-
The British Journal of Psychiatry : the... Jan 2021Comorbid physical conditions may be more common in people with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) than other people.
BACKGROUND
Comorbid physical conditions may be more common in people with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) than other people.
AIMS
To identify what is and what is not known about comorbid physical conditions in people with ASD.
METHOD
We undertook an umbrella systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on comorbid physical conditions in people with ASD. Five databases were searched. There were strict inclusion/exclusion criteria. We undertook double reviewing for eligibility, systematic data extraction and quality assessment. Prospective PROSPERO registration: CRD42015020896.
RESULTS
In total, 24 of 5552 retrieved articles were included, 15 on children, 1 on adults, and 8 both on children and adults. Although the quality of included reviews was good, most reported several limitations in the studies they included and considerable heterogeneity. Comorbid physical conditions are common, and some are more prevalent than in the general population: sleep problems, epilepsy, sensory impairments, atopy, autoimmune disorders and obesity. Asthma is not. However, there are substantial gaps in the evidence base. Fewer studies have been undertaken on other conditions and some findings are inconsistent.
CONCLUSIONS
Comorbid physical conditions occur more commonly in people with ASD, but the evidence base is slim and more research is needed. Some comorbidities compound care if clinicians are unaware, for example sensory impairments, given the communication needs of people with ASD. Others, such as obesity, can lead to an array of other conditions, disadvantages and early mortality. It is essential that potentially modifiable physical conditions are identified to ensure people with ASD achieve their best outcomes. Heightening clinicians' awareness is important to aid in assessments and differential diagnoses, and to improve healthcare.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Autism Spectrum Disorder; Comorbidity; Delivery of Health Care; Prospective Studies; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Meta-Analysis as Topic
PubMed: 33161922
DOI: 10.1192/bjp.2020.167 -
Allergy, Asthma, and Clinical... Oct 2021Currently there is no systematic review and meta-analysis of the global incidence rates of anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in the...
BACKGROUND
Currently there is no systematic review and meta-analysis of the global incidence rates of anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in the general adult population.
OBJECTIVES
To estimate the incidence rates of anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions after COVID-19 vaccines and describe the demographic and clinical characteristics, triggers, presenting signs and symptoms, treatment and clinical course of confirmed cases.
DESIGN
A systematic review and meta-analysis. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses [PRISMA] statement was followed.
METHODS
Electronic databases (Proquest, Medline, Embase, Pubmed, CINAHL, Wiley online library, and Nature) were searched from 1 December 2020 to 31 May 2021 in the English language using the following keywords alone or in combination: anaphylaxis, non-anaphylaxis, anaphylactic reaction, nonanaphylactic reaction, anaphylactic/anaphylactoid shock, hypersensitivity, allergy reaction, allergic reaction, immunology reaction, immunologic reaction, angioedema, loss of consciousness, generalized erythema, urticaria, urticarial rash, cyanosis, grunting, stridor, tachypnoea, wheezing, tachycardia, abdominal pain, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting and tryptase. We included studies in adults of all ages in all healthcare settings. Effect sizes of prevalence were pooled with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). To minimize heterogeneity, we performed sub-group analyses.
RESULTS
Of the 1,734 papers that were identified, 26 articles were included in the systematic review (8 case report, 5 cohort, 4 case series, 2 randomized controlled trial and 1 randomized cross-sectional studies) and 14 articles (1 cohort, 2 case series, 1 randomized controlled trial and 1 randomized cross-sectional studies) were included in meta-analysis. Studies involving 26,337,421 vaccine recipients [Pfizer-BioNTech (n = 14,505,399) and Moderna (n = 11,831,488)] were analyzed. The overall pooled prevalence estimate of anaphylaxis to both vaccines was 5.0 (95% CI 2.9 to 7.2, I = 81%, p = < 0.0001), while the overall pooled prevalence estimate of nonanaphylactic reactions to both vaccines was 53.9 (95% CI 0.0 to 116.1, I = 99%, p = < 0.0001). Vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech resulted in higher anaphylactic reactions compared to Moderna (8.0, 95% CI 0.0 to 11.3, I = 85% versus 2.8, 95% CI 0.0 to 5.7, I = 59%). However, lower incidence of nonanaphylactic reactions was associated with Pfizer-BioNTech compared to Moderna (43.9, 95% CI 0.0 to 131.9, I = 99% versus 63.8, 95% CI 0.0 to 151.8, I = 98%). The funnel plots for possible publication bias for the pooled effect sizes to determine the incidence of anaphylaxis and nonanaphylactic reactions associated with mRNA COVID-19 immunization based on mRNA vaccine type appeared asymmetrical on visual inspection, and Egger's tests confirmed asymmetry by producing p values < 0.05. Across the included studies, the most commonly identified risk factors for anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were female sex and personal history of atopy. The key triggers to anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions identified in these studies included foods, medications, stinging insects or jellyfish, contrast media, cosmetics and detergents, household products, and latex. Previous history of anaphylaxis; and comorbidities such as asthma, allergic rhinitis, atopic and contact eczema/dermatitis and psoriasis and cholinergic urticaria were also found to be important.
