Search

Background: Cow's milk allergy (CMA) is the most complex and common food allergy in infants. Elimination of cow's milk from the diet and replacement with a specialized formula for infants with cow's milk allergy who cannot be breastfed is an established approach to minimize the risk of severe allergic reactions while avoiding nutritional deficiencies. Given the availability of multiple options, such as extensively hydrolyzed cow's milk-based formula (eHF-CM), aminoacid formula (AAF), hydrolyzed rice formula (HRF), and soy formula (SF), there is some uncertainty regarding which formula might represent the most suitable choice with respect to health outcomes. The addition of probiotics to a specialized formula has also been proposed as a potential approach to possibly increase the benefit. We systematically reviewed specialized formulas for infants with CMA to inform the updated World Allergy Organization (WAO) DRACMA guidelines., Objective: To systematically review and synthesize the available evidence about the use of specialized formulas for the management of individuals with CMA., Methods: We searched from inception PubMed, Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the websites of selected allergy organizations, for randomized and non-randomized trials of any language investigating specialized formulas with or without probiotics. We included all studies irrespective of the language of the original publication. The last search was conducted in January 2024. We synthesized the identified evidence quantitatively or narratively as appropriate and summarized it in the evidence profiles. We conducted this review following the PRISMA, Cochrane methods, and the GRADE approach., Results: We identified 3558 records including 14 randomized trials and 7 observational studies. Very low certainty evidence suggested that in infants with IgE-mediated CMA, eHF-CM, compared with AAF, might have higher probability of outgrowing CMA (risk ratio (RR) 2.32; risk difference (RD) 25 more per 100), while showing potentially lower probability of severe vomiting (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.88; RD 23 fewer per 100, 95% CI 3 to 26) and developing food protein-induced enterocolitis syndrome (FPIES) (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.82; RD 34 fewer per 100, 95% CI 7 to 39). We also found, however, that eHF-CM might be inferior to AAF in supporting a physiological growth, with respect to both weight (-5.5% from baseline, 95%CI -9.5% to -1.5%) and length (-0.7 z-score change, 95%CI -1.15 to -0.25) (very low certainty). We found similar effects for eHF-CM, compared with AAF, also in non-IgE CMA. When compared with SF, eHF-CM might favor weight gain for IgE CMA infants (0.23 z-score change, 95%CI 0.01 to 0.45), and tolerance acquisition (RR 1.86, 95%CI 1.03 to 3.37; RD 27%, 95%CI 1%-74%) for non-IgE CMA (both at very low certainty of the evidence (CoE)). The comparison of eHF-CM vs. HRF, and HRF vs. SF, showed no difference in effect (very low certainty). For IgE CMA patients, low certainty evidence suggested that adding probiotics ( L. rhamnosus GG, L. casei CRL431 and B. lactis Bb-12) might increase the probability of developing CMA tolerance (RR 2.47, 95%CI 1.03 to 5.93; RD 27%, 95%CI 1%-91%), and reduce the risk of severe wheezing (RR 0.12, 95%CI 0.02 to 0.95; RD -23%, 95%CI -8% to -0.4%). However, in non-IgE CMA infants, the addition of probiotics ( L. rhamnosus GG) showed no significant effect, as supported by low to very low CoE., Conclusions: Currently available studies comparing eHF-CM, AAF, HRF, and SF provide very low certainty evidence about their effects in infants with IgE-mediated and non-IgE-mediated CMA. Our review revealed several limitations in the current body of evidence, primarily arising from concerns related to the quality of studies, the limited size of the participant populations and most importantly the lack of diversity and standardization in the compared interventions. It is therefore imperative for future studies to be methodologically rigorous and investigate a broader spectrum of available interventions. We encourage clinicians and researchers to review current World Allergy Organization (WAO) Diagnosis and Rationale for Action against Cow's Milk Allergy (DRACMA) Guidelines for suggestions on how to use milk replacement formulas in clinical practice and what additional research would be the most beneficial., Competing Interests: HJS and JLB, on behalf of McMaster University, received a research grant from the World Allergy Organization to conduct this review that was deposited into the university research account. RS participated as a clinical investigator, and/or advisory board member, and/or consultant, and/or speaker for Abbott, Else, and Nestlé. HS serves as a board member of the International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP), an unpaid and voluntary role. They have participated as a clinical investigator, advisory board member, consultant, and speaker for several companies, including Arla, BioGaia, Biocodex, Danone, Dicofarm, Nestlé, NNI, Nutricia, Mead Johnson, and Novalac. YV has participated as a clinical investigator, and/or advisory board member, and/or consultant, and/or speaker for Abbott Nutrition, Alba Health, Arla, Ausnutria, Biogaia, By Heart, CHR Hansen, Danone, ELSE Nutrition, Friesland Campina, Nestle Health Science, Nestle Nutrition Institute, Nutricia, Mead Johnson Nutrition, Pileje, Sanulac, United Pharmaceuticals (Novalac), Yakult, Wyeth. SW is the president of the Canadian Allergy Asthma and Immunology Foundation, and participated as a clinical investigator, and/or advisory board member, and/or consultant, and/or speaker for Pfizer, Kaleo, Bausch Health, GSK, AZ, Sanofi, CSL Behring, Leo, AbbVie, Takeda, Medexus Pharma, MiravoHealth, BioCryst, ALK, Novartis. They also covered the positions of: BOD Asthma Canada, CHAEN. MS works for Allergy & Anaphylaxis Australis, which receives unrestricted educational grants from infant formula companies. AW works for Allergy UK works with corporate partners including those providing foods for special medical purposes, such as Nutricia/Danone, Abbott, Reckitt Benckiser/Mead Johnson. They have been a speakers for 2 Nutricia symposia, with honoraria being paid to the charity. All other authors declare that they have no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose., (© 2024 The Author(s).)

