Prevalence of tree nut allergy in Europe: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

In 2014, the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) published the first systematic review that summarized the prevalence of food allergy (FA) and food sensitization in Europe for studies published 2000-2012. However, only summary estimates for tree nut allergy (TNA) were feasible in that work. In the current update of that systematic review, we summarized the prevalence of tree nut allergy/sensitization to individual tree nuts. Six databases were searched for relevant papers published 2012-2021 and 17 eligible studies were added to the 15 studies already identified between 2000 and 2012, giving a total of 32 studies. Of the investigated tree nuts, meta-analysis was possible for hazelnut, walnut, almond, and in few cases, for cashew, and Brazil nut. The lifetime self-reported prevalence was 0.8% (95% CI 0.5-1.1) for hazelnut and 0.4% (0.2-0.9) for walnut. The point self-reported prevalence was 4.0% (2.9-5.2) for hazelnut, 3.4% (2.0-4.9) for Brazil nut, 2.0% (1.1-2.9) for almond, and 1.8% (1.1-2.5) for walnut. Point prevalence of food challenge-confirmed TNA was 0.04% (0.0-0.1) for hazelnut and 0.02% (0.01-0.1) for walnut. Due to paucity of data, we could not identify any meaningful and consistent differences across age groups and European regions.

Characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 at high risk of disease progression receiving sotrovimab, oral antivirals, or no treatment: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The clinical benefit of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatments against new circulating variants remains unclear. We sought to describe characteristics and clinical outcomes of highest risk patients with COVID-19 receiving early COVID-19 treatments in Scotland. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of non-hospitalized patients diagnosed with COVID-19 from December 1, 2021-October 25, 2022, using Scottish administrative health data. We included adult patients who met ≥ 1 of the National Health Service highest risk criteria for early COVID-19 treatment and received outpatient treatment with sotrovimab, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir or molnupiravir, or no early COVID-19 treatment. Index date was defined as the earliest of COVID-19 diagnosis or early COVID-19 treatment. Baseline characteristics and acute clinical outcomes in the 28 days following index were reported. Values of ≤ 5 were suppressed. RESULTS: In total, 2548 patients were included (492: sotrovimab, 276: nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, 71: molnupiravir, and 1709: eligible highest risk untreated). Patients aged ≥ 75 years accounted for 6.9% (n = 34/492), 21.0% (n = 58/276), 16.9% (n = 12/71) and 13.2% (n = 225/1709) of the cohorts, respectively. Advanced renal disease was reported in 6.7% (n = 33/492) of sotrovimab-treated and 4.7% (n = 81/1709) of untreated patients, and ≤ 5 nirmatrelvir/ritonavir-treated and molnupiravir-treated patients. All-cause hospitalizations were experienced by 5.3% (n = 25/476) of sotrovimab-treated patients, 6.9% (n = 12/175) of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir-treated patients, ≤ 5 (suppressed number) molnupiravir-treated patients and 13.3% (n = 216/1622) of untreated patients. There were no deaths in the treated cohorts; mortality was 4.3% (n = 70/1622) among untreated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Sotrovimab was often used by patients who were aged < 75 years. Among patients receiving early COVID-19 treatment, proportions of 28-day all-cause hospitalization and death were low.

Clinician views on how clinical decision support systems can help diagnose asthma in primary care: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: Asthma can be difficult to diagnose in primary care. Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) can assist clinicians when making diagnostic decisions, but the perspectives of intended users need to be incorporated into the software if the CDSS is to be clinically useful. Therefore, we aimed to understand health professional views on the value of an asthma diagnosis CDSS and the barriers and facilitators for use in UK primary care. METHODS: We recruited doctors and nurses working in UK primary care who had experience of assessing respiratory symptoms and diagnosing asthma. Qualitative interviews were used to explore clinicians' experiences of making a diagnosis of asthma and understand views on a CDSS to support asthma diagnosis. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analyzed thematically. RESULTS: 16 clinicians (nine doctors, seven nurses) including 13 participants with over 10 years experience, contributed interviews. Participants saw the potential for a CDSS to support asthma diagnosis in primary care by structuring consultations, identifying relevant information from health records, and having visuals to communicate findings to patients. Being evidence based, regularly updated, integrated with software, quick and easy to use were considered important for a CDSS to be successfully implemented. Experienced clinicians were unsure a CDSS would help their routine practice, particularly in straightforward diagnostic scenarios, but thought a CDSS would be useful for trainees or less experienced colleagues. CONCLUSIONS: To be adopted into clinical practice, clinicians were clear that a CDSS must be validated, integrated with existing software, and quick and easy to use.

Quality of ethnicity data within Scottish health records and implications of misclassification for ethnic inequalities in severe COVID-19: a national linked data study.

BACKGROUND: We compared the quality of ethnicity coding within the Public Health Scotland Ethnicity Look-up (PHS-EL) dataset, and other National Health Service datasets, with the 2011 Scottish Census. METHODS: Measures of quality included the level of missingness and misclassification. We examined the impact of misclassification using Cox proportional hazards to compare the risk of severe coronavirus disease (COVID-19) (hospitalization & death) by ethnic group. RESULTS: Misclassification within PHS-EL was higher for all minority ethnic groups [12.5 to 69.1%] compared with the White Scottish majority [5.1%] and highest in the White Gypsy/Traveller group [69.1%]. Missingness in PHS-EL was highest among the White Other British group [39%] and lowest among the Pakistani group [17%]. PHS-EL data often underestimated severe COVID-19 risk compared with Census data. e.g. in the White Gypsy/Traveller group the Hazard Ratio (HR) was 1.68 [95% Confidence Intervals (CI): 1.03, 2.74] compared with the White Scottish majority using Census ethnicity data and 0.73 [95% CI: 0.10, 5.15] using PHS-EL data; and HR was 2.03 [95% CI: 1.20, 3.44] in the Census for the Bangladeshi group versus 1.45 [95% CI: 0.75, 2.78] in PHS-EL. CONCLUSIONS: Poor quality ethnicity coding in health records can bias estimates, thereby threatening monitoring and understanding ethnic inequalities in health.