CONCLUSION
The prevalence of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine-associated anaphylaxis is very low; and nonanaphylactic reactions occur at higher rate, however, cutaneous reactions are largely self-limited. Both anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions should not discourage vaccination.
PubMed: 34656181
DOI: 10.1186/s13223-021-00613-7 -
Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) Apr 2021Classification of asthma phenotypes has a potentially relevant impact on the clinical management of the disease. Methods for statistical classification without a priori... (Review)
Review
Classification of asthma phenotypes has a potentially relevant impact on the clinical management of the disease. Methods for statistical classification without a priori assumptions (data-driven approaches) may contribute to developing a better comprehension of trait heterogeneity in disease phenotyping. This study aimed to summarize and characterize asthma phenotypes derived by data-driven methods. We performed a systematic review using three scientific databases, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) criteria. We included studies reporting adult asthma phenotypes derived by data-driven methods using easily accessible variables in clinical practice. Two independent reviewers assessed studies. The methodological quality of included primary studies was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. We retrieved 7446 results and included 68 studies of which 65% ( = 44) used data from specialized centers and 53% ( = 36) evaluated the consistency of phenotypes. The most frequent data-driven method was hierarchical cluster analysis ( = 19). Three major asthma-related domains of easily measurable clinical variables used for phenotyping were identified: personal ( = 49), functional ( = 48) and clinical ( = 47). The identified asthma phenotypes varied according to the sample's characteristics, variables included in the model, and data availability. Overall, the most frequent phenotypes were related to atopy, gender, and severe disease. This review shows a large variability of asthma phenotypes derived from data-driven methods. Further research should include more population-based samples and assess longitudinal consistency of data-driven phenotypes.
PubMed: 33918233
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11040644 -
Anais Brasileiros de Dermatologia 2016The number of studies on patch-test results in children and adolescents has gradually increased in recent years, thus stimulating reviews. This paper is a systematic... (Review)
Review
The number of studies on patch-test results in children and adolescents has gradually increased in recent years, thus stimulating reviews. This paper is a systematic review of a 15-year period devoted to studying the issue. Variations pertaining to the number and age groups of tested children and/or adolescents, the number of subjects with atopy/atopic dermatitis history, the quantity, type and concentrations of the tested substances, the test technique and type of data regarding clinical relevance, must all be considered in evaluating these studies, as they make it harder to formulate conclusions. The most common allergens in children were nickel, thimerosal, cobalt, fragrance, lanolin and neomycin. In adolescents, they were nickel, thimerosal, cobalt, fragrance, potassium dichromate, and Myroxylon pereirae. Knowledge of this matter aids health professionals in planning preventive programs aimed at improving children's quality of life and ensuring that their future prospects are not undermined.
Topics: Adolescent; Age Factors; Allergens; Child; Dermatitis, Allergic Contact; Dermatitis, Atopic; Female; Humans; Male; Patch Tests; Sex Factors; Time Factors
PubMed: 26982781
DOI: 10.1590/abd1806-4841.20163927 -
Journal of Clinical Anesthesia Jun 2024We conducted this meta-analysis to summarize the available evidence and evaluate the relationship between a history of allergies/allergic diseases and perioperative... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
STUDY OBJECTIVE
We conducted this meta-analysis to summarize the available evidence and evaluate the relationship between a history of allergies/allergic diseases and perioperative anaphylaxis to offer preventive decision support.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.
SETTING
We searched the MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases for observational studies. Two investigators independently performed the search, screened the articles, and collected the study details.
MEASUREMENTS
Several databases were systematically searched to evaluate the relationship between a history of allergies/allergic diseases and perioperative anaphylaxis using subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis and meta-regression.
