John Sinn

While food allergies and eczema are among the most common chronic non-communicable diseases in children in many countries worldwide, quality data on the burden of these diseases is lacking, particularly in developing countries. This 2012 survey was performed to collect information on existing data on the global patterns and prevalence of food allergy by surveying all the national member societies of the World Allergy Organization, and some of their neighbouring countries. Data were collected from 89 countries, including published data, and changes in the health care burden of food allergy. More than half of the countries surveyed (52/89) did not have any data on food allergy prevalence. Only 10% (9/89) of countries had accurate food allergy prevalence data, based on oral food challenges (OFC). The remaining countries (23/89) had data largely based on parent-reporting of a food allergy diagnosis or symptoms, which is recognised to overestimate the prevalence of food allergy. Based on more accurate measures, the prevalence of clinical (OFC proven) food allergy in preschool children in developed countries is now as high as 10%. In large and rapidly emerging societies of Asia, such as China, where there are documented increases in food allergy, the prevalence of OFC-proven food allergy is now around 7% in pre-schoolers, comparable to the reported prevalence in European regions. While food allergy appears to be increasing in both developed and developing countries in the last 10-15 years, there is a lack of quality comparative data. This survey also highlights inequities in paediatric allergy services, availability of adrenaline auto-injectors and standardised National Anaphylaxis Action plans. In conclusion, there remains a need to gather more accurate data on the prevalence of food allergy in many developed and developing countries to better anticipate and address the rising community and health service burden of food allergy.

BACKGROUND: The composition of the intestinal microflora may be different in individuals with atopic eczema from those without this condition, and such differences may precede the development of eczema. Probiotics are live bacteria that colonize the gastrointestinal tract and provide a health benefit to the host. Probiotics added to infant feeds have the potential to prevent sensitisation of infants to dietary allergens. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of probiotics given to infants for the prevention of allergic disease or food hypersensitivity. SEARCH STRATEGY: This included searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 1, 2007), MEDLINE (1966 - February 2007), EMBASE, PREMEDLINE, abstracts of conference proceedings and citations of published articles, and expert informants. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compare the use of a probiotic to no probiotic; or the use a specific probiotic compared to a different probiotic; or a probiotic with added prebiotic to control. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Assessment of trial quality, data extraction and synthesis of data were performed using standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. MAIN RESULTS: Twelve studies were eligible for inclusion. Allergic disease and / or food hypersensitivity outcomes were assessed by 6 studies enrolling 2080 infants, but outcomes for only 1549 infants were reported. Studies generally had adequate randomisation, allocation concealment and blinding of treatment. However, the findings of this review should be treated with caution due to excess losses in patient follow-up (17% to 61%). Meta-analysis of five studies reporting the outcomes of 1477 infants found a significant reduction in infant eczema (typical RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70, 0.95). However, there was significant and substantial heterogeneity between studies. One study reported that the difference in eczema between groups persisted to 4 years age. When the analysis was restricted to studies reporting atopic eczema (confirmed by skin prick test or specific IgE), the findings were no longer significant (typical RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.62, 1.02). All studies reporting significant benefits used probiotic supplements containing L. rhamnosus and enrolled infants at high risk of allergy. No other benefits were reported for any other allergic disease or food hypersensitivity outcome. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to recommend the addition of probiotics to infant feeds for prevention of allergic disease or food hypersensitivity. Although there was a reduction in clinical eczema in infants, this effect was not consistent between studies and caution is advised in view of methodological concerns regarding included studies. Further studies are required to determine whether the findings are reproducible.

Rising rates of food allergies in early childhood reflect increasing failure of early immune tolerance mechanisms. There is mounting concern that the current recommended practice of delaying complementary foods until 6 months of age may increase, rather than decrease, the risk of immune disorders. Tolerance to food allergens appears to be driven by regular, early exposure to these proteins during a ‘critical early window’ of development. Although the timing of this window is not clear in humans, current evidence suggests that this is most likely to be between 4 and 6 months of life and that delayed exposure beyond this period may increase the risk of food allergy, coeliac disease and islet cell autoimmunity. There is also evidence that other factors such as favourable colonization and continued breastfeeding promote tolerance and have protective effects during this period when complementary feeding is initiated. This discussion paper explores the basis for concern over the current recommendation to delay complementary foods as an approach to preventing allergic disease. It will also examine the growing case for introducing complementary foods from around 4 months of age and maintaining breastfeeding during this early feeding period, for at least 6 months if possible.

