Vitamin D supplementation in primary allergy prevention: Systematic review of randomized and non-randomized studies.

BACKGROUND: To date, a systematic review of the evidence regarding the association between vitamin D and allergic diseases development has not yet been undertaken. OBJECTIVE: To review the efficacy and safety of vitamin D supplementation when compared to no supplementation in pregnant women, breastfeeding women, infants, and children for the prevention of allergies. METHODS: Three databases were searched through January 30, 2016, including randomized (RCT) and nonrandomized studies (NRS). Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the certainty in the body of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: Among the 1932 articles identified, one RCT and four NRS were eligible. Very low certainty in the body of evidence across examined studies suggests that vitamin D supplementation for pregnant women, breastfeeding women, and infants may not decrease the risk of developing allergic diseases such as atopic dermatitis (in pregnant women), allergic rhinitis (in pregnant women and infants), asthma and/or wheezing (in pregnant women, breastfeeding women, and infants), or food allergies (in pregnant women). We found no studies of primary prevention of allergic diseases in children. CONCLUSION: Limited information is available addressing primary prevention of allergic diseases after vitamin D supplementation, and its potential impact remains uncertain.

Prebiotics for the prevention of allergies: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Prevalence of allergic diseases in infants is approximately 10% reaching 20 to 30% in those with an allergic first-degree relative. Prebiotics are selectively fermented food ingredients that allow specific changes in composition/activity of the gastrointestinal microflora. They modulate immune responses, and their supplementation has been proposed as an intervention to prevent allergies. OBJECTIVE: To assess in pregnant women, breastfeeding mothers, and infants (populations) the effect of supplementing prebiotics (intervention) versus no prebiotics (comparison) on the development of allergic diseases and to inform the World Allergy Organization guidelines. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of studies assessing the effects of prebiotic supplementation with an intention to prevent the development of allergies. RESULTS: Of 446 unique records published until November 2016 in Cochrane, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, 22 studies fulfilled a priori specified criteria. We did not find any studies of prebiotics given to pregnant women or breastfeeding mothers. Prebiotic supplementation in infants, compared to placebo, had the following effects: risk of developing eczema (RR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.40 to 1.15), wheezing/asthma (RR, 0.37; 95% CI: 0.17 to 0.80), and food allergy (RR: 0.28, 95% CI: 0.08 to 1.00). There was no evidence of an increased risk of any adverse effects (RR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.92 to 1.10). Prebiotic supplementation had little influence growth rate (MD: 0.92 g per day faster with prebiotics, 95% CI: 0 to 1.84) and the final infant weight (MD: 0.10 kg higher with prebiotics, 95% CI: -0.09 to 0.29). The certainty of these estimates is very low due to risk of bias and imprecision of the results. CONCLUSIONS: Currently available evidence on prebiotic supplementation to reduce the risk of developing allergies is very uncertain.

Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA): achievements in 10 years and future needs.

Allergic rhinitis (AR) and asthma represent global health problems for all age groups. Asthma and rhinitis frequently coexist in the same subjects. Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) was initiated during a World Health Organization workshop in 1999 (published in 2001). ARIA has reclassified AR as mild/moderate-severe and intermittent/persistent. This classification closely reflects patients' needs and underlines the close relationship between rhinitis and asthma. Patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals are confronted with various treatment choices for the management of AR. This contributes to considerable variation in clinical practice, and worldwide, patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals are faced with uncertainty about the relative merits and downsides of the various treatment options. In its 2010 Revision, ARIA developed clinical practice guidelines for the management of AR and asthma comorbidities based on the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. ARIA is disseminated and implemented in more than 50 countries of the world. Ten years after the publication of the ARIA World Health Organization workshop report, it is important to make a summary of its achievements and identify the still unmet clinical, research, and implementation needs to strengthen the 2011 European Union Priority on allergy and asthma in children.

Severe chronic allergic (and related) diseases: a uniform approach--a MeDALL--GA2LEN--ARIA position paper.