Risk of Myocarditis After Sequential Doses of COVID-19 Vaccine and SARS-CoV-2 Infection by Age and Sex.

BACKGROUND: Myocarditis is more common after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection than after COVID-19 vaccination, but the risks in younger people and after sequential vaccine doses are less certain. METHODS: A self-controlled case series study of people ages 13 years or older vaccinated for COVID-19 in England between December 1, 2020, and December 15, 2021, evaluated the association between vaccination and myocarditis, stratified by age and sex. The incidence rate ratio and excess number of hospital admissions or deaths from myocarditis per million people were estimated for the 1 to 28 days after sequential doses of adenovirus (ChAdOx1) or mRNA-based (BNT162b2, mRNA-1273) vaccines, or after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. RESULTS: In 42 842 345 people receiving at least 1 dose of vaccine, 21 242 629 received 3 doses, and 5 934 153 had SARS-CoV-2 infection before or after vaccination. Myocarditis occurred in 2861 (0.007%) people, with 617 events 1 to 28 days after vaccination. Risk of myocarditis was increased in the 1 to 28 days after a first dose of ChAdOx1 (incidence rate ratio, 1.33 [95% CI, 1.09-1.62]) and a first, second, and booster dose of BNT162b2 (1.52 [95% CI, 1.24-1.85]; 1.57 [95% CI, 1.28-1.92], and 1.72 [95% CI, 1.33-2.22], respectively) but was lower than the risks after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test before or after vaccination (11.14 [95% CI, 8.64-14.36] and 5.97 [95% CI, 4.54-7.87], respectively). The risk of myocarditis was higher 1 to 28 days after a second dose of mRNA-1273 (11.76 [95% CI, 7.25-19.08]) and persisted after a booster dose (2.64 [95% CI, 1.25-5.58]). Associations were stronger in men younger than 40 years for all vaccines. In men younger than 40 years old, the number of excess myocarditis events per million people was higher after a second dose of mRNA-1273 than after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test (97 [95% CI, 91-99] versus 16 [95% CI, 12-18]). In women younger than 40 years, the number of excess events per million was similar after a second dose of mRNA-1273 and a positive test (7 [95% CI, 1-9] versus 8 [95% CI, 6-8]). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the risk of myocarditis is greater after SARS-CoV-2 infection than after COVID-19 vaccination and remains modest after sequential doses including a booster dose of BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine. However, the risk of myocarditis after vaccination is higher in younger men, particularly after a second dose of the mRNA-1273 vaccine.

Effectiveness of mRNA boosters after homologous primary series with BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 against symptomatic infection and severe COVID-19 in Brazil and Scotland: A test-negative design case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Brazil and Scotland have used mRNA boosters in their respective populations since September 2021, with Omicron's emergence accelerating their booster program. Despite this, both countries have reported substantial recent increases in Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases. The duration of the protection conferred by the booster dose against symptomatic Omicron cases and severe outcomes is unclear. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Using a test-negative design, we analyzed national databases to estimate the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of a primary series (with ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2) plus an mRNA vaccine booster (with BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273) against symptomatic Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and severe COVID-19 outcomes (hospitalization or death) during the period of Omicron dominance in Brazil and Scotland compared to unvaccinated individuals. Additional analyses included stratification by age group (18 to 49, 50 to 64, ≥65). All individuals aged 18 years or older who reported acute respiratory illness symptoms and tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection between January 1, 2022, and April 23, 2022, in Brazil and Scotland were eligible for the study. At 14 to 29 days after the mRNA booster, the VE against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection of ChAdOx1 plus BNT162b2 booster was 51.6%, (95% confidence interval (CI): [51.0, 52.2], p < 0.001) in Brazil and 67.1% (95% CI [65.5, 68.5], p < 0.001) in Scotland. At ≥4 months, protection against symptomatic infection waned to 4.2% (95% CI [0.7, 7.6], p = 0.02) in Brazil and 37.4% (95% CI [33.8, 40.9], p < 0.001) in Scotland. VE against severe outcomes in Brazil was 93.5% (95% CI [93.0, 94.0], p < 0.001) at 14 to 29 days post-booster, decreasing to 82.3% (95% CI [79.7, 84.7], p < 0.001) and 98.3% (95% CI [87.3, 99.8], p < 0.001) to 77.8% (95% CI [51.4, 89.9], p < 0.001) in Scotland for the same periods. Similar results were obtained with the primary series of BNT162b2 plus homologous booster. Potential limitations of this study were that we assumed that all cases included in the analysis were due to the Omicron variant based on the period of dominance and the limited follow-up time since the booster dose. CONCLUSIONS: We observed that mRNA boosters after a primary vaccination course with either mRNA or viral-vector vaccines provided modest, short-lived protection against symptomatic infection with Omicron but substantial and more sustained protection against severe COVID-19 outcomes for at least 3 months.

Estimating the Effectiveness of First Dose of COVID-19 Vaccine Against Mortality in England: A Quasi-Experimental Study.

