Primary Care of the Patient with Asthma

Vitamin D Supplementation and Allergic Diseases during Childhood: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effects of vitamin D (VitD) supplementation on children with allergic diseases. MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane library, and three Chinese databases were searched up to 15 August 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing a VitD supplementation versus a placebo for children with allergic diseases were included. Thirty-two RCTs with 2347 participants were included. VitD supplementation did not reduce the risk of asthma exacerbations in children compared with placebo overall (risk ratio (RR) = 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.65 to 1.08, p = 0.18), but reduced the risk of asthma exacerbation in children with baseline serum 25(OH)D of <10 ng/mL compared with placebo (RR = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.83, p = 0.009). VitD supplementation significantly reduced Scoring Atopic Dermatitis or the Eczema Area and Severity Index scores in children with atopic dermatitis compared with placebo (standard mean difference = −0.5, 95% CI: −0.87 to −0.12, p = 0.009). VitD supplementation also reduced the symptom-medication score in children with allergic rhinitis compared with placebo (mean (standard deviation): 43.7 (3.3) vs. 57.8 (4.4), p = 0.001). In conclusion, VitD supplementation did not reduce asthma exacerbation risk in children overall but may reduce asthma exacerbation risk in children with serum 25(OH)D concentration < 10 ng/mL. VitD supplementation reduces the severity of atopic dermatitis and symptoms of allergic rhinitis in children.

Burden and socioeconomics of asthma, allergic rhinitis, atopic dermatitis and food allergy

INTRODUCTION

Asthma, allergic rhinitis, atopic dermatitis, and food allergy affect approximately 20% of the global population. Few studies describe the burden of the totality of these diseases and only a handful studies provide a comprehensive overview of the socioeconomic impact of these diseases.

AREAS COVERED

For this narrative review, we searched Pubmed using selected keywords and inspected relevant references using a snowballing process. We provide an overview of the socioeconomic burden of allergic diseases (in particular, asthma, allergic rhinitis, atopic dermatitis, and food allergy). The focus of this review is on their epidemiology (incidence, prevalence), burden (disability-adjusted life years, quality of life), and direct and indirect costs (absenteeism and presenteeism). We have put special emphasis on differences between countries.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Both the prevalence and the burden of allergic diseases are considerable with prevalence varying between 1% and 20%. We identified a plethora of studies on asthma, but studies were generally difficult to compare due to the heterogeneity in measures used. There were only few studies on the burden of food allergy; therefore, more studies on this allergy are required. For future studies, we recommend standardizing epidemiologic, socioeconomic impact, and quality of life measures of allergic diseases.

Chronic obstructive lung disease "expert system": validation of a predictive tool for assisting diagnosis

Purpose

The purposes of this study were development and validation of an expert system (ES) aimed at supporting the diagnosis of chronic obstructive lung disease (COLD).

Methods

A questionnaire and a WebFlex code were developed and validated in silico. An expert panel pilot validation on 60 cases and a clinical validation on 241 cases were performed.

Results

The developed questionnaire and code validated in silico resulted in a suitable tool to support the medical diagnosis. The clinical validation of the ES was performed in an academic setting that included six different reference centers for respiratory diseases. The results of the ES expressed as a score associated with the risk of suffering from COLD were matched and compared with the final clinical diagnoses. A set of 60 patients were evaluated by a pilot expert panel validation with the aim of calculating the sample size for the clinical validation study. The concordance analysis between these preliminary ES scores and diagnoses performed by the experts indicated that the accuracy was 94.7% when both experts and the system confirmed the COLD diagnosis and 86.3% when COLD was excluded. Based on these results, the sample size of the validation set was established in 240 patients. The clinical validation, performed on 241 patients, resulted in ES accuracy of 97.5%, with confirmed COLD diagnosis in 53.6% of the cases and excluded COLD diagnosis in 32% of the cases. In 11.2% of cases, a diagnosis of COLD was made by the experts, although the imaging results showed a potential concomitant disorder.

Conclusion

The ES presented here (COLD_ES) is a safe and robust supporting tool for COLD diagnosis in primary care settings.