Cow's milk exposure and asthma in a newborn cohort: repeated ascertainment indicates reverse causation

Dairy intake in association with asthma symptoms among a large sample of children and adolescents: a cross-sectional study

Background and objective

Dairy products may be associated with an increased risk of asthma, although there is little scientific evidence to support this association. The goal of this study was to explore the association between dairy consumption and asthma symptoms.

Materials and methods

This cross-sectional study was conducted on children and adolescents aged 6-8 and 13-14 years living in central Iran. Dietary food consumption was assessed using a multiple-choice questionnaire. Logistic regression was used to obtain odds ratios for the association between milk, other dairy products, and total dairy consumption with the risk of asthma symptoms.

Results

In total, 7,667 participants (3,414 boys and 4,253 girls) were included in the current study. Milk intake and total dairy consumption were not associated with the likelihood of wheezing, asthma confirmed by a doctor, current asthma, and asthma medication use. In addition, there was no association between other dairy product intake and the odds of wheezing in the past 12 months in the crude model. However, after adjusting for several confounders, those in the top category had lower odds of wheezing in the past 12 months than those in the bottom category (OR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.40-0.85).

Conclusion

The consumption of dairy products other than milk, including cheese and yogurt, might reduce the likelihood of wheezing in children and adolescents.

Consumption of milk and dairy products and risk of asthma in children: a systematic review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Some reports demonstrate that asthma benefits from milk and dairy products, however, the findings are controversial. We used meta-analysis as a tool to summarize published data on the association between dairy products consumption and asthma.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted to identify studies of dairy products and asthma in children in PubMed, ISI (Web of Science), and EMBASE until 21 July 2022. Random-effect meta-analyses with summarized data were performed for total (high/low) milk and dairy intake. Subgroup analysis was used to identify sources of variation in responses. Publication bias and sensitivity analysis were done to examine the stability of results.

RESULTS

There was no correlation between consumption of dairy products and reduced risk of asthma (OR = 0.82; 95% CI: 0.60-1.05). Our results revealed that elevated consumption of milk and dairy has significant correlation with reduced risk of asthma in Non-Asian population (OR = 0.74; 95% CI = 0.51-0.96) and high quality studies (OR = 0.73; 95% CI = 0.50-0.95). No individual study influence and publication bias was seen in the sensitivity analysis and publication bias assessment.

CONCLUSION

There was no correlation between consumption of dairy products and reduced risk of asthma. However, we observed that elevated consumption of milk and dairy has significant correlation with reduced risk of asthma in Non-Asian population and high quality studies. More high-quality and population-specific studies should be conducted to determine the risk link between milk consumption and asthma in children.

Association of milk intake with hay fever, asthma, and lung function: a Mendelian randomization analysis

BACKGROUND

Previous observational studies have indicated a protective effect of drinking milk on asthma and allergy. In Mendelian Randomization, one or more genetic variants are used as unbiased markers of exposure to examine causal effects. We examined the causal effect of milk intake on hay fever, asthma, forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) and forced vital capacity (FVC) by using the lactase rs4988235 genotype associated with milk intake.

METHODS

We performed a Mendelian Randomization study including 363,961 participants from the UK Biobank.

RESULTS

Observational analyses showed that self-reported milk-drinkers vs. non-milk drinkers had an increased risk of hay fever: odds ratio (OR) = 1.36 (95% CI 1.32, 1.40, p < 0.001), asthma: OR = 1.33 (95% CI 1.38, 1.29, p < 0.001), yet a higher FEV1: β = 0.022 (SE = 0.004, p < 0.001) and FVC: β = 0.026 (SE = 0.005, p < 0.001). In contrast, genetically determined milk-drinking vs. not drinking milk was associated with a lower risk of hay fever: OR = 0.791 (95% CI 0.636, 0.982, p = 0.033), and asthma: OR = 0.587 (95% CI 0.442, 0.779, p = 0.001), and lower FEV1: β = - 0.154 (standard error, SE = 0.034, p < 0.001) liter, and FVC: β = - 0.223 (SE = 0.034, p < 0.001) liter in univariable MR analyses. These results were supported by multivariable Mendelian randomization analyses although not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

As opposed to observational results, genetic association findings indicate that drinking milk has a protective effect on hay fever and asthma but may also have a negative effect on lung function. The results should be confirmed in other studies before any recommendations can be made.

Biases Inherent in Studies of Coffee Consumption in Early Pregnancy and the Risks of Subsequent Events

Consumption of coffee by women early in their pregnancy has been viewed as potentially increasing the risk of miscarriage, low birth weight, and childhood leukemias. Many of these reports of epidemiologic studies have not acknowledged the potential biases inherent in studying the relationship between early-pregnancy-coffee consumption and subsequent events. I discuss five of these biases, recall bias, misclassification, residual confounding, reverse causation, and publication bias. Each might account for claims that attribute adversities to early-pregnancy-coffee consumption. To what extent these biases can be avoided remains to be determined. As a minimum, these biases need to be acknowledged wherever they might account for what is reported.

Can food allergy be prevented? The current evidence

Food allergy is a recognized public health concern, for which preventative strategies are required. Although an intervention that adequately protects against the development of food allergy has still to be identified, limited benefits have been shown for the prevention of related allergic conditions such as eczema, and to a lesser extent asthma and rhinitis; these benefits are usually limited to at-risk populations. Prevention strategies need to be tested using randomized controlled study designs that account for the numerous methodological challenges, safety concerns, and necessary ethical limitations.