Estimating real-world vaccine effectiveness is vital to assessing the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination program and informing the ongoing policy response. However, estimating vaccine effectiveness using observational data is inherently challenging because of the nonrandomized design and potential for unmeasured confounding. We used a regression discontinuity design to estimate vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 mortality in England using the fact that people aged 80 years or older were prioritized for the vaccine rollout. The prioritization led to a large discrepancy in vaccination rates among people aged 80-84 years compared with those aged 75-79 at the beginning of the vaccination campaign. We found a corresponding difference in COVID-19 mortality but not in non-COVID-19 mortality, suggesting that our approach appropriately addressed the issue of unmeasured confounding factors. Our results suggest that the first vaccine dose reduced the risk of COVID-19 death by 52.6% (95% confidence limits: 15.7, 73.4) in those aged 80 years, supporting existing evidence that a first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine had a strong protective effect against COVID-19 mortality in older adults. The regression discontinuity model's estimate of vaccine effectiveness is only slightly lower than those of previously published studies using different methods, suggesting that these estimates are unlikely to be substantially affected by unmeasured confounding factors.

Two-dose ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine protection against COVID-19 hospital admissions and deaths over time: a retrospective, population-based cohort study in Scotland and Brazil.

BACKGROUND: Reports suggest that COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness is decreasing, but whether this reflects waning or new SARS-CoV-2 variants-especially delta (B.1.617.2)-is unclear. We investigated the association between time since two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine and risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes in Scotland (where delta was dominant), with comparative analyses in Brazil (where delta was uncommon). METHODS: In this retrospective, population-based cohort study in Brazil and Scotland, we linked national databases from the EAVE II study in Scotland; and the COVID-19 Vaccination Campaign, Acute Respiratory Infection Suspected Cases, and Severe Acute Respiratory Infection/Illness datasets in Brazil) for vaccination, laboratory testing, clinical, and mortality data. We defined cohorts of adults (aged ≥18 years) who received two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and compared rates of severe COVID-19 outcomes (ie, COVID-19 hospital admission or death) across fortnightly periods, relative to 2-3 weeks after the second dose. Entry to the Scotland cohort started from May 19, 2021, and entry to the Brazil cohort started from Jan 18, 2021. Follow-up in both cohorts was until Oct 25, 2021. Poisson regression was used to estimate rate ratios (RRs) and vaccine effectiveness, with 95% CIs. FINDINGS: 1 972 454 adults received two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in Scotland and 42 558 839 in Brazil, with longer follow-up in Scotland because two-dose vaccination began earlier in Scotland than in Brazil. In Scotland, RRs for severe COVID-19 increased to 2·01 (95% CI 1·54-2·62) at 10-11 weeks, 3·01 (2·26-3·99) at 14-15 weeks, and 5·43 (4·00-7·38) at 18-19 weeks after the second dose. The pattern of results was similar in Brazil, with RRs of 2·29 (2·01-2·61) at 10-11 weeks, 3·10 (2·63-3·64) at 14-15 weeks, and 4·71 (3·83-5·78) at 18-19 weeks after the second dose. In Scotland, vaccine effectiveness decreased from 83·7% (95% CI 79·7-87·0) at 2-3 weeks, to 75·9% (72·9-78·6) at 14-15 weeks, and 63·7% (59·6-67·4) at 18-19 weeks after the second dose. In Brazil, vaccine effectiveness decreased from 86·4% (85·4-87·3) at 2-3 weeks, to 59·7% (54·6-64·2) at 14-15 weeks, and 42·2% (32·4-50·6) at 18-19 weeks. INTERPRETATION: We found waning vaccine protection of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 against COVID-19 hospital admissions and deaths in both Scotland and Brazil, this becoming evident within three months of the second vaccine dose. Consideration needs to be given to providing booster vaccine doses for people who have received ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council), Scottish Government, Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, Health Data Research UK, Fiocruz, Fazer o Bem Faz Bem Programme; Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico, Fundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro. TRANSLATION: For the Portuguese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Severe COVID-19 outcomes after full vaccination of primary schedule and initial boosters: pooled analysis of national prospective cohort studies of 30 million individuals in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales.

BACKGROUND: Current UK vaccination policy is to offer future COVID-19 booster doses to individuals at high risk of serious illness from COVID-19, but it is still uncertain which groups of the population could benefit most. In response to an urgent request from the UK Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, we aimed to identify risk factors for severe COVID-19 outcomes (ie, COVID-19-related hospitalisation or death) in individuals who had completed their primary COVID-19 vaccination schedule and had received the first booster vaccine. METHODS: We constructed prospective cohorts across all four UK nations through linkages of primary care, RT-PCR testing, vaccination, hospitalisation, and mortality data on 30 million people. We included individuals who received primary vaccine doses of BNT162b2 (tozinameran; Pfizer-BioNTech) or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) vaccines in our initial analyses. We then restricted analyses to those given a BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 (elasomeran; Moderna) booster and had a severe COVID-19 outcome between Dec 20, 2021, and Feb 28, 2022 (when the omicron (B.1.1.529) variant was dominant). We fitted time-dependent Poisson regression models and calculated adjusted rate ratios (aRRs) and 95% CIs for the associations between risk factors and COVID-19-related hospitalisation or death. We adjusted for a range of potential covariates, including age, sex, comorbidities, and previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. Stratified analyses were conducted by vaccine type. We then did pooled analyses across UK nations using fixed-effect meta-analyses. FINDINGS: Between Dec 8, 2020, and Feb 28, 2022, 16 208 600 individuals completed their primary vaccine schedule and 13 836 390 individuals received a booster dose. Between Dec 20, 2021, and Feb 28, 2022, 59 510 (0·4%) of the primary vaccine group and 26 100 (0·2%) of those who received their booster had severe COVID-19 outcomes. The risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes reduced after receiving the booster (rate change: 8·8 events per 1000 person-years to 7·6 events per 1000 person-years). Older adults (≥80 years vs 18-49 years; aRR 3·60 [95% CI 3·45-3·75]), those with comorbidities (≥5 comorbidities vs none; 9·51 [9·07-9·97]), being male (male vs female; 1·23 [1·20-1·26]), and those with certain underlying health conditions-in particular, individuals receiving immunosuppressants (yes vs no; 5·80 [5·53-6·09])-and those with chronic kidney disease (stage 5 vs no; 3·71 [2·90-4·74]) remained at high risk despite the initial booster. Individuals with a history of COVID-19 infection were at reduced risk (infected ≥9 months before booster dose vs no previous infection; aRR 0·41 [95% CI 0·29-0·58]). INTERPRETATION: Older people, those with multimorbidity, and those with specific underlying health conditions remain at increased risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation and death after the initial vaccine booster and should, therefore, be prioritised for additional boosters, including novel optimised versions, and the increasing array of COVID-19 therapeutics. FUNDING: National Core Studies-Immunity, UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council), Health Data Research UK, the Scottish Government, and the University of Edinburgh.

