Timing of Complementary Feeding for Early Childhood Allergy Prevention: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

Paula Kuper; Claudia Hasenpusch; Simone Proebstl; Uwe Matterne; Catherine J. Hornung; Esther Grätsch; Mengtong Li; Antonia A. Sprenger; Dawid Pieper; Jennifer J. Koplin; Michael R. Perkin; Jon Genuneit; Christian Apfelbacher

doi:10.1101/2023.06.13.23290959

Abstract

Objective To summarise and critically appraise systematic review (SR) evidence on the effects of timing of complementary feeding (CF) on the occurrence of allergic sensitisation and disease.

Design Overview of SRs. AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS were used to assess methodological quality and risk of bias (RoB) of SRs. RoB Tool 2.0 was used to assess RoB of primary randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (or extracted). The Certainty of Evidence (CoE) was assessed using GRADE. Findings were synthesised narratively.

Data sources MEDLINE (via PubMed and Ovid), the Cochrane Library and Web of Science Core Collection.

Eligibility criteria SRs investigating the effects of timing of CF on risk of developing food allergy (FA), allergic sensitisation, asthma, allergic rhinitis, atopic eczema, and adverse events in infants or young children (0-3 years), based on RCT evidence.

Results Eleven SRs were included, with predominantly low methodological quality and high RoB. Primary study overlap was very high for specific FA and slight to moderate for FA in general and other primary outcomes. Introducing specific foods (peanut, cooked egg) early probably reduces the risk of specific FA based on evidence across most SRs. The evidence for other allergic outcomes was mostly very uncertain and based on single primary studies. SRs varied regarding the timing of CF, the nature of complementary foods and the population risk, which limited comparability between SRs.

Conclusions The overlap of primary studies within SRs was high to very high for many outcomes, overemphasising single trials. Future research should focus on producing high quality trials and SRs that allow drawing more trustworthy conclusions. For developing guidelines to support decision-making on the timing of CF as a preventive strategy, the early introduction of specific foods (i.e., egg and peanut) seems promising and safe whereas more extensive research is required regarding other allergic outcomes and potential adverse events.

Registration PROSPERO (CRD42021240160); Open Science Forum (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/HJKUN)

Key messages

Evidence supports early introduction of specific complementary foods (peanut, cooked egg) for preventing food-specific allergies
Evidence regarding prevention of other allergic diseases is sparse and of low certainty
Future research should focus on producing high-quality trials and reviews for higher certainty of results

Competing Interest Statement

Jon Genuneit is the project manager for an unrestricted research grant from Danone Nutricia Research to Ulm University and to Leipzig University for research into human milk composition within the Ulm SPATZ Health Study and the Ulm Birth Cohort Study. Jennifer Koplin is coauthor of two and MP is co-author of one of the included SRs. They were not involved in data extraction and risk of bias assessment.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft), partially funded by the subprojects of DFG Research Group FOR 2959 (HELICAP), AP 253/3-1, project number 409800133. HELICAP is an association of leading scientists at four locations in Germany. Besides the University of Magdeburg, the University of Education Freiburg, the University of University of Freiburg, the University of Regensburg and the University of Hannover are involved in the interdisciplinary research group HELICAP. Members of the HELICAP Steering Group are Prof. Dr. Christian Apfelbacher, Prof. Dr. Eva Maria Bitzer, Dr. Susanne Brandstetter, Dr. Janina Curbach, Prof. Dr. Marie-Luise Dierks and Prof. Dr. Markus Antonius Wirtz

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes