Emollients and moisturisers for eczema

Interventions for pityriasis rosea

BACKGROUND

Pityriasis rosea is a scaly, itchy rash that mainly affects young adults and lasts for 2 to 12 weeks. The effects of many available treatments are uncertain. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2007.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions for the management of pityriasis rosea in any individual diagnosed by a medical practitioner.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated our searches of the following databases to October 2018: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We searched five trials registers. We also checked the reference lists of included and excluded studies, contacted trial authors, scanned the abstracts from major dermatology conference proceedings, and searched the CAB Abstracts database. We searched PubMed for adverse effects to November 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of interventions in pityriasis rosea. Treatment could be given in a single therapy or in combination. Eligible comparators were no treatment, placebo, vehicle only, another active compound, or placebo radiation treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane. Our key outcomes were good or excellent rash improvement within two weeks, rated separately by the participant and medical practitioner; serious adverse events; resolution of itch within two weeks (participant-rated); reduction in itch score within two weeks (participant-rated); and minor participant-reported adverse events not requiring withdrawal of the treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 trials (761 participants). In general, risk of selection bias was unclear or low, but risk of performance bias and reporting bias was high for 21% of the studies. Participant age ranged from 2 to 60 years, and sex ratio was similar. Disease severity was measured by various severity indices, which the included studies did not categorise. Six studies were conducted in India, three in Iran, two in the Philippines, and one each in Pakistan, the USA, and China. The included studies were conducted in dermatology departments and a paediatric clinic. Study duration ranged from 5 to 26 months. Three studies were funded by drug manufacturers; most studies did not report their funding source. The included studies assessed macrolide antibiotics, an antiviral agent, phototherapy, steroids and antihistamine, and Chinese medicine. None of the studies measured participant-rated good or excellent rash improvement. All reported outcomes were assessed within two weeks of treatment, except for adverse effects, which were measured throughout treatment. There is probably no difference between oral clarithromycin and placebo in itch resolution (risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 1.52; 1 study, 28 participants) or rash improvement (medical practitioner-rated) (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.44; 1 study, 60 participants). For this comparison, there were no serious adverse events (1 study, 60 participants); minor adverse events and reduction in itch score were not measured; and all evidence was of moderate quality. When compared with placebo, erythromycin may lead to increased rash improvement (medical practitioner-rated) (RR 4.02, 95% CI 0.28 to 56.61; 2 studies, 86 participants, low-quality evidence); however, the 95% CI indicates that the result may also be compatible with a benefit of placebo, and there may be little or no difference between treatments. Itch resolution was not measured, but one study measured reduction in itch score, which is probably larger with erythromycin (MD 3.95, 95% CI 3.37 to 4.53; 34 participants, moderate-quality evidence). In the same single, small trial, none of the participants had a serious adverse event, and there was no clear difference between groups in minor adverse events, which included gastrointestinal upset (RR 2.00, CI 0.20 to 20.04; moderate-quality evidence). Two trials compared oral azithromycin to placebo or vitamins. There is probably no difference between groups in itch resolution (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.48) or reduction in itch score (MD 0.04, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.43) (both outcomes based on one study; 70 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Low-quality evidence from two studies indicates there may be no difference between groups in rash improvement (medical practitioner-rated) (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.52 to 2.00; 119 participants). In these same two studies, no serious adverse events were reported, and there was no clear difference between groups in minor adverse events, specifically mild abdominal pain (RR 5.82, 95% CI 0.72 to 47.10; moderate-quality evidence). Acyclovir was compared to placebo, vitamins, or no treatment in three trials (all moderate-quality evidence). Based on one trial (21 participants), itch resolution is probably higher with placebo than with acyclovir (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.94); reduction in itch score was not measured. However, there is probably a significant difference between groups in rash improvement (medical practitioner-rated) in favour of acyclovir versus all comparators (RR 2.45, 95% CI 1.33 to 4.53; 3 studies, 141 participants). Based on the same three studies, there were no serious adverse events in either group, and there was probably no difference between groups in minor adverse events (only one participant in the placebo group experienced abdominal pain and diarrhoea). One trial compared acyclovir added to standard care (calamine lotion and oral cetirizine) versus standard care alone (24 participants). The addition of acyclovir may lead to increased itch resolution (RR 4.50, 95% CI 1.22 to 16.62) and reduction in itch score (MD 1.26, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.78) compared to standard care alone. Rash improvement (medical practitioner-rated) was not measured. The trial reported no serious adverse events in either group, and there may be no difference between groups in minor adverse events, such as headache (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.40 to 122.44) (all results based on low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

