Reply: Breast-feeding and allergy

B. Björkstén, B. Lundbäck
{"title":"Reply: Breast-feeding and allergy","authors":"B. Björkstén, B. Lundbäck","doi":"10.1080/17482970600767847","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We would once again like to comment the paper by Kull et al. (1), in which the authors suggest that breast-feeding decreases the risk for development of eczema and discuss in general terms that breastfeeding protects against the development of allergy. Our criticism was based on the fact that exclusive breast-feeding for 4 months or more did not reduce the risk for eczema at the age of 4 years [odds ratio (OR) 0.88, not significant) [2]. In order to avoid all possible disease-related modification of exposure, the authors excluded all children who developed eczema or asthma during the period of breastfeeding. By excluding those children who developed symptoms while they were breast-fed and by creating an arbitrary group with ‘‘severe allergic disease’’, the authors found support for a protective role of breast-feeding yielding a slightly lower OR of 0.78. The authors have now replied to our comments (3) by referring to two meta-analyses, one about breastfeeding and asthma (4) and another about breastfeeding and eczema (5). It is well known from several studies that breast-feeding protects against wheezing, at least during infancy. However, the problem is that recurrent wheezing has different phenotypes. The evidence quoted by Kull et al. refers to the non-allergic phenotype. This has also been shown in studies in Sweden by Ronmark et al. (6). In her reply (3) to our initial critical remarks, Kull exemplifies the previous results by pooling asthma and eczema together and makes a point of the fact that there is no statistically significant difference between the association of breast-feeding and eczema whether children with an overlap and exposure are excluded or not. Such secondary analyses are open to critique, particularly in the absence of any power calculations. Non-allergic asthma is particularly common in very small children. By including non-allergic asthmatics, the results become biased when discussing protection against allergy. The fact is that there is little or no support for any major impact of breast-feeding on allergy development. The study by Kull et al. (1) has not contributed novel data on that point. There is a problem with the meta-analysis related to eczema (5) quoted by Kull in that five of the papers providing low odds ratios for childhood eczema to be associated with breast-feeding were conducted by Chandra, whose work has been revealed to be fraudulent (7). Obviously Kull could not possibly have known this at the time of writing her paper, but the fact nevertheless provides further reason for our argument that there is little support for any significant allergy-preventive effect of breast-feeding. We would like to reaffirm our initial statement that preventive measures and information should be based on solid scientific ground, just as other medical therapies and interventions.","PeriodicalId":225599,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of Food & Nutrition","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Journal of Food & Nutrition","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17482970600767847","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We would once again like to comment the paper by Kull et al. (1), in which the authors suggest that breast-feeding decreases the risk for development of eczema and discuss in general terms that breastfeeding protects against the development of allergy. Our criticism was based on the fact that exclusive breast-feeding for 4 months or more did not reduce the risk for eczema at the age of 4 years [odds ratio (OR) 0.88, not significant) [2]. In order to avoid all possible disease-related modification of exposure, the authors excluded all children who developed eczema or asthma during the period of breastfeeding. By excluding those children who developed symptoms while they were breast-fed and by creating an arbitrary group with ‘‘severe allergic disease’’, the authors found support for a protective role of breast-feeding yielding a slightly lower OR of 0.78. The authors have now replied to our comments (3) by referring to two meta-analyses, one about breastfeeding and asthma (4) and another about breastfeeding and eczema (5). It is well known from several studies that breast-feeding protects against wheezing, at least during infancy. However, the problem is that recurrent wheezing has different phenotypes. The evidence quoted by Kull et al. refers to the non-allergic phenotype. This has also been shown in studies in Sweden by Ronmark et al. (6). In her reply (3) to our initial critical remarks, Kull exemplifies the previous results by pooling asthma and eczema together and makes a point of the fact that there is no statistically significant difference between the association of breast-feeding and eczema whether children with an overlap and exposure are excluded or not. Such secondary analyses are open to critique, particularly in the absence of any power calculations. Non-allergic asthma is particularly common in very small children. By including non-allergic asthmatics, the results become biased when discussing protection against allergy. The fact is that there is little or no support for any major impact of breast-feeding on allergy development. The study by Kull et al. (1) has not contributed novel data on that point. There is a problem with the meta-analysis related to eczema (5) quoted by Kull in that five of the papers providing low odds ratios for childhood eczema to be associated with breast-feeding were conducted by Chandra, whose work has been revealed to be fraudulent (7). Obviously Kull could not possibly have known this at the time of writing her paper, but the fact nevertheless provides further reason for our argument that there is little support for any significant allergy-preventive effect of breast-feeding. We would like to reaffirm our initial statement that preventive measures and information should be based on solid scientific ground, just as other medical therapies and interventions.
回答:母乳喂养和过敏
我们想再次评论一下Kull等人的论文(1),在这篇论文中,作者建议母乳喂养可以降低患湿疹的风险,并从总体上讨论母乳喂养可以防止过敏的发生。我们的批评是基于这样一个事实,即纯母乳喂养4个月或更长时间并不能降低4岁儿童患湿疹的风险[比值比(or) 0.88,无统计学意义][2]。为了避免所有可能与疾病相关的接触改变,作者排除了所有在母乳喂养期间发生湿疹或哮喘的儿童。通过排除那些在母乳喂养期间出现症状的儿童,并任意创建一个患有“严重过敏性疾病”的组,作者发现母乳喂养的保护作用得到了略低的OR,为0.78。作者现在通过引用两项荟萃分析来回复我们的评论,一项是关于母乳喂养和哮喘的,另一项是关于母乳喂养和湿疹的。从几项研究中我们都知道,母乳喂养可以防止喘息,至少在婴儿期。然而,问题是反复发作的喘息有不同的表型。Kull等人引用的证据是指非过敏性表型。瑞典的Ronmark等人(6)的研究也证明了这一点。在她对我们最初批评言论的回复(3)中,Kull通过将哮喘和湿疹合并在一起来举例说明之前的结果,并指出无论是否排除重叠和暴露的儿童,母乳喂养和湿疹之间的关联在统计上没有显著差异。这种次要分析容易受到批评,特别是在没有任何权力计算的情况下。非过敏性哮喘在非常小的儿童中特别常见。通过包括非过敏性哮喘患者,在讨论对过敏的保护时,结果变得有偏见。事实上,很少或根本没有证据支持母乳喂养对过敏的发展有任何重大影响。Kull等人(1)的研究在这一点上没有提供新的数据。Kull引用的与湿疹相关的荟萃分析(5)存在一个问题,其中五篇提供儿童湿疹与母乳喂养相关的低比值比的论文是由Chandra进行的,其工作已被发现是欺诈性的(7)。显然,Kull在撰写论文时不可能知道这一点。然而,这一事实为我们的论点提供了进一步的理由,即几乎没有证据支持母乳喂养有任何显著的预防过敏的作用。我们谨重申我们最初的声明,即预防措施和信息应像其他医疗疗法和干预措施一样,以坚实的科学依据为基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信