1.
Assisted reproductive technology and risk of asthma and allergy in the offspring: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Nwaru, BI, McCleary, N, Erkkola, M, Kaila, M, Virtanen, SM, Sheikh, A
BMJ open. 2016;(4):e010697
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The use of assisted reproductive technology (ART) procedures has increased globally over the last three decades. Recent observational studies suggest that children conceived through ART may be at increased risk of asthma and atopic disease compared with children conceived naturally, but findings are mixed. We aim to synthesise the evidence on the impact of ART on the risk of asthma and atopic disease in the offspring. METHODS AND ANALYSIS We will identify relevant studies by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, ISI Web of Science, CINAHL, Scopus, Google Scholar, AMED, Global Health, PsychINFO, CAB International and the WHO Global Health Library from 1978 to 2016. We will locate additional studies through searching databases of the proceedings of international conferences, contacting international experts in the field, and searching the references cited in identified studies. We will include analytic observational studies (cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies) that have investigated the impact of any type of ART on offspring's asthma and atopic disease. Screening of identified records, data extraction from eligible studies and risk of bias assessment of eligible studies will be independently undertaken by two reviewers, with arbitration by a third reviewer. The Effective Public Health Practice Project will be employed for risk of bias assessment. Estimates from studies judged to be clinically, methodologically and statistically homogeneous will be synthesised using random-effects meta-analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION As this study is based solely on the published literature, no ethics approval is required. We will publish our findings in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and present the results at national and international scientific conferences. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION We will register a detailed protocol for the review with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) prior to starting the review.
2.
Nutrients and foods for the primary prevention of asthma and allergy: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Nurmatov, U, Devereux, G, Sheikh, A
The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology. 2011;(3):724-33.e1-30
Abstract
BACKGROUND Epidemiologic studies suggest that deficiencies of the nutrients selenium; zinc; vitamins A, C, D, and E; and low fruit and vegetable intake may be associated with the development of asthma and allergic disorders. OBJECTIVES To investigate the evidence that nutrient and food intake modifies the risk of children developing allergy. METHODS We systematically searched 11 databases. Studies were critically appraised, and meta-analyses were undertaken. RESULTS We identified 62 eligible reports. There were no randomized controlled trials. Studies used cohort (n = 21), case-control (n = 15), or cross-sectional (n = 26) designs. All studies were judged to be at moderate to substantial risk of bias. Meta-analysis revealed that serum vitamin A was lower in children with asthma compared with controls (odds ratio [OR], 0.25; 95% CI, 0.10-0.40). Meta-analyses also showed that high maternal dietary vitamin D and E intakes during pregnancy were protective for the development of wheezing outcomes (OR, 0.56, 95% CI, 0.42-0.73; and OR, 0.68, 95% CI, 0.52-0.88, respectively). Adherence to a Mediterranean diet was protective for persistent wheeze (OR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.08-0.58) and atopy (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.31-0.97). Seventeen of 22 fruit and vegetable studies reported beneficial associations with asthma and allergic outcomes. Results were not supportive for other allergic outcomes for these vitamins or nutrients, or for any outcomes in relation to vitamin C and selenium. CONCLUSION The available epidemiologic evidence is weak but nonetheless supportive with respect to vitamins A, D, and E; zinc; fruits and vegetables; and a Mediterranean diet for the prevention of asthma. Experimental studies of these exposures are now warranted.
3.
Mono and multifaceted inhalant and/or food allergen reduction interventions for preventing asthma in children at high risk of developing asthma.
Maas, T, Kaper, J, Sheikh, A, Knottnerus, JA, Wesseling, G, Dompeling, E, Muris, JW, van Schayck, CP
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2009;(3):CD006480
Abstract
BACKGROUND Allergen exposure is one of the environmental factors seemingly associated with the development of asthma. If asthma is a multi-factorial disease, it is hypothesised that prevention might only prove effective if most or all relevant environmental factors are simultaneously avoided. OBJECTIVES To assess effect(s) of monofaceted and multifaceted interventions compared with control interventions in preventing asthma and asthma symptoms in high risk children. SEARCH STRATEGY We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register (December 2008). SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials of allergen exposure reduction for the primary prevention of asthma in children. Interventions were multifaceted (reducing exposure to both inhalant and food allergens) or monofaceted (reducing exposure to either inhalant or food allergens) Follow up had to be from birth (or during pregnancy) up to a minimum of two years of age. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We included in the analysis studies assessing the primary outcome (current diagnosis: asthma) and/or one of the secondary outcomes (current respiratory symptoms: wheezing, nocturnal coughing and dyspnoea). We pooled multifaceted and monofaceted intervention trials separately. We made an indirect comparison of their effects using tests for interaction to calculate relative odds ratios. MAIN RESULTS We included three multifaceted and six monofaceted intervention studies (3271 children). Physician diagnosed asthma in children less than five years, and asthma as defined by respiratory symptoms and lung function criteria in children aged five years and older, both favoured treatment with a multifaceted intervention compared to usual care (< 5 years: odds ratio (OR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 0.96, and > 5 years: OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.85). However, there was no significant difference in outcome between monofaceted intervention and control interventions (< 5 years: OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.64, and > 5 years: OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.16). Indirect comparison between these treatments did not demonstrate a significant difference between multiple interventions and mono-interventions in reducing the frequency of asthma diagnosis in children under five years (relative OR 0.64 (95% CI 0.40 to 1.04, P = 0.07) or five years and older (relative OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.13, P = 0.12). There was also no significant difference between either mono- and multifaceted intervention and control in reducing the likelihood of symptoms of nocturnal coughing at follow up. Wheezing, however, showed a significant difference between multifaceted and mono-interventions (relative OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.99, P = 0.04), but the significance was lost when data on treatment only was analysed. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The available evidence suggests that the reduction of exposure to multiple allergens compared to usual care reduces the likelihood of a current diagnosis of asthma in children (at ages < 5 years and 5 years and older). Mono-intervention studies have not produced effects which are statistically significant compared with control. In children who are at risk of developing childhood asthma, multifaceted interventions, characterised by dietary allergen reduction and environmental remediation, reduce the odds of a physician diagnosis of asthma later in childhood by half. This translates to a number needed to treat (NNT) of 17. The effect of multi-faceted interventions on parent reported wheeze was inconsistent and had no significant impact on nocturnal coughing or dyspnoea. Data from monofaceted intervention exposed children studies were not significantly different from those of control groups for all outcomes. There remains uncertainty as to whether multiple interventions are more effective than mono-component interventions. The comparisons made were indirect, making the conclusions drawn uncertain. To our knowledge there are no ongoing studies in which both intervention strategies are randomly compared. The findings, however, warrant further direct comparison between multiple- and monofaceted interventions aimed at reducing the prevalence of asthma in children.