When compared with placebo or no treatment, oral acyclovir probably leads to increased good or excellent, medical practitioner-rated rash improvement. However, evidence for the effect of acyclovir on itch was inconclusive. We found low- to moderate-quality evidence that erythromycin probably reduces itch more than placebo. Small study sizes, heterogeneity, and bias in blinding and selective reporting limited our conclusions. Further research is needed to investigate different dose regimens of acyclovir and the effect of antivirals on pityriasis rosea.

Interventions to reduce Staphylococcus aureus in the management of eczema

BACKGROUND

Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) can cause secondary infection in eczema, and may promote inflammation in eczema that does not look infected. There is no standard intervention to reduce S. aureus burden in eczema. It is unclear whether antimicrobial treatments help eczema or promote bacterial resistance. This is an update of a 2008 Cochrane Review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions to reduce S. aureus for treating eczema.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated our searches of the following databases to October 2018: Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS. We searched five trials registers and three sets of conference proceedings. We checked references of trials and reviews for further relevant studies. We contacted pharmaceutical companies regarding ongoing and unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of products intended to reduce S. aureus on the skin in people diagnosed with atopic eczema by a medical practitioner. Eligible comparators were a similar treatment regimen without the anti-staphylococcal agent.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our key outcomes were participant- or assessor-rated global improvement in symptoms/signs, quality of life (QOL), severe adverse events requiring withdrawal, minor adverse events, and emergence of antibiotic-resistant micro-organisms.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 41 studies (1753 analysed participants) covering 10 treatment categories. Studies were conducted mainly in secondary care in Western Europe; North America; the Far East; and elsewhere. Twelve studies recruited children; four, adults; 19, both; and six, unclear. Fifty-nine per cent of the studies reported the mean age of participants (range: 1.1 to 34.6 years). Eczema severity ranged from mild to severe. Many studies did not report our primary outcomes. Treatment durations ranged from 10 minutes to 3 months; total study durations ranged from 15 weeks to 27 months. We considered 33 studies at high risk of bias in at least one domain. We present results for three key comparisons. All time point measurements were taken from baseline. We classed outcomes as short-term when treatment duration was less than four weeks, and long-term when treatment was given for more than four weeks. Fourteen studies evaluated topical steroid/antibiotic combinations compared to topical steroids alone (infective status: infected (two studies), not infected (four studies), unspecified (eight studies)). Topical steroid/antibiotic combinations may lead to slightly greater global improvement in good or excellent signs/symptoms than topical steroid alone at 6 to 28 days follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.21; 224 participants; 3 studies, low-quality evidence). There is probably little or no difference between groups for QOL in children, at 14 days follow-up (mean difference (MD) -0.18, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.04; 42 participants; 1 study, moderate-quality evidence). The subsequent results for this comparison were based on very low-quality evidence, meaning we are uncertain of their validity: severe adverse events were rare (follow-up: between 6 to 28 days): both groups reported flare of dermatitis, worsening of the condition, and folliculitis (325 participants; 4 studies). There were fewer minor adverse events (e.g. flare, stinging, itch, folliculitis) in the combination group at 14 days follow-up (218 participants; 2 studies). One study reported antibiotic resistance in children at three months follow-up, with similar results between the groups (65 participants; 1 study). Four studies evaluated oral antibiotics compared to placebo (infective status: infected eczema (two studies), uninfected (one study), one study's participants had colonisation but no clinical infection). Oral antibiotics may make no difference in terms of good or excellent global improvement in infants and children at 14 to 28 days follow-up compared to placebo (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.18 to 3.50; 75 participants; 2 studies, low-quality evidence). There is probably little or no difference between groups for QOL (in infants and children) at 14 days follow-up (MD 0.11, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.32, 45 participants, 1 study, moderate-quality evidence). The subsequent results for this comparison were based on very low-quality evidence, meaning we are uncertain of their validity: adverse events requiring treatment withdrawal between 14 to 28 days follow-up were very rare, but included eczema worsening (both groups), loose stools (antibiotic group), and Henoch-Schönlein purpura (placebo group) (4 studies, 199 participants). Minor adverse events, including nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, and stomach and joint pains, at 28 days follow-up were also rare and generally low in both groups (1 study, 68 infants and children). Antibiotic resistance at 14 days was reported as similar in both groups (2 studies, 98 infants and children). Of five studies evaluating bleach baths compared to placebo (water) or bath emollient (infective status: uninfected (two studies), unspecified (three studies)), one reported global improvement and showed that bleach baths may make no difference when compared with placebo at one month follow-up (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.63; 36 participants; low-quality evidence). One study showed there is probably little or no difference in QOL at 28 days follow-up when comparing bleach baths to placebo (MD 0.90, 95% CI -1.32 to 3.12) (80 infants and children; moderate-quality evidence). We are uncertain if the groups differ in the likelihood of treatment withdrawals due to adverse events at two months follow-up (only one dropout reported due to worsening itch (placebo group)) as the quality of evidence was very low (1 study, 42 participants). One study reported that five participants in each group experienced burning/stinging or dry skin at two months follow-up, so there may be no difference in minor adverse events between groups (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.87, 36 participants, low-quality evidence). Very low-quality evidence means we are also uncertain if antibiotic resistance at four weeks follow-up is different between groups (1 study, 80 participants ≤ 18 years).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found insufficient evidence on the effects of anti-staphylococcal treatments for treating people with infected or uninfected eczema. Low-quality evidence, due to risk of bias, imprecise effect estimates and heterogeneity, made pooling of results difficult. Topical steroid/antibiotic combinations may be associated with possible small improvements in good or excellent signs/symptoms compared with topical steroid alone. High-quality trials evaluating efficacy, QOL, and antibiotic resistance are required.