Background: Allergy to cow's milk is the most common food allergy in infants and it is usually outgrown by 5 years of age. In some individuals it persists beyond early childhood. Oral immunotherapy (OIT, oral desensitization, specific oral tolerance induction) has been proposed as a promising therapeutic strategy for persistent IgE-mediated cow's milk allergy. We previously published the systematic review of OIT for cow's milk allergy (CMA) in 2010 as part of the World Allergy Organization (WAO) Diagnosis and Rationale for Action against Cow's Milk Allergy (DRACMA) Guidelines., Objective: To systematically synthesize the currently available evidence about OIT for IgE-mediated CMA and to inform the updated 2022 WAO guidelines., Methods: We searched the electronic databases including PubMed, Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the websites of selected allergy organizations. We included all studies irrespective of the language of the original publication. The last search was conducted in February 2021. We registered the protocol on Open Science Framework (10.17605/OSF.IO/AH2DT)., Results: We identified 2147 unique records published between 2010 and 2021, including 13 randomized trials and 109 observational studies addressing cow's milk OIT. We found low-certainty evidence that OIT with unheated cow's milk, compared to elimination diet alone, increased the likelihood of being able to consume ≥150 ml of cow's milk in controlled settings (risk ratio (RR): 12.3, 95% CI: 5.9 to 26.0; risk difference (RD): 25 more per 100, 95% CI 11 to 56) as well as accidently ingest a small amount (≥5 ml) of cow's milk (RR: 8.7, 95% CI: 4.7 to 16.1; RD: 25 more per 100, 95% CI 12 to 50). However, 2-8 weeks after discontinuation of a successful OIT, tolerance of cow's milk persisted in only 36% (range: 20%-91%) of patients. OIT increased the frequency of anaphylaxis (rate ratio: 60.0, 95% CI 15 to 244; rate difference 5 more anaphylactic reactions per 1 person per year, 95% CI: 4 to 6; moderate evidence) and the frequency of epinephrine use (rate ratio: 35.2, 95% CI: 9 to 136.5; rate difference 268 more events per 100 person-years, 95% CI: 203 to 333; high certainty). OIT also increased the risk of gastrointestinal symptoms (RR 6.9, 95% CI 1.6-30.9; RD 28 more per 100, CI 3 to 100) and respiratory symptoms (RR 49.0, 95% CI 3.12-770.6; RD 77 more per 100, CI 62 to 92), compared with avoidance diet alone. Single-arm observational studies showed that on average 6.9% of OIT patients (95% CI: 3.8%-10%) developed eosinophilic esophagitis (very low certainty evidence). We found 1 trial and 2 small case series of OIT with baked milk., Conclusions: Moderate certainty evidence shows that OIT with unheated cow's milk in patients with IgE-mediated CMA is associated with an increased probability of being able to drink milk and, at the same time, an increased risk of serious adverse effects., (© 2022 Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of World Allergy Organization.)