MAIN RESULTS
A total of 19 studies involving 672 anaphylaxis episodes, 5608 immune-mediated reactions, and 1126 severe episodes met the eligibility criteria and were included in this meta-analysis. Drug allergies, food allergies, a history of allergies, and atopy increased the incidence of perioperative anaphylaxis (Drug allergies, odds ratio [OR] 3.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.07-11.69; Food allergies, OR 2.29, 95% CI 1.23-4.26; A history of allergies, OR 4.86, 95% CI 3.65-6.49; Atopy, OR 3.58, 95% CI 1.47-8.71), but not the presence of immune-mediated reactions and the severity of perioperative anaphylaxis.
CONCLUSIONS
Patients with previous drug allergies, food allergies, a history of allergies, or atopy are more likely to develop anaphylaxis during the perioperative period. Additional studies should be carried out to determine whether a history of allergies/allergic diseases is a major factor for perioperative anaphylaxis when confounders are controlled.
Topics: Humans; Anaphylaxis; Food Hypersensitivity; Drug Hypersensitivity; Incidence; Perioperative Period
PubMed: 38387242
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2024.111408 -
Scientific Reports Oct 2016Association between allergic conditions and prostate cancer risk has been investigated for many years. However, the results from available evidence for the association... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Association between allergic conditions and prostate cancer risk has been investigated for many years. However, the results from available evidence for the association are inconsistent. We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the relationship between allergic conditions (asthma, atopy, hay fever and "any allergy") and risk of prostate cancer. The PubMed and Embase databases were searched to screen observational studies meeting our meta-analysis criteria. Study selection and data extraction from included studies were independently performed by two authors. Twenty studies were considered eligible involving 5 case-control studies and 15 cohort studies. The summary relative risk (RR) for developing prostate cancer risk was 1.04 (95%CI: 0.92-1.17) for asthma, and 1.25 (95%CI: 0.74-2.10) for atopy, 1.04 (95%CI: 0.99-1.09) for hay fever, 0.96 (95%CI: 0.86-1.06) for any allergy. In the Subgroup and sensitivity analysis, similar results were produced. Little evidence of publication bias was observed. The present meta-analysis of observational studies indicates that no indication of an association between allergic conditions and risk of prostate cancer was found, and the meta-analysis does not support neither the original hypothesis of an overall cancer protective effect of allergic conditions, nor that of an opposite effect in the development of prostate cancer.
Topics: Case-Control Studies; Cohort Studies; Humans; Hypersensitivity; Hypersensitivity, Immediate; Male; Models, Immunological; Observational Studies as Topic; Prostatic Neoplasms; Rhinitis, Allergic, Seasonal; Risk Factors
PubMed: 27767045
DOI: 10.1038/srep35682 -
Medicine Feb 2016Most studies investigated probiotics on food hypersensitivity, not on oral food challenge confirmed food allergy in children. The authors systematically reviewed the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Most studies investigated probiotics on food hypersensitivity, not on oral food challenge confirmed food allergy in children. The authors systematically reviewed the literature to investigate whether probiotic supplementation prenatally and/or postnatally could reduce the risk of atopy and food hypersensitivity in young children.PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and 4 main Chinese literature databases (Wan Fang, VIP, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and SinoMed) were searched for randomized controlled trials regarding the effect of probiotics on the prevention of allergy in children. The last search was conducted on July 11, 2015.Seventeen trials involving 2947 infants were included. The first follow-up studies were analyzed. Pooled analysis indicated that probiotics administered prenatally and postnatally could reduce the risk of atopy (relative risk [RR] 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66-0.92; I = 0%), especially when administered prenatally to pregnant mother and postnatally to child (RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.57-0.89; I = 0%), and the risk of food hypersensitivity (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.61-0.98; I = 0%). When probiotics were administered either only prenatally or only postnatally, no effects of probiotics on atopy and food hypersensitivity were observed.Probiotics administered prenatally and postnatally appears to be a feasible way to prevent atopy and food hypersensitivity in young children. The long-term effects of probiotics, however, remain to be defined in the follow-up of existing trials. Still, studies on probiotics and confirmed food allergy, rather than surrogate measure of food hypersensitivity, are warranted.
Topics: Child; Child, Preschool; Female; Food Hypersensitivity; Humans; Hypersensitivity; Infant; Pregnancy; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26937896
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000002562 -
International Forum of Allergy &... Jun 2015Probiotics have proven beneficial in a number of immune-mediated and allergic diseases. Several human studies have evaluated the efficacy of probiotics in allergic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Probiotics have proven beneficial in a number of immune-mediated and allergic diseases. Several human studies have evaluated the efficacy of probiotics in allergic rhinitis; however, evidence for their use has yet to be firmly established. The current systematic review seeks to synthesize the results of available randomized trials.