Concepts of disease severity, activity, control and responsiveness to treatment are linked but different. Severity refers to the loss of function of the organs induced by the disease process or to the occurrence of severe acute exacerbations. Severity may vary over time and needs regular follow-up. Control is the degree to which therapy goals are currently met. These concepts have evolved over time for asthma in guidelines, task forces or consensus meetings. The aim of this paper is to generalize the approach of the uniform definition of severe asthma presented to WHO for chronic allergic and associated diseases (rhinitis, chronic rhinosinusitis, chronic urticaria and atopic dermatitis) in order to have a uniform definition of severity, control and risk, usable in most situations. It is based on the appropriate diagnosis, availability and accessibility of treatments, treatment responsiveness and associated factors such as comorbidities and risk factors. This uniform definition will allow a better definition of the phenotypes of severe allergic (and related) diseases for clinical practice, research (including epidemiology), public health purposes, education and the discovery of novel therapies.

Oral immunotherapy for IgE-mediated cow's milk allergy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Cow's milk is a common cause of food allergy in children. Children usually outgrow cow's milk allergy by the age of 3-5 years, but some will have persistent symptoms beyond childhood. We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies to assess the evidence supporting the use of oral immunotherapy in IgE-mediated cow's milk allergy to inform the World Allergy Organization guidelines. Of 1034 screened articles published until May 2011, five RCTs and five observational studies fulfilled a priori specified inclusion criteria. RCTs including 218 patients showed that oral immunotherapy, compared to elimination diet alone, increased the likelihood of achieving full tolerance of cow's milk [relative risk: 10.0 (95% CI: 4.1-24.2)]. Adverse effects of immunotherapy include frequent local symptoms (16% of doses), mild laryngospasm [relative risk: 12.9 (1.7-98.6)], mild asthma [rate ratio: 3.8 (2.9-5.0)], reactions requiring oral glucocorticosteroids [relative risk: 11.3 (2.7-46.5)] or intramuscular epinephrine injection [rate ratio 5.8 (1.6-21.9)]. Results of observational studies were consistent with those of RCTs. Despite the availability of RCTs, the overall low quality of evidence leaves important uncertainty about anticipated effects of immunotherapy due to very serious imprecision of the estimates of effects and the likelihood of publication bias for some of the critical outcomes. A potentially large benefit of oral immunotherapy in patients with cow's milk allergy may be counterbalanced by frequent and sometimes serious adverse effects. Additional, larger RCTs measuring all patient-important outcomes are still needed.

Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines part 3 of 3. The GRADE approach to developing recommendations.

This is the third and last article in the series about the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines and its application in the field of allergy. We describe the factors that influence the strength of recommendations about the use of diagnostic, preventive and therapeutic interventions: the balance of desirable and undesirable consequences, the quality of a body of evidence related to a decision, patients' values and preferences, and considerations of resource use. We provide examples from two recently developed guidelines in the field of allergy that applied the GRADE approach. The main advantages of this approach are the focus on patient important outcomes, explicit consideration of patients' values and preferences, the systematic approach to collecting the evidence, the clear separation of the concepts of quality of evidence and strength of recommendations, and transparent reporting of the decision process. The focus on transparency facilitates understanding and implementation and should empower patients, clinicians and other health care professionals to make informed choices.

Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines: Part 2 of 3. The GRADE approach to grading quality of evidence about diagnostic tests and strategies.