Relationship between asthma and severe COVID-19: a national cohort study.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to determine whether children and adults with poorly controlled or more severe asthma have greater risk of hospitalisation and/or death from COVID-19. METHODS: We used individual-level data from the Office for National Statistics Public Health Data Asset, based on the 2011 census in England, and the General Practice Extraction Service data for pandemic planning and research linked to death registration records and Hospital Episode Statistics admission data. Adults were followed from 1 January 2020 to 30 September 2021 for hospitalisation or death from COVID-19. For children, only hospitalisation was included. RESULTS: Our cohort comprised 35 202 533 adults and 2 996 503 children aged 12-17 years. After controlling for sociodemographic factors, pre-existing health conditions and vaccine status, the risk of death involving COVID-19 for adults with asthma prescribed low dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) was not significantly different from those without asthma. Adults with asthma prescribed medium and high dosage ICS had an elevated risk of COVID-19 death; HRs 1.18 (95% CI 1.14 to 1.23) and 1.36 (95% CI 1.28 to 1.44), respectively. A similar pattern was observed for COVID-19 hospitalisation; fully adjusted HRs 1.53 (95% CI 1.50 to 1.56) and 1.52 (95% CI 1.46 to 1.56) for adults with asthma prescribed medium and high-dosage ICS, respectively. Risk of hospitalisation was greater for children with asthma prescribed one (2.58 (95% CI 1.82 to 3.66)) or two or more (3.80 (95% CI 2.41 to 5.95)) courses of oral corticosteroids in the year prior to the pandemic. DISCUSSION: People with mild and/or well-controlled asthma are neither at significantly increased risk of hospitalisation with nor more likely to die from COVID-19 than adults without asthma.

Rebound in asthma exacerbations following relaxation of COVID-19 restrictions: a longitudinal population-based study (COVIDENCE UK).

BACKGROUND: The imposition of restrictions on social mixing early in the COVID-19 pandemic was followed by a reduction in asthma exacerbations in multiple settings internationally. Temporal trends in social mixing, incident acute respiratory infections (ARI) and asthma exacerbations following relaxation of COVID-19 restrictions have not yet been described. METHODS: We conducted a population-based longitudinal study in 2312 UK adults with asthma between November 2020 and April 2022. Details of face covering use, social mixing, incident ARI and severe asthma exacerbations were collected via monthly online questionnaires. Temporal changes in these parameters were visualised using Poisson generalised additive models. Multilevel logistic regression was used to test for associations between incident ARI and risk of asthma exacerbations, adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: Relaxation of COVID-19 restrictions from April 2021 coincided with reduced face covering use (p<0.001), increased frequency of indoor visits to public places and other households (p<0.001) and rising incidence of COVID-19 (p<0.001), non-COVID-19 ARI (p<0.001) and severe asthma exacerbations (p=0.007). Incident non-COVID-19 ARI associated independently with increased risk of asthma exacerbation (adjusted OR 5.75, 95% CI 4.75 to 6.97) as did incident COVID-19, both prior to emergence of the omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 (5.89, 3.45 to 10.04) and subsequently (5.69, 3.89 to 8.31). CONCLUSIONS: Relaxation of COVID-19 restrictions coincided with decreased face covering use, increased social mixing and a rebound in ARI and asthma exacerbations. Associations between incident ARI and risk of severe asthma exacerbation were similar for non-COVID-19 ARI and COVID-19, both before and after emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant. STUDY REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04330599.

Frequency of food allergy in Europe: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

Food allergy (FA) is increasingly reported in Europe, however, the latest prevalence estimates were based on studies published a decade ago. The present work provides the most updated estimates of the prevalence and trends of FA in Europe. Databases were searched for studies published between 2012 and 2021, added to studies published up to 2012. In total, 110 studies were included in this update. Most studies were graded as moderate risk of bias. Pooled lifetime and point prevalence of self-reported FA were 19.9% (95% CI 16.6-23.3) and 13.1% (95% CI 11.3-14.8), respectively. The point prevalence of sensitization based on specific IgE (slgE) was 16.6% (95% CI 12.3-20.8), skin prick test (SPT) 5.7% (95% CI 3.9-7.4), and positive food challenge 0.8% (95% CI 0.5-0.9). While lifetime prevalence of self-reported FA and food challenge positivity only slightly changed, the point prevalence of self-reported FA, sIgE and SPT positivity increased from previous estimates. This may reflect a real increase, increased awareness, increased number of foods assessed, or increased number of studies from countries with less data in the first review. Future studies require rigorous designs and implementation of standardized methodology in diagnosing FA, including use of double-blinded placebo-controlled food challenge to minimize potential biases.