Objective: The goal of this study was to develop an approach that can be used where baseline risk estimates that are directly applicable to prioritized patient-important outcomes are not available from published studies., Study Design: The McMaster University GRADE Centre and the ASH guideline panel for the prevention of VTE in surgical patients developed a modeling approach based on explicit assumptions about the distribution of symptoms, anatomical location, and severity of VTE events., Results: We applied the approach to derive modeled estimates of baseline risk. These estimates were used to calculated absolute measures of anticipated effects that informed the discussion of the evidence and the formulation of 30 guideline recommendations., Conclusion: Our approach can assist guideline developers facing a lack of information about baseline risk estimates that directly apply to outcomes of interest. The use of modeled estimates increases transparency in the process and makes the baseline risk used by guideline experts explicit during their decision-making., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common source of perioperative morbidity and mortality., Objective: These evidence-based guidelines from the American Society of Hematology (ASH) intend to support decision making about preventing VTE in patients undergoing surgery., Methods: ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to minimize bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline-development process, including performing systematic reviews. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment., Results: The panel agreed on 30 recommendations, including for major surgery in general (n = 8), orthopedic surgery (n = 7), major general surgery (n = 3), major neurosurgical procedures (n = 2), urological surgery (n = 4), cardiac surgery and major vascular surgery (n = 2), major trauma (n = 2), and major gynecological surgery (n = 2)., Conclusions: For patients undergoing major surgery in general, the panel made conditional recommendations for mechanical prophylaxis over no prophylaxis, for pneumatic compression prophylaxis over graduated compression stockings, and against inferior vena cava filters. In patients undergoing total hip or total knee arthroplasty, conditional recommendations included using either aspirin or anticoagulants, as well as for a direct oral anticoagulant over low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). For major general surgery, the panel suggested pharmacological prophylaxis over no prophylaxis, using LMWH or unfractionated heparin. For major neurosurgery, transurethral resection of the prostate, or radical prostatectomy, the panel suggested against pharmacological prophylaxis. For major trauma surgery or major gynecological surgery, the panel suggested pharmacological prophylaxis over no prophylaxis.

Rationale: Obesity hypoventilation syndrome (OHS) is an undesirable consequence of obesity. Treatment consists of weight loss and positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy. However, the preferred mode of PAP is uncertain. Objectives: To perform a systematic review to determine whether PAP therapy should be initiated as noninvasive ventilation (NIV) or continuous PAP (CPAP) in ambulatory patients with OHS. Methods: This systematic review informed an international, multidisciplinary panel of experts who had converged to develop a clinical practice guideline on OHS for the American Thoracic Society. MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and Embase were searched from January 1946 to March 2019 for studies that compared initial treatment with NIV to CPAP in OHS. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was used to appraise the quality of evidence. Results: The search identified 2,994 potentially relevant articles, the full text of 21 articles was reviewed, and five articles were selected. The five articles included three randomized trials (one reported as two articles) and an observational study. The sample size ranged from 36 to 225 subjects. The evidence showed no differences in mortality, cardiovascular events, and healthcare resource use between patients with OHS treated with NIV or CPAP. Both PAP modalities were similarly effective in improving gas exchange, the need for supplemental oxygen, daytime sleepiness, sleep quality, quality of life, dyspnea, and sleep-disordered breathing. There was also no significant difference in adherence to NIV or CPAP therapy. Certainty in the estimated effects was low or very low for some outcomes. Therefore, the conditional recommendation was based on very low-quality evidence. Conclusions: The panel made a conditional (i.e., weak) recommendation that CPAP rather than NIV be offered as the first-line treatment to stable ambulatory patients with OHS and coexistent severe obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). The effectiveness of CPAP is similar to that of NIV, but NIV is more costly and requires more resources than CPAP. Given that approximately 70% of patients with OHS have coexistent severe OSA, this recommendation applies to the great majority of patients with stable OHS, but it should not be extrapolated to patients with OHS without severe OSA. Patients of advanced age, with poor lung function, or with greater or recent acute ventilatory failure may not respond adequately to CPAP.