Adolescents' Perspectives on Atopic Dermatitis Treatment-Experiences, Preferences, and Beliefs

Importance

For a considerable proportion of pediatric patients, atopic dermatitis symptoms persist into adolescence. Previous studies have focused mainly on (parents of) children, whereas little is known about adolescents with atopic dermatitis.

Objective

To explore the beliefs, experiences, and preferences of adolescents with atopic dermatitis toward their treatment.

Design, Setting, and Participants

We conducted a qualitative study employing focus group interviews of 15 adolescents (aged 12-18 years) who collected at least 1 prescription for topical corticosteroids in class 2 (moderately potent) or 3 (potent) in the preceding year. The study included 9 community pharmacies in 3 different regions in the Netherlands. Data were collected from November to December 2016, until data saturation was reached. Focus groups were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and data were analyzed by 2 researchers.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Adolescents' beliefs, experiences, and preferences toward their atopic dermatitis treatment were explored during focus groups. We used a thick analysis approach to analyze the transcripts; both deductive and inductive coding were used to analyze the transcripts.

Results

Three focus groups including 15 adolescents (8 male) with a mean age of 15.3 (range, 12-18) years were conducted. Adolescents were in general satisfied with the efficacy of the treatment; however, they prefer a faster and more persistent effect. Most adolescents had little contact with their physicians and did not completely adhere to the prescribed medication regimen; they developed their own routine of using topical corticosteroids in combination with emollients and moisturizers. They also seemed to have incorrect beliefs about the mechanism of action.

