A systematic review and meta-analysis of the benefits of a gluten-free diet and/or casein-free diet for children with autism spectrum disorder

Context It has been suggested that a gluten-free and casein-free (GFCF) diet may alleviate the symptoms of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and facilitate neurodevelopment of children with ASD. Studies to date have been inconclusive. Objective This study aimed to evaluate (through quantitative meta-analysis) the efficacy and safety of a GFCF diet for children with ASD. To our knowledge, this is the first time such an analysis has been carried out. Data Sources Eight electronic databases were searched, from the establishment of each database up to March 27, 2020: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP databases. Data Extraction Two authors independently performed the data extraction and risk-of-bias assessment. Data Analysis A quantitative meta-analysis was performed with standard procedures by using Stata SE 15 software. Within the total of 8 studies, with 297 participants, 5 studies reported significant reductions in stereotypical behaviors [standard mean difference (SMD) = –0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI): –0.68 to –0.15], and 3 studies reported improvements in cognition (SMD = –0.46, 95% CI: –0.91 to –0.01) following GFCF dietary intervention. No statistically significant changes were observed in other symptomatic categories (all P > 0.05). Conclusion The current meta-analysis showed that a GFCF diet can reduce stereotypical behaviors and improve the cognition of children with ASD. Though most of the included studies were single-blind, the benefits of a GFCF diet that have been indicated are promising. Additional studies on a larger scale are warranted. Systematic Review Registration PROSPERO registration no. CRD42020177619.

How cost-effective is nutrition care delivered in primary healthcare settings? A systematic review of trial-based economic evaluations

Context Nutrition care is an effective lifestyle intervention for the treatment and prevention of many noncommunicable diseases. Primary care is a high-value setting in which to provide nutrition care. Objective The objective of this review was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nutrition care interventions provided in primary care settings. Data Sources Medline, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EconLit, and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) were searched from inception to May 2021. Data Extraction Data extraction was guided by the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) reporting guidelines. Randomized trials of nutrition interventions in primary care settings were included in the analysis if incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were reported. The main outcome variable incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and reported interpretations were used to categorize interventions by the cost-effectiveness plane quadrant. Results Of 6837 articles identified, 10 were included (representing 9 studies). Eight of the 9 included studies found nutrition care in primary care settings to be more costly and more effective than usual care . High study heterogeneity limited further conclusions. Conclusion Nutrition care in primary care settings is effective, though it requires investment; it should, therefore, be considered in primary care planning. Further studies are needed to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of providing nutrition care in primary care settings. Systematic review registration PROSPERO registration no. CRD42020201146.