Background: Oral immunotherapy is an emerging experimental treatment for peanut allergy, but its benefits and harms are unclear. We systematically reviewed the efficacy and safety of oral immunotherapy versus allergen avoidance or placebo (no oral immunotherapy) for peanut allergy., Methods: In the Peanut Allergen immunotherapy, Clarifying the Evidence (PACE) systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, Latin American & Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WHO's Clinical Trials Registry Platform, US Food and Drug Administration, and European Medicines Agency databases from inception to Dec 6, 2018, for randomised controlled trials comparing oral immunotherapy versus no oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy, without language restrictions. We screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias independently in duplicate. Main outcomes included anaphylaxis, allergic or adverse reactions, epinephrine use, and quality of life, meta-analysed by random effects. We assessed certainty (quality) of evidence by the GRADE approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42019117930., Results: 12 trials (n=1041; median age across trials 8·7 years [IQR 5·9-11·2]) showed that oral immunotherapy versus no oral immunotherapy increased anaphylaxis risk (risk ratio [RR] 3·12 [95% CI 1·76-5·55], I 2 =0%, risk difference [RD] 15·1%, high-certainty), anaphylaxis frequency (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 2·72 [1·57-4·72], I 2 =0%, RD 12·2%, high-certainty), and epinephrine use (RR 2·21 [1·27-3·83], I 2 =0%, RD 4·5%, high-certainty) similarly during build-up and maintenance (p interaction =0·92). Oral immunotherapy increased serious adverse events (RR 1·92 [1·00-3·66], I 2 =0%, RD 5·7%, moderate-certainty), and non-anaphylactic reactions (vomiting: RR 1·79 [95%CI 1·35-2·38], I 2 =0%, high-certainty; angioedema: 2·25 [1·13-4·47], I 2 =0%, high-certainty; upper tract respiratory reactions: 1·36 [1·02-1·81], I 2 =0%, moderate-certainty; lower tract respiratory reactions: 1·55 [0·96-2·50], I 2 =28%, moderate-certainty). Passing a supervised challenge, a surrogate for preventing out-of-clinic reactions, was more likely with oral immunotherapy (RR 12·42 [95% CI 6·82-22·61], I 2 =0%, RD 36·5%, high-certainty). Quality of life was not different between groups (combined parents and self report RR 1·21 [0·87-1·69], I 2 =0%, RD 0·03%, low-certainty). Findings were robust to IRR, trial sequential, subgroup, and sensitivity analyses., Interpretation: In patients with peanut allergy, high-certainty evidence shows that available peanut oral immunotherapy regimens considerably increase allergic and anaphylactic reactions over avoidance or placebo, despite effectively inducing desensitisation. Safer peanut allergy treatment approaches and rigorous randomised controlled trials that evaluate patient-important outcomes are needed., Funding: None., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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., (© 2017 EAACI and John Wiley and Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd.)