Prevalence estimates of eight big food allergies in Europe: Updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

In 2014, the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology published prevalence estimates for food allergy (FA) and food sensitization (FS) to the so-called eight big food allergens (i.e. cow's milk, egg, wheat, soy, peanut, tree nuts, fish and shellfish) in Europe for studies published between 2000 and 2012. The current work provides 10-year updated prevalence estimates for these food allergens. A protocol was registered on PROSPERO before starting the research (reference number CRD42021266657). Six databases were searched for studies published 2012-2021, added to studies published up to 2012, resulting in a total of 93 studies. Most studies were graded as at moderate risk of bias. The overall pooled estimates for all age groups of self-reported lifetime prevalence were as follows: cow's milk (5.7%, 95% confidence interval 4.4-6.9), egg (2.4%, 1.8-3.0), wheat (1.6%, 0.9-2.3), soy (0.5%, 0.3-0.7), peanut (1.5%, 1.0-2.1), tree nuts (0.9%, 0.6-1.2), fish (1.4%, 0.8-2.0) and shellfish (0.4%, 0.3-0.6). The point prevalence of food challenge-verified allergy were as follows: cow's milk (0.3%, 0.1-0.5), egg (0.8%, 0.5-1.2), wheat (0.1%, 0.01-0.2), soy (0.3%, 0.1-0.4), peanut (0.1%, 0.0-0.2), tree nuts (0.04%, 0.02-0.1), fish (0.02%, 0.0-0.1) and shellfish (0.1%, 0.0-0.2). With some exceptions, the prevalence of allergy to common foods did not substantially change during the last decade; variations by European regions were observed.

Effectiveness and safety of coronavirus disease 2019 vaccines.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To review and summarise recent evidence on the effectiveness of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and COVID-19 hospitalisation and death in adults as well as in specific population groups, namely pregnant women, and children and adolescents. We also sought to summarise evidence on vaccine safety in relation to cardiovascular and neurological complications. In order to do so, we drew primarily on evidence from two our own data platforms and supplement these with insights from related large population-based studies and systematic reviews. RECENT FINDINGS: All studies showed high vaccine effectiveness against confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and in particular against COVID-19 hospitalisation and death. However, vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic COVID-19 infection waned over time. These studies also found that booster vaccines would be needed to maintain high vaccine effectiveness against severe COVID-19 outcomes. Rare cardiovascular and neurological complications have been reported in association with COVID-19 vaccines. SUMMARY: The findings from this paper support current recommendations that vaccination remains the safest way for adults, pregnant women, children and adolescents to be protected against COVID-19. There is a need to continue to monitor the effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccines as these continue to be deployed in the evolving pandemic.

Estimating medication adherence from Electronic Health Records: comparing methods for mining and processing asthma treatment prescriptions.

BACKGROUND: Medication adherence is usually defined as the extent of the agreement between the medication regimen agreed to by patients with their healthcare provider and the real-world implementation. Proactive identification of those with poor adherence may be useful to identify those with poor disease control and offers the opportunity for ameliorative action. Adherence can be estimated from Electronic Health Records (EHRs) by comparing medication dispensing records to the prescribed regimen. Several methods have been developed in the literature to infer adherence from EHRs, however there is no clear consensus on what should be considered the gold standard in each use case. Our objectives were to critically evaluate different measures of medication adherence in a large longitudinal Scottish EHR dataset. We used asthma, a chronic condition with high prevalence and high rates of non-adherence, as a case study. METHODS: Over 1.6 million asthma controllers were prescribed for our cohort of 91,334 individuals, between January 2009 and March 2017. Eight adherence measures were calculated, and different approaches to estimating the amount of medication supply available at any time were compared. RESULTS: Estimates from different measures of adherence varied substantially. Three of the main drivers of the differences between adherence measures were the expected duration (if taken as in accordance with the dose directions), whether there was overlapping supply between prescriptions, and whether treatment had been discontinued. However, there are also wider, study-related, factors which are crucial to consider when comparing the adherence measures. CONCLUSIONS: We evaluated the limitations of various medication adherence measures, and highlight key considerations about the underlying data, condition, and population to guide researchers choose appropriate adherence measures. This guidance will enable researchers to make more informed decisions about the methodology they employ, ensuring that adherence is captured in the most meaningful way for their particular application needs.

Vitamin D for the management of asthma.