Conclusions and Relevance

Adolescents developed their own way of using topical treatment for atopic dermatitis. Some practical suggestions were mentioned to improve medication use. Health care providers should devote special attention to adolescents with atopic dermatitis to make them more aware of the principles of topical treatment and ensure proper use.

Tolerability and Efficacy of a Medical Device Repairing Emollient Cream in Children and Adults with Mild to Moderate Atopic Dermatitis

Introduction

Regular emollient application is recommended for managing atopic dermatitis (AD). Although many emollients are available, only AD-tested medical device repairing emollient creams (MDRECs) can be recommended for treating and preventing AD skin lesions. Here, we evaluated the tolerability and benefit of a new MDREC in an open-label study in infants, young children, and adults with mild to moderate AD.

Methods

Subjects (or their parents or guardians) were instructed to apply the MDREC to AD lesions or areas of dry skin twice daily for 3 weeks. Investigators assessed tolerability and AD severity at days 1, 8, and 22. Subjects assessed AD severity weekly, recorded any adverse events, and reported their satisfaction with the MDREC at day 22.

Results

Sixty-one subjects (19 infants, 22 children, and 20 adults) were included and 59 completed the study. At inclusion, 49% of the infants and young children and 15% of the adults were experiencing flares of AD. At day 22, the local tolerability of the MDREC was judged by the investigators as excellent in all the children and in 18 of the 20 adult subjects (90%). All adverse events were mild and transient. Investigator- and subject-assessed AD severity progressively decreased at each assessment for each age subgroup.

Conclusion

This study shows that the MDREC was well tolerated when applied to AD skin lesions in infants, young children, and adults and suggests this product can be used daily to control the signs and symptoms of AD.

Funding

Laboratoires Dermatologiques Ducray, Pierre Fabre Dermo-Cosmétique.

Optimization of placebo use in clinical trials with systemic treatments for atopic dermatitis: an International Eczema Council survey-based position statement

BACKGROUND

As novel systemic therapeutics for patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) are developed, ethical and methodological concerns regarding placebo-controlled-trials (PCT) have surfaced.

OBJECTIVE

To guide the design and implementation of PCT in AD, focusing on trials with systemic medications.

METHODS

A subgroup of the International Eczema Council (IEC) developed a consensus e-survey, which was disseminated to IEC members.

RESULTS

The response rate was 43/82 (52%). Consensus was reached on 24/27 statements and on 3/11 options from multiple-selection statements, including: performing monotherapy studies in proof-of-concept phases; avoiding concomitant topical corticosteroids or calcineurin inhibitors until a predefined timepoint as rescue (borderline consensus); selection of sites and assessors with recognized expertise in AD clinical trials; clear definition and identification of baseline disease severity; minimizing time and proportion of patients on placebo; using daily emollients with several options provided; instigating open-label extension studies for enrolment after a predefined timepoint; and including outcomes which set a higher bar for disease clearance.

CONCLUSION

Conducting PCT in AD requires balancing several, sometimes opposing principles, including ethics, methodology, regulatory requirements and real-world needs. This paper can provide a framework for conducting PCT with systemic medications for patients with AD.

Understanding the Burden of Atopic Dermatitis in Africa and the Middle East

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common inflammatory skin disease characterized by intensely pruritic lesions. The prevalence of atopic dermatitis is increasing in developing regions, including Africa and the Middle East. However, these regions are underrepresented in the dermatology literature, and a better understanding of the growing burden of atopic dermatitis in Africa and the Middle East is necessary. Herein, we summarize current knowledge on atopic dermatitis epidemiology, disease burden, and treatment options in Africa and the Middle East, highlighting the unmet needs of patients in these regions. With these needs in mind, we provide clinical recommendations for appropriate management of atopic dermatitis in Africa and the Middle East. FUNDING: Pfizer Inc. Plain language summary available for this article.