Background: Allergic rhinitis (AR) affects 10% to 40% of the population. It reduces quality of life and school and work performance and is a frequent reason for office visits in general practice. Medical costs are large, but avoidable costs associated with lost work productivity are even larger than those incurred by asthma. New evidence has accumulated since the last revision of the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines in 2010, prompting its update., Objective: We sought to provide a targeted update of the ARIA guidelines., Methods: The ARIA guideline panel identified new clinical questions and selected questions requiring an update. We performed systematic reviews of health effects and the evidence about patients' values and preferences and resource requirements (up to June 2016). We followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) evidence-to-decision frameworks to develop recommendations., Results: The 2016 revision of the ARIA guidelines provides both updated and new recommendations about the pharmacologic treatment of AR. Specifically, it addresses the relative merits of using oral H 1 -antihistamines, intranasal H 1 -antihistamines, intranasal corticosteroids, and leukotriene receptor antagonists either alone or in combination. The ARIA guideline panel provides specific recommendations for the choice of treatment and the rationale for the choice and discusses specific considerations that clinicians and patients might want to review to choose the management most appropriate for an individual patient., Conclusions: Appropriate treatment of AR might improve patients' quality of life and school and work productivity. ARIA recommendations support patients, their caregivers, and health care providers in choosing the optimal treatment., (Copyright © 2017 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To assist healthcare providers in evidence-based clinical decision-making for the management of overweight and obese adults in Saudi Arabia., Methods: The Ministry of Health, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia assembled an expert Saudi panel to produce this clinical practice guideline in 2015. In collaboration with the methodological working group from McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada, using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, which describes both the strength of recommendation and the quality of evidence , Results: After identifying 11 questions, corresponding recommendations were agreed upon as guidance for the management of overweight and obese adults. These included strong recommendations in support of lifestyle interventions rather than usual care alone, individualized counseling interventions rather than generic educational pamphlets, physical activity rather than no physical activity, and physical activity in addition to diet rather than diet alone. Metformin and orlistat were suggested as conditional recommendations for the management of overweight and obesity in adults. Bariatric surgery was recommended, conditionally, for the management of obese adults (body mass index of ≥40 or ≥35 kg/m2 with comorbidities). , Conclusions: The current guideline includes recommendation for the non-pharmacological, pharmacological, and surgical management of overweight and obese adults. In addition, the panel recommends conducting research priorities regarding lifestyle interventions and economic analysis of drug therapy within the Saudi context, as well as long term benefits and harms of bariatric surgery.

Background: The prevalence of allergic diseases is approximately 10 % in infants whose parents and siblings do not have allergic diseases and 20-30 % in those with an allergic first-degree relative. Vitamin D is involved in the regulation of the immune system and it may play a role in the development, severity and course of asthma and other allergic diseases., Objective: The World Allergy Organization (WAO) convened a guideline panel to develop evidence-based recommendations addressing the use of vitamin D in primary prevention of allergic diseases., Methods: Our WAO guideline panel identified the most relevant clinical questions and performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies (NRS), specifically cohort and case-control studies, of vitamin D supplementation for the prevention of allergic diseases. We also reviewed the evidence about values and preferences, and resource requirements (up to January 2015, with an update on January 30, 2016). We followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to develop recommendations., Results: Having reviewed the currently available evidence, the WAO guideline panel found no support for the hypothesis that vitamin D supplementation reduces the risk of developing allergic diseases in children. The WAO guideline panel suggest not using vitamin D in pregnant women, breastfeeding mothers, or healthy term infants as a means of preventing the development of allergic diseases. This recommendation does not apply to those mothers and infants who have other indications for prophylactic or therapeutic use of vitamin D. The panel's recommendations are conditional and supported by very low certainty evidence., Conclusions: WAO recommendations about vitamin D supplementation for the prevention of allergic diseases support parents, clinicians and other health care professionals in their decisions whether or not to use vitamin D in preventing allergic diseases in healthy, term infants.