BACKGROUND: Since the previous Cochrane Review on this topic in 2016, debate has continued surrounding a potential role for vitamin D in reducing risk of asthma exacerbation and improving asthma control. We therefore conducted an updated meta-analysis to include data from new trials completed since this date. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of administration of vitamin D or 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: 8 September 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included 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: Four 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). The primary outcome was the incidence of severe asthma exacerbations requiring treatment with systemic corticosteroids. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of asthma exacerbations precipitating an emergency department visit or requiring hospital admission, or both, end-study childhood Asthma Control Test (cACT) or Asthma Control Test (ACT) scores, and end-study % predicted forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1). We performed subgroup analyses to determine whether the effect of vitamin D on risk of asthma exacerbation was modified by baseline vitamin D status, vitamin D dose, frequency of dosing regimen, form of vitamin D given, and age of participants. MAIN RESULTS: We included 20 studies in this review; 15 trials involving a total of 1155 children and five trials involving a total of 1070 adults contributed data to analyses. Participant ages ranged from 1 to 84 years, with two trials providing data specific to participants under five years (n = 69) and eight trials providing data specific to participants aged 5 to 16 (n = 766). Across the trials, 1245 participants were male and 1229 were female, with two studies not reporting sex distribution. Fifteen trials contributed to the primary outcome analysis of exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids. The duration of trials ranged from three to 40 months; all but two investigated effects of administering cholecalciferol (vitamin D3). As in the previous Cochrane Review, the majority of participants had mild to moderate asthma, and profound vitamin D deficiency (25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) < 25 nmol/L) at baseline was rare. Administration of vitamin D or its hydroxylated metabolites did not reduce or increase the proportion of participants experiencing one or more asthma exacerbations treated with systemic corticosteroids (odds ratio (OR) 1.04, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.34; I2 = 0%; 14 studies, 1778 participants; high-quality evidence). This equates to an absolute risk of 226 per 1000 (95% CI 185 to 273) in the pooled vitamin D group, compared to a baseline risk of 219 participants per 1000 in the pooled placebo group. We also found no effect of vitamin D supplementation on the rate of exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids (rate ratio 0.86, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.19; I2 = 60%; 10 studies, 1599 participants; high-quality evidence), or the time to first exacerbation (hazard ratio 0.82, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.15; I2 = 22%; 3 studies, 850 participants; high-quality evidence). Subgroup analysis did not reveal any evidence of effect modification by baseline vitamin D status, vitamin D dose, frequency of dosing regimen, or age. A single trial investigating administration of calcidiol reported a benefit of the intervention for the primary outcome of asthma control. Vitamin D supplementation did not influence any secondary efficacy outcome meta-analysed, which were all based on moderate- or high-quality evidence. We observed no effect on the incidence of serious adverse events (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.41; I2 = 0%; 12 studies, 1556 participants; high-quality evidence). The effect of vitamin D on fatal asthma exacerbations was not estimable, as no such events occurred in any trial. Six studies reported adverse reactions potentially attributable to vitamin D. These occurred across treatment and control arms and included hypercalciuria, hypervitaminosis D, kidney stones, gastrointestinal symptoms and mild itch. In one trial, we could not ascertain the total number of participants with hypercalciuria from the trial report. We assessed three trials as being at high risk of bias in at least one domain; none of these contributed data to the analysis of the outcomes reported above. Sensitivity analyses that excluded these trials from each outcome to which they contributed did not change the null findings. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to findings of our previous Cochrane Review on this topic, this updated review does not find evidence to support a role for vitamin D supplementation or its hydroxylated metabolites to reduce risk of asthma exacerbations or improve asthma control. Participants with severe asthma and those with baseline 25(OH)D concentrations < 25 nmol/L were poorly represented, so further research is warranted here. A single study investigating effects of calcidiol yielded positive results, so further studies investigating effects of this metabolite are needed.