Tolerability of Topical Treatments for Atopic Dermatitis

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common inflammatory skin disease that is accompanied by increased sensitivity to itch-provoking and pain-provoking stimuli. Patients with AD experience skin pain before initiation of therapy and have also reported painful application site reactions in clinical trials of emollients and prescription topical therapies, including topical corticosteroids (TCSs), topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCIs), and a topical phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitor. To compare the sensory tolerability of prescription topical therapies for AD, a comprehensive literature search and analysis of published clinical trials was conducted. Sensory tolerability issues such as application site pain, burning, stinging, and pruritus were often among the most common adverse events or treatment-related adverse events in clinical trials for prescription topical therapies. Tolerability issues occurred at highest rates in trials of TCIs, followed by trials of the PDE4 inhibitor crisaborole and TCSs, although direct comparisons are not possible because of differences in study design. Tolerability issues in these clinical trials were generally mild to moderate and transient. This article also reviews published strategies for managing sensory tolerability issues in AD patients during treatment with topical therapies.Funding: Pfizer Inc., New York, NY.

Cosmetic benefit of a biomimetic lamellar cream formulation on barrier function or the appearance of fine lines and wrinkles in randomized proof-of-concept clinical studies

Objective

Two studies were designed to evaluate the potential cosmetic benefit of a biomimetic, niacinamide‐containing moisturizing cream for the first time in humans.

Methods

In both studies, healthy women were randomized to use two treatments, one for the left side of the body and one for the right, from three options: the test cream, a positive control or no treatment (use of standard cleanser only). Treatments were applied twice daily for 4 weeks to the face and forearms (Study 1) or the face only (Study 2). Instrumental and clinical skin assessments were performed by trained technicians. Study 1 involved tape stripping and a 5‐day no‐treatment (‘regression’) period at the end of the 4 weeks. Independent lay graders were asked to grade the skin texture of subjects in Study 2 from high‐resolution photographs.

Results

In Study 1 (n = 66), the test cream significantly decreased the transepidermal water loss (TEWL) values on the forearm, and in the cheek area of the face, relative to baseline and compared to no treatment, and increased skin Corneometer values. The improvements were partially retained during a subsequent 5‐day period of no treatment. Increases in TEWL values on skin subjected to tape stripping were significantly lower after 4 weeks of using the test cream compared to no treatment. In Study 2 (n = 72 subjects with visible signs of ageing), there was a favourable trend in the change from baseline of a skin roughness parameter, R_a, for the test cream compared to no treatment. There were statistically significant improvements in the Fitzpatrick wrinkle score compared to no treatment, decreases in TEWL and increased Corneometer values and Cutometer values (R5 elasticity parameter). Grading of high‐resolution images failed to detect the improvements in skin texture (defined as pores, smoothness and unevenness) for the test cream vs. no treatment. No treatment‐related serious or severe adverse events were reported.

Conclusion

Twice daily application of the test cream over 4 weeks had beneficial effects on skin barrier function, moisturization, wrinkle dimensions and elasticity compared to no treatment. These studies provide proof‐of‐concept evidence and highlight the cosmetic benefit of the biomimetic lamellar cream formulation. Study registration: NCT03216265, NCT03180645.

Adverse Events from Emollient Use in Eczema: A Restricted Review of Published Data