Background: The prevalence of allergic diseases in infants, whose parents and siblings do not have allergy, is approximately 10 % and reaches 20-30 % in those with an allergic first-degree relative. Intestinal microbiota may modulate immunologic and inflammatory systemic responses and, thus, influence development of sensitization and allergy. Prebiotics - non-digestible oligosaccharides that stimulate growth of probiotic bacteria - have been reported to modulate immune responses and their supplementation has been proposed as a preventive intervention., Objective: The World Allergy Organization (WAO) convened a guideline panel to develop evidence-based recommendations about the use of prebiotics in the prevention of allergy., Methods: The WAO guideline panel identified the most relevant clinical questions about the use of prebiotics for the prevention of allergy. We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials of prebiotics, and reviewed the evidence about patient values and preferences, and resource requirements (up to January 2015, with an update on July 29, 2015). We followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to develop recommendations., Results: Based on GRADE evidence to decision frameworks, the WAO guideline panel suggests using prebiotic supplementation in not-exclusively breastfed infants and not using prebiotic supplementation in exclusively breastfed infants. Both recommendations are conditional and based on very low certainty of the evidence. We found no experimental or observational study of prebiotic supplementation in pregnant women or in breastfeeding mothers. Thus, the WAO guideline panel chose not to provide a recommendation about prebiotic supplementation in pregnancy or during breastfeeding, at this time., Conclusions: WAO recommendations about prebiotic supplementation for the prevention of allergy are intended to support parents, clinicians and other health care professionals in their decisions whether or not to use prebiotics for the purpose of preventing allergies in healthy, term infants.

Background: Allergic diseases are considered a health burden because of their high and constantly increasing prevalence, high direct and indirect costs, and undesirable effects on quality of life. Probiotics have been suggested as an intervention to prevent allergic diseases., Objective: We sought to synthesize the evidence supporting use of probiotics for the prevention of allergies and inform World Allergy Organization guidelines on probiotic use., Methods: We performed a systematic review of randomized trials assessing the effects of any probiotic administered to pregnant women, breast-feeding mothers, and/or infants., Results: Of 2403 articles published until December 2014 identified in Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Embase, 29 studies fulfilled a priori specified inclusion criteria for the analyses. Probiotics reduced the risk of eczema when used by women during the last trimester of pregnancy (relative risk [RR], 0.71; 95% CI, 0.60-0.84), when used by breast-feeding mothers (RR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.47-0.69), or when given to infants (RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.68-0.94). Evidence did not support an effect on other allergies, nutrition status, or incidence of adverse effects. The certainty in the evidence according to the Grading of Recommendation Assessment Development and Evaluation approach is low or very low because of the risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision of results, and indirectness of available research., Conclusion: Probiotics used by pregnant women or breast-feeding mothers and/or given to infants reduced the risk of eczema in infants; however, the certainty in the evidence is low. No effect was observed for the prevention of other allergic conditions., (Copyright © 2015 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Prevalence of allergic diseases in infants, whose parents and siblings do not have allergy, is approximately 10% and reaches 20-30% in those with an allergic first-degree relative. Intestinal microbiota may modulate immunologic and inflammatory systemic responses and, thus, influence development of sensitization and allergy. Probiotics have been reported to modulate immune responses and their supplementation has been proposed as a preventive intervention., Objective: The World Allergy Organization (WAO) convened a guideline panel to develop evidence-based recommendations about the use of probiotics in the prevention of allergy., Methods: We identified the most relevant clinical questions and performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials of probiotics for the prevention of allergy. We followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to develop recommendations. We searched for and reviewed the evidence about health effects, patient values and preferences, and resource use (up to November 2014). We followed the GRADE evidence-to-decision framework to develop recommendations., Results: Currently available evidence does not indicate that probiotic supplementation reduces the risk of developing allergy in children. However, considering all critical outcomes in this context, the WAO guideline panel determined that there is a likely net benefit from using probiotics resulting primarily from prevention of eczema. The WAO guideline panel suggests: a) using probiotics in pregnant women at high risk for having an allergic child; b) using probiotics in women who breastfeed infants at high risk of developing allergy; and c) using probiotics in infants at high risk of developing allergy. All recommendations are conditional and supported by very low quality evidence., Conclusions: WAO recommendations about probiotic supplementation for prevention of allergy are intended to support parents, clinicians and other health care professionals in their decisions whether to use probiotics in pregnancy and during breastfeeding, and whether to give them to infants.