METHODS
In a systematic review and meta-analysis, the Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were reviewed and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were extracted based on defined inclusion criteria. The effect of probiotics on Rhinitis Quality of Life (RQLQ) scores, Rhinitis Total Symptom Scores (RTSS), as well as total and antigen-specific serum immunoglobulin E (IgE) levels were evaluated by meta-analysis.
RESULTS
A total of 23 studies with 1919 patients were identified, including 21 double-blind RCTs and 2 randomized crossover studies. Multiple probiotic strains, study populations, and outcome measures were used in individual trials. Seventeen studies showed a significant clinical benefit from the use of probiotics in at least 1 outcome measure when compared to placebo, whereas 6 trials showed no benefit. Among the trials eligible for meta-analysis, the use of probiotics resulted in a significant improvement in RQLQ scores compared to placebo (standard mean difference [SMD] -2.23; p = 0.02). Probiotics had no effect on RTSS (SMD -0.36; p = 0.13) or total IgE levels (SMD 0.01; p = 0.94), although there was a trend toward a reduction in antigen-specific IgE (SMD 0.20; p = 0.06) in the placebo group compared to probiotic.
CONCLUSION
Probiotics may be beneficial in improving symptoms and quality of life in patients with allergic rhinitis; however, current evidence remains limited due to study heterogeneity and variable outcome measures. Additional high-quality studies are needed to establish appropriate recommendations.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Child; Child, Preschool; Humans; Immunoglobulin E; Middle Aged; Probiotics; Quality of Life; Rhinitis, Allergic; Young Adult
PubMed: 25899251
DOI: 10.1002/alr.21492 -
Contact Dermatitis Mar 2023The objective of this review is to identify work-related and personal risk factors for contact dermatitis (CD), and assess their association with this frequently... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The objective of this review is to identify work-related and personal risk factors for contact dermatitis (CD), and assess their association with this frequently occurring occupational disease. A systematic review of the literature from 1990 to June 2, 2020, was conducted using Medline and Embase. Prospective cohort and case-control studies were included, and meta-analyses were conducted when feasible. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Twenty-nine studies were identified, comprising 26 study populations and with a total of 846 209 participants investigating 52 risk factors for CD. Meta-analyses were performed for five risk factors, all of them for irritant contact dermatitis (ICD). Moderate-quality evidence was found for associations between wet work and ICD (OR: 1.56, 95%CI: 1.21-2.01). High-quality evidence was found for the association between atopic dermatitis and ICD (OR: 2.44, 95%CI: 1.89-3.15). There was no evidence for an association between ICD and sex or history of hand dermatitis, respiratory and mucosal atopy. In conclusion, several work-related and personal risk factors associated with CD were identified. Our data emphasize the need for the assessment of both, work-related and personal, risk factors to prevent occupational CD.
Topics: Humans; Dermatitis, Allergic Contact; Prospective Studies; Dermatitis, Occupational; Dermatitis, Irritant; Risk Factors
PubMed: 36444496
DOI: 10.1111/cod.14253 -
Journal of Asthma and Allergy 2022Data specific to the epidemiology, clinical features, and management of chronic urticaria (CU) in the geriatric population remain limited and not well understood. We aim... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Data specific to the epidemiology, clinical features, and management of chronic urticaria (CU) in the geriatric population remain limited and not well understood. We aim to systematically review the prevalence, clinical manifestations, treatment, and clinical course of elderly patients with CU.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
Original articles that included data of elderly (aged >60 years) with CU that were published until February 2021 were searched in PubMed, Scopus, and Embase using predfefined search terms. Related articles were evaluated according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses recommendations.
RESULTS
Among the included 85 studies and 1,112,066 elderly CU patients, most (57.4%) were women. The prevalence of elderly CU in the general population ranged from 0.2-2.8%, and from 0.7-33.3% among all CU patients. Compared to adult CU, elderly CU patients had a higher percentage of wheal alone (73.9%), and lower rate of positive autologous serum skin test and atopy. Gastrointestinal diseases were the most common comorbidity (71.9%), and there was a high rate of malignancies and autoimmune diseases. Second generation H-antihistamines were commonly used, and achievement of complete control was most often reported. Omalizumab was prescribed in 59 refractory patients, and a significant response to treatment was reported in most patients. The treatment of comorbidities also yielded significant improvement in CU.
CONCLUSION
Elderly CU was found to be different from adult CU in both clinical and laboratory aspects. H- antihistamines are effective as first-line therapy with minimal side-effects at licensed doses. Treatment of secondary causes is important since the elderly usually have age-related comorbidities.
PubMed: 36299736
DOI: 10.2147/JAA.S379912