Atopic dermatitis/eczema is a chronic inflammatory skin condition, and emollients are the first-line treatment. Despite their widespread use, there is uncertainty about the frequency and type of adverse events associated with different emollients. We conducted a restricted review of published data on adverse events associated with emollient use in eczema. Medline (Ovid) was searched from inception (1946) to June 2018. All types of studies, with the exception of reviews, were included. Eligibility was assessed using a two-stage screening process against inclusion and exclusion criteria. References of all included papers were screened for any additional eligible papers. Data were subsequently extracted from all eligible publications. A limited body of data were found in the published data: 24 papers reported on adverse events with 29 different emollients (3 containing urea, 5 containing ceramide, 4 containing glycerol, 4 were herbal and 13 contained "other" ingredients). Interpretation of the results and comparison of the emollients were difficult due to poor reporting and missing data. Many publications contained no data at all on adverse events, and no study reported serious treatment-related adverse events for any emollient. The proportion of participants in the studies experiencing treatment-related adverse events varied between 2 and 59%. The most common adverse events were skin related and often mild. The range of participants experiencing non-treatment-related adverse events varied between 4 and 43%. From this restricted review, clinicians and patients can be reassured that the emollients studied appear to be generally safe to use. Better studies and reporting of adverse events associated with emollients in common use are needed.

Black tea dressings - a rapidly effective treatment for facial dermatitis

Background: Facial dermatitis is a common dermatologic condition. It is usually treated with either topical corticosteroids or calcineurin inhibitors. However, the use of these drugs is limited by side effects, including skin atrophy, local immunosuppression and possible oncogenicity. Objective: The aim of the study was to evaluate the use of wet dressings with black tea for treating facial dermatitis. Methods: We performed a prospective, open, uncontrolled before-after study enrolling 22 patients with atopic or contact facial dermatitis who were treated with black tea dressings and an emollient cream over 6 days. Disease severity was assessed using the (1) Facial Eczema Area and Severity Index, (2) Visual analog scale for pruritus, (3) Investigator`s Global Assessment score, and (4) Patient's Self-Assessment score. The study was registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02941432. Results: A dramatic and highly significant reduction of all four disease activity scores occurred within the first 3 days of treatment and the patients continued to improve between days 3 and 6. No side effects were observed. Conclusion: Black tea dressings represent an effective treatment option for facial dermatitis. Its advantages include lack of side effects, low cost, and easy availability.