BACKGROUND: Allergies and food reactions are common and may be associated with foods including adapted cow's milk formula. Formulas containing hydrolysed proteins have been used to treat infants with allergy or food intolerance. However, it is unclear whether hydrolysed formula can be advocated for prevention of allergy and food intolerance in infants without evidence of allergy or food intolerance. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of feeding hydrolysed formulas on allergy and food intolerance in infants and children compared to adapted cow's milk or human breast milk. If hydrolysed formulas are effective, to determine what type of hydrolysed formula is most effective including extensively and partially hydrolysed formulas. To determine which infants benefit, including infants at low or high risk of allergy and infants receiving early, short term or prolonged formula feeding. SEARCH STRATEGY: The standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group was used. The review was updated with searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2006), MEDLINE (1966-March 2006), EMBASE (1980-March 2006) and CINAHL (1982-March 2006) and previous reviews including cross references. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised trials that compare the use of a hydrolysed infant formula to human milk or cow's milk formula. Trials with >80% follow up of participants were eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Eligibility of studies for inclusion, methodological quality and data extraction were assessed independently by each review author. Primary outcomes included clinical allergy, specific allergies and food intolerance. Meta-analysis was conducted using a fixed effects model. MAIN RESULTS: Two trials compared early, short term hydrolysed formula to human milk feeding. No significant difference in infant allergy or childhood cow's milk allergy (CMA) were reported. No eligible trial compared prolonged hydrolysed formula to human milk feeding. Two trials compared early, short term hydrolysed formula to cow's milk formula feeding. No significant benefits were reported. One large quasi-random study reported a reduction in infant CMA of borderline significance in low risk infants (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.38, 1.00). Ten eligible studies compared prolonged feeding with hydrolysed formula versus cow's milk formula in high risk infants. Meta-analysis found a significant reduction in infant allergy (seven studies, 2514 infants; typical RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.66, 0.94), but not in the incidence of childhood allergy (two studies, 950 infants; typical RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.69, 1.05). There was no significant difference in infant eczema (eight studies, 2558 infants, typical RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.68, 1.04), childhood eczema incidence (two studies, 950 infants, typical RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.63, 1.10), childhood eczema prevalence (one study, 872 infants; RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.43, 1.02), or infant or childhood asthma, rhinitis and food allergy. One study reported a significant reduction in infants with CMA with confirmed atopy (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.15, 0.89). Subgroup analysis of trials blinded to formula found no significant difference in infant allergy (four studies, 2156 infants; typical RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.69, 1.08) or childhood allergy incidence (one study, 872 infants; RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.73, 1.14). No eligible trial examined the effect of prolonged hydrolysed formula feeding on allergy beyond early childhood. There is evidence that preterm or low birthweight infants fed a hydrolysed preterm formula have significantly reduced weight gain, but not in other growth parameters (head circumference or length). Studies in term infants report no adverse effects on growth. Subgroup analysis of trials of partially hydrolysed versus cow's milk formula found a significant reduction in infant allergy (six studies, 1391 infants; typical RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65, 0.97) but not childhood allergy, or infant or childhood asthma, eczema or rhinitis. Methodological concerns were the same as for the overall analysis. Analysis of trials of extensively hydrolysed formula versus cow's milk formula found no significant differences in allergy or food intolerance. Infants fed extensively hydrolysed formula compared with partially hydrolysed formula had a significant reduction in food allergy (two studies, 341 infants; typical RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.19, 0.99), but there was no significant difference in all allergy or any other specific allergy incidence. Comparing extensively hydrolysed casein containing formula with cow's milk formula, one study (431 infants) reported a significant reduction in childhood allergy incidence (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.53, 0.97). Meta-analysis found a significant reduction in infant eczema (three studies, 1237 infants; typical RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.51, 0.97). One study reported a significant reduction in childhood eczema incidence (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.44, 0.98) and prevalence (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.27, 0.92). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence to support feeding with a hydrolysed formula for the prevention of allergy compared to exclusive breast feeding. In high risk infants who are unable to be completely breast fed, there is limited evidence that prolonged feeding with a hydrolysed formula compared to a cow's milk formula reduces infant and childhood allergy and infant CMA. In view of methodological concerns and inconsistency of findings, further large, well designed trials comparing formulas containing partially hydrolysed whey, or extensively hydrolysed casein to cow's milk formulas are needed.