The GRADE approach to grading the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations provides a comprehensive and transparent approach for developing clinical recommendations about using diagnostic tests or diagnostic strategies. Although grading the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations about using tests shares the logic of grading recommendations for treatment, it presents unique challenges. Guideline panels and clinicians should be alert to these special challenges when using the evidence about the accuracy of tests as the basis for clinical decisions. In the GRADE system, valid diagnostic accuracy studies can provide high quality evidence of test accuracy. However, such studies often provide only low quality evidence for the development of recommendations about diagnostic testing, as test accuracy is a surrogate for patient-important outcomes at best. Inferring from data on accuracy that using a test improves outcomes that are important to patients requires availability of an effective treatment, improved patients' wellbeing through prognostic information, or - by excluding an ominous diagnosis - reduction of anxiety and the opportunity for earlier search for an alternative diagnosis for which beneficial treatment can be available. Assessing the directness of evidence supporting the use of a diagnostic test requires judgments about the relationship between test results and patient-important consequences. Well-designed and conducted studies of allergy tests in parallel with efforts to evaluate allergy treatments critically will encourage improved guideline development for allergic diseases.

Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines. Part 1 of 3. An overview of the GRADE approach and grading quality of evidence about interventions.

The GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach provides guidance to grading the quality of underlying evidence and the strength of recommendations in health care. The GRADE system's conceptual underpinnings allow for a detailed stepwise process that defines what role the quality of the available evidence plays in the development of health care recommendations. The merit of GRADE is not that it eliminates judgments or disagreements about evidence and recommendations, but rather that it makes them transparent. This first article in a three-part series describes the GRADE framework in relation to grading the quality of evidence about interventions based on examples from the field of allergy and asthma. In the GRADE system, the quality of evidence reflects the extent to which a guideline panel's confidence in an estimate of the effect is adequate to support a particular recommendation. The system classifies quality of evidence as high, moderate, low, or very low according to factors that include the study methodology, consistency and precision of the results, and directness of the evidence.

Important research questions in allergy and related diseases: nonallergic rhinitis: a GA2LEN paper.

Nonallergic rhinitis (NAR) can be defined as a chronic nasal inflammation which is not caused by systemic IgE-dependent mechanisms. It is common and probably affects far more than 200 million people worldwide. Both children and adults are affected. However, its exact prevalence is unknown and its phenotypes need to be evaluated using appropriate methods to better understand its pathophysiology, diagnosis and management. It is important to differentiate between infectious rhinitis, allergic/NAR and chronic rhinosinusitis, as management differs for each of these cases. Characterization of the phenotype, mechanisms and management of NAR represents one of the major unmet needs in allergic and nonallergic diseases. Studies on children and adults are required in order to appreciate the prevalence, phenotype, severity and co-morbidities of NAR. These studies should compare allergic and NAR and consider different age group populations including elderly subjects. Mechanistic studies should be carried out to better understand the disease(s) and risk factors and to guide towards an improved diagnosis and therapy. These studies need to take the heterogeneity of NAR into account. It is likely that neuronal mechanisms, T cells, innate immunity and possibly auto-immune responses all play a role in NAR and may also contribute to the symptoms of allergic rhinitis.

Methodology for development of the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma guideline 2008 update.

BACKGROUND: We describe the methodology for the 2008 update of the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines. The methodology differs from the 2001 edition in several respects. The most prominent change is the application of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to compiling evidence, assessing the quality of evidence and grading of recommendations. METHODS AND RESULTS: Representatives of the GRADE working group joined the ARIA guideline panel to achieve these tasks. While most recommendations result from existing systematic reviews, systematic reviews were not always available and the panel compiled the best available evidence in evidence profiles without conducting actual reviews. The panel conducted two meetings and used the GRADE criteria to assess the quality of evidence (four categories of high, moderate, low and very low) and the strength of recommendation (strong and weak) based on weighing up the desirable and undesirable effects of management strategies, considering values and preferences influencing recommendations, and resource implications. The guideline panel has chosen the words 'we recommend'--for strong recommendations and 'we suggest'--for weak recommendations. Both categories indicate the best course of action for a given patient population, but their implementation, requires different considerations as we describe subsequently in this article. CONCLUSIONS: The 2008 update of the ARIA guidelines has become more evidence-based. Future iterations of the guidelines will further be improved by following the described processes even closer, such as ensuring availability of updated high quality systematic reviews for each question.