Is exposure to pollen a risk factor for moderate and severe asthma exacerbations?

Limited number of studies have focused on the impact of pollen exposure on asthma. As a part of the EAACI Guidelines on Environment Science, this first systematic review on the relationship of pollen exposure to asthma exacerbations aimed to bridge this knowledge gap in view of implementing recommendations of prevention. We searched electronic iPubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases using a set of MeSH terms and related synonyms and identified 73 eligible studies that were included for systemic review. When possible, meta-analyses were conducted. Overall meta-analysis suggests that outdoor pollen exposure may have an effect on asthma exacerbation, but caution is needed due to the low number of studies and their heterogeneity. The strongest associations were found between asthma attacks, asthma-related ED admissions or hospitalizations, and an increase in grass pollen concentration in the previous 2-day overall in children aged less than 18 years of age. Tree pollen may increase asthma-related ED visits or admissions lagged up to 7-day overall in individuals younger than 18 years. Rare data show that among subjects under 18 years of age, an exposure to grass pollen lagged up to 3 days may lower lung function. Further research considering effect modifiers of pollen sensitization, hay fever, asthma, air pollution, green spaces, and pre-existing medications is urgently warranted to better evaluate the impacts of pollen on asthma exacerbation. Preventive measures in relation to pollen exposure should be integrated in asthma control as pollen increase continues due to climate change.

Vitamin D recommendations in clinical guidelines: A systematic review, quality evaluation and analysis of potential predictors.

BACKGROUND: Vitamin D has been widely promoted for bone health through supplementation and fortification of the general adult population. However, there is growing evidence that does not support these strategies. Our aim is to review the quality and recommendations on vitamin D nutritional and clinical practice guidelines and to explore predictive factors for their direction and strength. METHODS: We searched three databases and two guideline repositories from 2010 onwards. We performed a descriptive analysis, a quality appraisal using AGREE II scores (Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation) and a bivariate analysis evaluating the association between direction and strength of recommendations, AGREE II domains' scores and pre-specified characteristics. RESULTS: We included 34 guidelines, 44.1% recommended, 26.5% suggested and 29.4% did not recommend vitamin D supplementation. Guidelines that scored higher for "editorial independence" and "overall quality score" were less likely to recommend or suggest vitamin D supplementation (median 68.8 vs 35.4; P = .001 and 58.3 vs 37.5; P = .02). Guidance produced by government organisations and those that reported source of funding were associated with higher AGREE II scores. Unclear role of source of funding was associated with recommending or suggesting vitamin D supplementation (P = .034). Editorial independence was an independent predictor for recommending or suggesting vitamin D supplementation (OR 1.09; CI95% 1.02 to 1.16; P = .006). CONCLUSIONS: Policymakers, clinicians and patients should be aware that lower quality guidelines and those reporting conflicts of interest are more likely to promote vitamin D supplementation. Guideline organisations should improve the quality of their recommendations' development and the management of conflicts of interest. Users and editors should be aware of these findings when using and appraising guidelines.