Oral H1 antihistamines as 'add-on' therapy to topical treatment for eczema

BACKGROUND

The symptoms of eczema can lead to sleeplessness and fatigue and may have a substantial impact on quality of life. Use of oral H1 antihistamines (H1 AH) as adjuvant therapy alongside topical agents is based on the idea that combining the anti-inflammatory effects of topical treatments with the blocking action of histamine on its receptors in the skin by H1 AH (to reduce the principal symptom of itch) might magnify or intensify the effect of treatment. Also, it would be unethical to compare oral H1 AH alone versus no treatment, as topical treatment is the standard management for this condition.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of oral H1 antihistamines as 'add-on' therapy to topical treatment in adults and children with eczema.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to May 2018: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and the GREAT database (Global Resource of EczemA Trials; from inception). We searched five trials registers and checked the reference lists of included and excluded studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We also searched the abstracts of four conference proceedings held between 2000 and 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought RCTs assessing oral H1 AH as 'add-on' therapy to topical treatment for people with eczema compared with topical treatment plus placebo or no additional treatment as add-on therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Primary outcome measures were 'Mean change in patient-assessed symptoms of eczema' and 'Proportion of participants reporting adverse effects and serious adverse events'. Secondary outcomes were 'Mean change in physician-assessed clinical signs', 'Mean change in quality of life', and 'Number of eczema flares'.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 25 studies (3285 randomised participants). Seventeen studies included 1344 adults, and eight studies included 1941 children. Most studies failed to report eczema severity at baseline, but they were conducted in secondary care settings, so it is likely that they recruited patients with more severe cases of eczema. Trial duration was between three days and 18 months. Researchers studied 13 different H1 AH treatments. We could not undertake pooling because of the high level of diversity across studies in terms of duration and dose of intervention, concomitant topical therapy, and outcome assessment. Risk of bias was generally unclear, but five studies had high risk of bias in one domain (attrition, selection, or reporting bias). Only one study measured quality of life, but these results were insufficient for statistical analysis.Although this review assessed 17 comparisons, we summarise here the results of three key comparisons in this review.Cetirizine versus placeboOne study compared cetirizine 0.5 mg/kg/d against placebo over 18 months in 795 children. Study authors did not report patient-assessed symptoms of eczema separately for pruritus. Cetirizine is probably associated with fewer adverse events (mainly mild) (risk ratio (RR) 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 1.01) and the need for slightly less additional H1 AH use as an indication of eczema flare rate (P = 0.035; no further numerical data given). Physician-assessed clinical signs (SCORing Atopic Dermatitis index (SCORAD)) were reduced in both groups, but the difference between groups was reported as non-significant (no P value given). Evidence for this comparison was of moderate quality.One study assessed cetirizine 10 mg/d against placebo over four weeks in 84 adults. Results show no evidence of differences between groups in patient-assessed symptoms of eczema (pruritus measured as part of SCORAD; no numerical data given), numbers of adverse events (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.45; mainly sedation, other skin-related problems, respiratory symptoms, or headache), or physician-assessed changes in clinical signs, amount of local rescue therapy required, or number of applications as an indicator of eczema flares (no numerical data reported). Evidence for this comparison was of low quality.Fexofenadine versus placeboCompared with placebo, fexofenadine 120 mg/d taken in adults over one week (one study) probably leads to a small reduction in patient-assessed symptoms of pruritus on a scale of 0 to 8 (mean difference (MD) -0.25, 95% CI -0.43 to -0.07; n = 400) and a greater reduction in the ratio of physician-assessed pruritus area to whole body surface area (P = 0.007; no further numerical data given); however, these reductions may not be clinically meaningful. Results suggest probably little or no difference in adverse events (mostly somnolence and headache) (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.50; n = 411) nor in the amount of 0.1% hydrocortisone butyrate used (co-intervention in both groups) as an indicator of eczema flare, but no numerical data were given. Evidence for this comparison was of moderate quality.Loratadine versus placeboA study of 28 adults compared loratadine 10 mg/d taken over 4 weeks versus placebo. Researchers found no evidence of differences between groups in patient-assessed pruritus, measured by a 100-point visual analogue scale (MD -2.30, 95% CI -20.27 to 15.67); reduction in physician-assessed clinical signs (SCORAD) (MD -4.10, 95% CI -13.22 to 5.02); or adverse events. Study authors reported only one side effect (folliculitis with placebo) (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.01 to 5.76). Evidence for this comparison was of low quality. Number of eczema flares was not measured for this comparison.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the main comparisons, we did not find consistent evidence that H1 AH treatments are effective as 'add-on' therapy for eczema when compared to placebo; evidence for this comparison was of low and moderate quality. However, fexofenadine probably leads to a small improvement in patient-assessed pruritus, with probably no significant difference in the amount of treatment used to prevent eczema flares. Cetirizine was no better than placebo in terms of physician-assessed clinical signs nor patient-assessed symptoms, and we found no evidence that loratadine was more beneficial than placebo, although all interventions seem safe.The quality of evidence was limited because of poor study design and imprecise results. Future researchers should clearly define the condition (course and severity) and clearly report their methods, especially participant selection and randomisation; baseline characteristics; and outcomes (based on the Harmonising Outcome Measures in Eczema initiative).

[The role of emollients in atopic dermatitis in children]