Background: There are several clinical practice guidelines about the management of allergic rhinitis (AR) being used by clinicians., Objective: We sought to assess the methodological rigor and transparency of reporting of clinical practice guidelines for the management of AR., Methods: We systematically searched MEDLINE, the TRIP database, and professional society Web sites for all guidelines about the management of AR published in English after the year 2000. Four reviewers independently assessed the rigor of development and reporting of included guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument., Results: Our search revealed 432 records, of which 34 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility and 10 fulfilled inclusion criteria. Overall methodological rigor and reporting of guidelines varied from fulfilling most of the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II criteria to almost none. Across all guidelines, the best reported domain was clarity of presentation, and the least rigorously addressed domain was applicability of guidelines. Agreement beyond chance among the 4 appraisers was fair., Conclusions: Guideline users should be aware of the difference in the rigor of development and quality of reporting of guidelines about the management of AR. They should choose higher-quality guidelines to use in their practice and teaching. For most reviewed guidelines, there is room for improvement, particularly in the domains of applicability and implementation., (Copyright © 2013 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The evidence base for or against physiotherapy interventions in asthmatic adults remains ambiguous, and there are discrepancies between different clinical practice guidelines. We evaluated the level of agreement between the recommendations about physiotherapy for adults with asthma in two major clinical practice guidelines: the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA 2011) and the British Thoracic Society and the Association of Chartered Physiotherapists in Respiratory Care (BTS/ACPRC 2009)., Methods: We used the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument to assess the methodological rigor of the guideline development, the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews and clinical trials included in the analyzed documents. Additionally, we compared the reference lists of the analyzed sections to establish the overlap in included primary and secondary studies., Results: We observed no agreement between the two guidelines in the choice of source research articles. Only two studies out of 18 used in BTS guidelines were used in the GINA. The reason why GINA developers did not use the body of evidence included in BTS is that it is not clear. Three independent investigators indicated higher scores in all domains of the AGREE II in the BTS/ACPRC document in comparison with the GINA guidelines., Conclusions: The significant differences in the content and in the development processes of the examined sections of the two guidelines suggest the need for more frequent and careful updating or directing the readers of the GINA to the BTS/ACPRC, a guideline addressing specifically and more comprehensively physiotherapy interventions in asthma.

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., (© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.)

Background: Accurate diagnosis is a fundamental aspect of appropriate healthcare. However, clinicians need guidance when implementing diagnostic tests given the number of tests available and resource constraints in healthcare. Practitioners of health often feel compelled to implement recommendations in guidelines, including recommendations about the use of diagnostic tests. However, the understanding about diagnostic tests by guideline panels and the methodology for developing recommendations is far from completely explored. Therefore, we evaluated the factors that guideline developers and users need to consider for the development of implementable recommendations about diagnostic tests., Methods: Using a critical analysis of the process, we present the results of a case study using the Grading of Recommendations Applicability, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to develop a clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis of Cow Milk Allergy with the World Allergy Organization., Results: To ensure that guideline panels can develop informed recommendations about diagnostic tests, it appears that more emphasis needs to be placed on group processes, including question formulation, defining patient-important outcomes for diagnostic tests, and summarizing evidence. Explicit consideration of concepts of diagnosis from evidence-based medicine, such as pre-test probability and treatment threshold, is required to facilitate the work of a guideline panel and to formulate implementable recommendations., Discussion: This case study provides useful guidance for guideline developers and clinicians about what they ought to demand from clinical practice guidelines to facilitate implementation and strengthen confidence in recommendations about diagnostic tests. Applying a structured framework like the GRADE approach with its requirement for transparency in the description of the evidence and factors that influence recommendations facilitates laying out the process and decision factors that are required for the development, interpretation, and implementation of recommendations about diagnostic tests.

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., (© 2011 John Wiley & Sons A/S.)