ANTECEDENTES: Desde la revisión Cochrane anterior sobre este tema en 2016, ha continuado el debate en torno a una posible función de la vitamina D en la reducción del riesgo de exacerbación del asma y la mejora de su control. Por lo tanto, se realizó un metanálisis actualizado para incluir los datos de los nuevos ensayos completados desde esta fecha. OBJETIVOS: Evaluar la eficacia y seguridad de la administración de vitamina D o sus metabolitos hidroxilados para reducir el riesgo de exacerbaciones graves del asma (definidas como aquellas que requieren tratamiento con corticosteroides sistémicos) y mejorar el control de sus síntomas. MÉTODOS DE BÚSQUEDA: Se buscó en el registro de ensayos del Grupo Cochrane de Vías respiratorias (Cochrane Airways Group) y en las listas de referencias de los artículos. Se estableció contacto con los autores de los estudios para identificar ensayos adicionales. Fecha de la última búsqueda: 8 de septiembre de 2022. CRITERIOS DE SELECCIÓN: Se incluyeron los ensayos doble ciego, aleatorizados, controlados con placebo de vitamina D en niños y adultos con asma que evaluaron el riesgo de exacerbación o el control de los síntomas del asma, o ambos. OBTENCIÓN Y ANÁLISIS DE LOS DATOS: Cuatro autores de la revisión aplicaron de forma independiente los criterios de inclusión de los estudios, extrajeron los datos y evaluaron el riesgo de sesgo. Cuando fue posible, se obtuvieron los datos faltantes a través de los autores de los estudios. Los resultados se informaron con intervalos de confianza (IC) del 95%. El desenlace principal fue la incidencia de exacerbaciones graves del asma que requirieron tratamiento con corticosteroides sistémicos. Los desenlaces secundarios incluyeron la incidencia de exacerbaciones del asma que precipitaron acudir al servicio de urgencias o requirieron ingreso hospitalario, o ambas, las puntuaciones de la childhood Asthma Control Test (cACT) o la Asthma Control Test (ACT) al final del estudio, y el % previsto de volumen espiratorio forzado en un segundo (VEF1) al final del estudio. Se realizaron análisis de subgrupos para determinar si el efecto de la vitamina D sobre el riesgo de exacerbación del asma se veía modificado por el estado inicial de vitamina D, la dosis de vitamina D, la frecuencia de la posología, la formulación de la vitamina D administrada y la edad de los participantes. RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES: En esta revisión se incluyeron 20 estudios; 15 ensayos con un total de 1155 niños y cinco ensayos con un total de 1070 adultos aportaron datos para los análisis. Las edades de los participantes variaron entre 1 y 84 años, con dos ensayos que proporcionaron datos específicos de participantes menores de 5 años (n = 69) y ocho ensayos que proporcionaron datos específicos de participantes de 5 a 16 años (n = 766). En todos los ensayos, 1245 participantes eran hombres y 1229 mujeres, y dos estudios no informaron acerca de la distribución por sexos. Quince ensayos contribuyeron al análisis del desenlace principal: exacerbaciones que requirieron corticosteroides sistémicos. La duración de los ensayos fue de entre 3 y 40 meses; todos menos dos investigaron los efectos de la administración de colecalciferol (vitamina D3). Al igual que en la revisión Cochrane anterior, la mayoría de los participantes presentaban asma de leve a moderada y la deficiencia importante de vitamina D (25­hidroxivitamina D [25(OH)D] < 25 nmol/l) al inicio del estudio fue poco frecuente. La administración de vitamina D o sus metabolitos hidroxilados no redujo ni aumentó la proporción de participantes que presentaron una o más exacerbaciones del asma tratada con corticosteroides sistémicos (odds ratio [OR] 1,04; IC del 95%: 0,81 a 1,34; I2 = 0%; 14 estudios, 1778 participantes; evidencia de calidad alta). Esto equivale a un riesgo absoluto de 226 por cada 1000 (IC del 95%: 185 a 273) en el grupo de vitamina D agrupado, en comparación con un riesgo inicial de 219 participantes por cada 1000 en el grupo placebo agrupado. Tampoco se encontraron efectos de la administración de suplementos de vitamina D sobre la tasa de exacerbaciones que requirieron corticosteroides sistémicos (cociente de tasas 0,86; IC del 95%: 0,62 a 1,19; I2 = 60%; 10 estudios, 1599 participantes; evidencia de calidad alta) ni sobre el tiempo transcurrido hasta la primera exacerbación (cociente de riesgos instantáneos 0,82; IC del 95%: 0,59 a 1,15; I2 = 22%; tres estudios, 850 participantes; evidencia de calidad alta). El análisis de subgrupos no reveló una evidencia de modificación del efecto en función del estado inicial de vitamina D, la dosis de vitamina D, la frecuencia de la posología ni la edad. Un único ensayo que investigó la administración de calcidiol informó sobre un efecto beneficioso de la intervención en el desenlace principal de control del asma. La administración de suplementos de vitamina D no influyó en ninguno de los desenlaces secundarios de eficacia metanalizados, todos ellos basados en evidencia de calidad moderada o alta. No se observaron efectos sobre la incidencia de eventos adversos graves (OR 0,89; IC del 95%: 0,56 a 1,41; I2 = 0%; 12 estudios, 1556 participantes; evidencia de calidad alta). No fue posible determinar el efecto de la vitamina D sobre las exacerbaciones mortales del asma ya que no se produjeron tales eventos en ningún ensayo. Seis estudios informaron sobre la presencia de reacciones adversas potencialmente atribuibles a la vitamina D. Estas se dieron en los grupos de tratamiento y control e incluyeron hipercalciuria, hipervitaminosis D, cálculos renales, síntomas gastrointestinales y prurito leve. En un ensayo, no fue posible determinar el número total de participantes con hipercalciuria a partir del informe del ensayo. Tres ensayos se consideraron con alto riesgo de sesgo en al menos un dominio; ninguno de ellos aportó datos al análisis de los desenlaces informados anteriormente. Los análisis de sensibilidad que excluyeron estos ensayos de cada desenlace al que contribuyeron no cambiaron los hallazgos nulos. CONCLUSIONES DE LOS AUTORES: En contraposición con los hallazgos de la revisión Cochrane anterior sobre este tema, esta revisión actualizada no encuentra evidencia que respalde una función de los suplementos de vitamina D o sus metabolitos hidroxilados en la reducción del riesgo de exacerbaciones del asma o la mejoría del control del asma. Los participantes con asma grave y aquellos con concentraciones iniciales de 25(OH)D < 25 nmol/l estuvieron escasamente representados, por lo que se justifica la realización de más estudios de investigación. Un único estudio que investigó los efectos del calcidiol proporcionó resultados positivos, por lo que se necesitan más estudios que investiguen los efectos de este metabolito.

Global Initiative for Asthma Strategy 2021: Executive Summary and Rationale for Key Changes.

The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Strategy Report provides clinicians with an annually updated evidence-based strategy for asthma management and prevention, which can be adapted for local circumstances (e.g., medication availability). This article summarizes key recommendations from GINA 2021, and the evidence underpinning recent changes. GINA recommends that asthma in adults and adolescents should not be treated solely with short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA), because of the risks of SABA-only treatment and SABA overuse, and evidence for benefit of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Large trials show that as-needed combination ICS-formoterol reduces severe exacerbations by ⩾60% in mild asthma compared with SABA alone, with similar exacerbation, symptom, lung function, and inflammatory outcomes as daily ICS plus as-needed SABA. Key changes in GINA 2021 include division of the treatment figure for adults and adolescents into two tracks. Track 1 (preferred) has low-dose ICS-formoterol as the reliever at all steps: as needed only in Steps 1-2 (mild asthma), and with daily maintenance ICS-formoterol (maintenance-and-reliever therapy, "MART") in Steps 3-5. Track 2 (alternative) has as-needed SABA across all steps, plus regular ICS (Step 2) or ICS-long-acting ß2-agonist (Steps 3-5). For adults with moderate-to-severe asthma, GINA makes additional recommendations in Step 5 for add-on long-acting muscarinic antagonists and azithromycin, with add-on biologic therapies for severe asthma. For children 6-11 years, new treatment options are added at Steps 3-4. Across all age groups and levels of severity, regular personalized assessment, treatment of modifiable risk factors, self-management education, skills training, appropriate medication adjustment, and review remain essential to optimize asthma outcomes.

