defi nitive blood , pulmonary function , or other tests can defi nitively establish a diagnosis of these allergic atopic diseases
M. Kramer
Abstract:Whether breastfeeding protects against the development of allergic disease has been a frequent subject of study and debate for 75 years. This paper summarizes the published evidence concerning the risks of atopic dermatitis, asthma, allergic rhinitis, positive allergen skin tests, and food allergy associated with infant feeding. The summary is based largely on systematic reviews and meta-analyses carried out by Published online: December 21, 2011 Michael S. Kramer 2300 Tupper Street (Les Tourelles) Montreal, QC H3H 1P3 (Canada) Tel. +1 514 412 4400, ext. 22016, E-Mail michael.kramer @ mcgill.ca © 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel 0250–6807/11/0595–0020$38.00/0 Accessible online at: www.karger.com/anm Breastfeeding and Allergy Ann Nutr Metab 2011;59(suppl 1):20–26 21 term follow-up of Belarusian children participating in a cluster-randomized trial of a breastfeeding promotion intervention. Methodological Issues Methodological challenges are inevitable when designing, analyzing, and interpreting observational studies of health outcomes in relation to infant feeding. Although some of these challenges are generic, several particular methodological issues arise when studying atopic disease ( table 1 ). For example, misclassification of infant feeding based on different degrees or durations of breastfeeding is common to all studies relating health outcomes to infant feeding, but it is even more of a problem for atopic disease, because it is difficult to hypothesize what degree of exclusivity or duration may be necessary to provide a protective effect. On the one hand, even a small amount of a foreign protein antigen such as cow milk or soy protein could theoretically sensitize an infant to those antigens. On the other hand, the relationship between the development of allergic disease and sensitization to cow milk, soy, or other foreign antigens contained in infant formulas remains unclear [18] . The role of immunologic tolerance, whereby early introduction of antigens in sufficient doses actually reduces hypersensitivity to the same antigens later in infancy or childhood, further complicates the interpretation of a graded (dose-response) effect [19, 20] . Another methodological issue concerns the diagnosis of the atopic conditions themselves. As most pediatricians and family physicians are well aware, not every child who itches has atopic dermatitis, not every child who wheezes has asthma, and not every child who sneezes has hay fever. No blood, pulmonary function, or other tests can definitively establish a diagnosis of these allergic atopic diseases. This problem results in heterogeneity in the phenotypes represented by infants classified as having atopic diseases among the various studies carried out at different times in the past. Moreover, the potential for biased diagnosis is considerable in prospective (cohort) studies in which the physician making the diagnosis is aware of the infant feeding history. Retrospective (casecontrol) studies are not immune to this problem either, because knowledge of the presence or absence of allergic disease can influence (even if unconsciously) ascertainment of the infant feeding history. As mentioned earlier, several early studies have reported effect modification, i.e. greater or lesser protective effects of breastfeeding in infants at high versus low risk of atopic disease (based on family history) [4– 6, 2 1] . If true, the effects of infant feeding in studies restricted to children at high risk of allergic disease may yield different results from those of studies in which low-risk children, or a mixture of children at high and low risk, are included. A final and important methodological issue is publication bias: preferential submission and acceptance of papers with ‘positive’ findings, i.e. reports of increased risks in children who were fed formula. There is simply no way to know how many negative studies were never submitted for publication or were rejected despite their authors’ repeated submissions. This potential for publishing positive findings will inevitably lead to an inherent bias in the published evidence base. Many of the above-noted methodological issues could theoretically be overcome through the use of a randomized controlled trial design. However, it is not feasible, and is probably unethical, to randomize mothers and their infants to breastversus artificial feeding, or even to different durations or degrees of breastfeeding. On the other hand, randomization to a breastfeeding promotion intervention is both feasible and ethical. Trials attempting to influence the initiation of breastfeeding versus formula feeding are somewhat less feasible, because the mother’s initial feeding choice is usually made well before the birth, and sometimes even before the pregnancy. Moreover, that choice is influenced by many persons, including the future mother’s parents, other relatives, parents-in-law, partner, friends, and health care professionals. Implementing a randomized controlled trial of an intervention to promote breastfeeding exclusivity and duration, rather than initiation, is far more practical. If the intervention is successful in increasing the exclusivity and duration of breastfeeding and yields two groups (experimental vs. control) with substantially different durations and degrees of breastfeeding, analysis by intentionto-treat (i.e. according to randomized group, rather than Trials attempting to influence the initiation of breastfeeding versus formula feeding are somewhat less feasible, because the mother’s initial feeding choice is usually made well before the birth, and sometimes even before the pregnancy.