of food allergy disease as a whole. AIM: To develop an international consensus on the severity of food allergy (DEfinition of Food Allergy Severity, DEFASE) scoring system, to be used globally. METHODS PHASE 1: We conducted a mixed-method systematic review (SR) of 11 databases for published and unpublished literature on severity of food allergy management and set up a panel of international experts. PHASE 2: Based on our findings in Phase 1, we drafted statements for a two-round modified electronic Delphi (e-Delphi) survey. A purposefully selected multidisciplinary international expert panel on food allergy (n = 60) was identified and sent a structured questionnaire, including a set of statements on different domains of food allergy severity related to symptoms, health-related quality of life, and economic impact. Participants were asked to score their agreement on each statement on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree". Median scores and percentage agreements were calculated. Consensus was defined a priori as being achieved if 70% or more of panel members rated a statement as "strongly agree" to "agree" after the second round. Based on feedback, 2 additional online voting rounds were conducted. RESULTS: We received responses from 92% of Delphi panel members in round 1 and 85% in round 2. Consensus was achieved on the overall score and in all of the 5 specific key domains as essential components of the DEFASE score. CONCLUSIONS: The DEFASE score is the first comprehensive grading of food allergy severity that considers not only the severity of a single reaction, but the whole disease spectrum. An international consensus has been achieved regarding a scoring system for food allergy disease. It offers an evaluation grid, which may help to rate the severity of food allergy. Phase 3 will involve validating the scoring system in research settings, and implementing it in clinical practice

    WAO consensus on definition of food allergy severity (DEFASE)

    Get PDF
    Background: While several scoring systems for the severity of anaphylactic reactions have been developed, there is a lack of consensus on definition and categorisation of severity of food allergy disease as a whole. Aim: To develop an international consensus on the severity of food allergy (DEfinition of Food Allergy Severity, DEFASE) scoring system, to be used globally. Methods phase 1: We conducted a mixed-method systematic review (SR) of 11 databases for published and unpublished literature on severity of food allergy management and set up a panel of international experts. Phase 2: Based on our findings in Phase 1, we drafted statements for a two-round modified electronic Delphi (e-Delphi) survey. A purposefully selected multidisciplinary international expert panel on food allergy (n = 60) was identified and sent a structured questionnaire, including a set of statements on different domains of food allergy severity related to symptoms, health-related quality of life, and economic impact. Participants were asked to score their agreement on each statement on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree". Median scores and percentage agreements were calculated. Consensus was defined a priori as being achieved if 70% or more of panel members rated a statement as "strongly agree" to "agree" after the second round. Based on feedback, 2 additional online voting rounds were conducted. Results: We received responses from 92% of Delphi panel members in round 1 and 85% in round 2. Consensus was achieved on the overall score and in all of the 5 specific key domains as essential components of the DEFASE score. Conclusions: The DEFASE score is the first comprehensive grading of food allergy severity that considers not only the severity of a single reaction, but the whole disease spectrum. An international consensus has been achieved regarding a scoring system for food allergy disease. It offers an evaluation grid, which may help to rate the severity of food allergy. Phase 3 will involve validating the scoring system in research settings, and implementing it in clinical practice
    corecore