Implementing the Patient Needs in Asthma Treatment (NEAT) questionnaire in routine care: a qualitative study among patients and health professionals.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with asthma report unmet health care needs. The Patient Needs in Asthma Treatment (NEAT) questionnaire is a validated instrument to quantify these unmet needs. We explored how health professionals evaluated the instrument's utility as well as patients' and professionals' perspectives of how NEAT could be incorporated into routine clinical practice. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were conducted by telephone between February and September 2021 with 19 patients with asthma and 21 health professionals (i.e., general practitioners, pneumologists, health professionals in pulmonary rehabilitation, and medical assistants). Interview recordings were transcribed verbatim and content-analyzed using both deductive and inductive approaches using MAXQDA. RESULTS: Health professionals could see the potential value of using NEAT to inform clinical decisions. However, health professionals tended to be skeptical towards the routine use of NEAT in outpatient settings, mainly due to a lack of time. Implementation of NEAT was seen as more valuable in the context of patient education (i.e., in Disease Management Programs [DMPs] or pulmonary rehabilitation) by patients and health professionals alike, because it offered greater opportunities to address any unmet needs identified. Both patients and health professionals considered it more useful to use the questionnaire for the first time some time after the initial diagnosis has been made (e.g., when the treatment regime is found rather than at time of initial diagnosis). In the context of DMPs and pulmonary rehabilitation, NEAT could be used twice, i.e., before and after patient education to support patient-centered planning and evaluation. CONCLUSION: Both patients and health professionals consider the use of the NEAT, in particular in educational programs (i.e., during DMPs or pulmonary rehabilitation), as feasible and useful. There is now a need to undertake a feasibility trial in routine care.

Investigating the impact of London's ultra low emission zone on children's health: children's health in London and Luton (CHILL) protocol for a prospective parallel cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Air pollution harms health across the life course. Children are at particular risk of adverse effects during development, which may impact on health in later life. Interventions that improve air quality are urgently needed both to improve public health now, and prevent longer-term increased vulnerability to chronic disease. Low Emission Zones are a public health policy intervention aimed at reducing traffic-derived contributions to urban air pollution, but evidence that they deliver health benefits is lacking. We describe a natural experiment study (CHILL: Children's Health in London and Luton) to evaluate the impacts of the introduction of London's Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) on children's health. METHODS: CHILL is a prospective two-arm parallel longitudinal cohort study recruiting children at age 6-9 years from primary schools in Central London (the focus of the first phase of the ULEZ) and Luton (a comparator site), with the primary outcome being the impact of changes in annual air pollutant exposures (nitrogen oxides [NOx], nitrogen dioxide [NO2], particulate matter with a diameter of less than 2.5micrograms [PM2.5], and less than 10 micrograms [PM10]) across the two sites on lung function growth, measured as post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) over five years. Secondary outcomes include physical activity, cognitive development, mental health, quality of life, health inequalities, and a range of respiratory and health economic data. DISCUSSION: CHILL's prospective parallel cohort design will enable robust conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of the ULEZ at improving air quality and delivering improvements in children's respiratory health. With increasing proportions of the world's population now living in large urban areas exceeding World Health Organisation air pollution limit guidelines, our study findings will have important implications for the design and implementation of Low Emission and Clean Air Zones in the UK, and worldwide. CLINICALTRIALS: GOV: NCT04695093 (05/01/2021).

Optimising ePrescribing in hospitals through the interoperability of systems and processes: a qualitative study in the UK, US, Norway and the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Investment in the implementation of hospital ePrescribing systems has been a priority in many economically-developed countries in order to modernise the delivery of healthcare. However, maximum gains in the safety, quality and efficiency of care are unlikely to be fully realised unless ePrescribing systems are further optimised in a local context. Typical barriers to optimal use are often encountered in relation to a lack of systemic capacity and preparedness to meet various levels of interoperability requirements, including at the data, systems and services levels. This lack of systemic interoperability may in turn limit the opportunities and benefits potentially arising from implementing novel digital heath systems. METHODS: We undertook n = 54 qualitative interviews with key stakeholders at nine digitally advanced hospital sites across the UK, US, Norway and the Netherlands. We included hospitals featuring 'standalone, best of breed' systems, which were interfaced locally, and multi-component and integrated electronic health record enterprise systems. We analysed the data inductively, looking at strategies and constraints for ePrescribing interoperability within and beyond hospital systems. RESULTS: Our thematic analysis identified 4 main drivers for increasing ePrescribing systems interoperability: (1) improving patient safety (2) improving integration & continuity of care (3) optimising care pathways and providing tailored decision support to meet local and contextualised care priorities and (4) to enable full patient care services interoperability in a variety of settings and contexts. These 4 interoperability dimensions were not always pursued equally at each implementation site, and these were often dependent on the specific national, policy, organisational or technical contexts of the ePrescribing implementations. Safety and efficiency objectives drove optimisation targeted at infrastructure and governance at all levels. Constraints to interoperability came from factors such as legacy systems, but barriers to interoperability of processes came from system capability, hospital policy and staff culture. CONCLUSIONS: Achieving interoperability is key in making ePrescribing systems both safe and useable. Data resources exist at macro, meso and micro levels, as do the governance interventions necessary to achieve system interoperability. Strategic objectives, most notably improved safety, often motivated hospitals to push for evolution across the entire data architecture of which they formed a part. However, hospitals negotiated this terrain with varying degrees of centralised coordination. Hospitals were heavily reliant on staff buy-in to ensure that systems interoperability was built upon to achieve effective data sharing and use. Positive outcomes were founded on a culture of agreement about the usefulness of access by stakeholders, including prescribers, policymakers, vendors and lab technicians, which was reflected in an alignment of governance goals with system design.