Atopic dermatitis is a chronic inflammatory disease characterized by recurrent flares, intense itching, erythema, dry skin resulting from skin barrier defects, and staphylococcal infections. Multiple factors may affect the skin`s normal barrier function, including filaggrin gene mutations, immune dysregulation, altered skin microbiome, altered lipids in stratum corneum, or deficiency of antimicrobial peptides AMPs. The disease mainly affects children, causing a considerable impact on the quality of their life; its first manifestations occur with up to 90% of cases before the age of 5. For years emollients have been known as oily substances used to treat rough, scaling, xerotic conditions to make skin flexible and soft. Recently, we have learned that emollients can also moisten and hydrate dry skin, so the terms "emollient" and "moisturizer" are often used interchangeably. According to current management guidelines on atopic dermatitis prepared by dermatological societies, long-term emollient application direct to the skin and as bath additives are the basic therapy of atopic dermatitis. Emollients may be used in monotherapy or - in the flares - in conjunction with topical corticosteroids or calcineurin inhibitors. Clinical trials proved that regular emollient application moistens and hydrates the skin and helps the skin maintain a defensive barrier effect as well as reduces the amount of topical corticosteroids needed for atopic eczema in infants, children and adult patients. The results of trials and long clinical experience proved that emollients are safe and effective in patients with atopic dermatitis. This paper presents information based on recent knowledge concerning emollients: an overview of emollient components, their properties, mechanism of action, and the role they play in atopic eczema, as well as the results of clinical trials performed in children with atopic dermatitis.

Pilot Studies on Two Complementary Bath Products for Atopic Dermatitis Children: Pine-Tar and Tea

Background: Few standardized bath product clinical trials were performed for atopic dermatitis patients. Pine-tar and green tea extracts are plant-derived products that have been described as having anti-allergic effects which may reduce AD disease severity. Methods: The efficacy of two complementary bath products was studied and compared. Efficacy and acceptability of the bath products were measured by patient general acceptability of treatment (GAT: very good, good, fair or poor), disease severity (SCORAD: SCoring Atopic Dermatitis), quality of life (CDLQI: Children Dermatology Life Quality Index), and pertinent clinical parameters were measured before and after four weeks of treatment. Sample size calculations for further clinical trials were performed. In one group, nine AD patients were subjected to bathing with a pine-tar bath oil for 10–15 min daily for four weeks. In another group, 20 AD subjects bathed with a teabag containing green tea extracts for four weeks. Results: Significant improvements in clinical- and patient-orientated parameters were found in the pine-tar bathing group, but not the tea-bag bathing group. Both groups reported very good/good GAT on the studied products. Teabag bathing was considered not efficacious for further clinical trials. Conclusions: The pilot studies provided preliminary data on the efficacy of pine tar bath oil. We do not document a significant efficacy for bathing with tea extracts. Bathing with pine-tar is potentially a complementary topical treatment with good patient acceptance and adherence, but further evidence-based research for its recommendations is needed.

Cost and effectiveness of prescribing emollient therapy for atopic eczema in UK primary care in children and adults: a large retrospective analysis of the Clinical Practice Research Datalink

BACKGROUND

The Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) was used to evaluate the overall costs to the National Health Service, including healthcare utilisation, of prescribing emollients in UK primary care for dry skin and atopic eczema (DS&E).

METHODS

Primary care patients in the UK were identified using the CPRD and their records were interrogated for the 2 years following first diagnosis of DS&E. Data from patients with (n = 45,218) and without emollient prescriptions (n = 9780) were evaluated. Multivariate regression models were used to compare healthcare utilisation and cost in the two matched groups (age, sex, diagnosis). Two sub-analyses of the Emollient group were performed between matched groups receiving (1) a colloidal oatmeal emollient (Aveeno-First) versus non-colloidal oatmeal emollients (Aveeno-Never) and (2) Aveeno prescribed first-line (Aveeno-First) versus prescribed Aveeno later (Aveeno-Subsequently). Logistic regression models calculated the odds of prescription with either potent / very potent topical corticosteroids (TCS) or skin-related antimicrobials.

RESULTS

Costs per patient were £125.80 in Emollient (n = 7846) versus £128.13 in Non-Emollient (n = 7846) matched groups (p = 0.08). The Emollient group had fewer visits/patient (2.44 vs. 2.66; p < 0.0001) and lower mean per-visit costs (£104.15 vs. £113.25; p < 0.0001), compared with the Non-Emollient group. Non-Emollient patients had 18% greater odds of being prescribed TCS and 13% greater odds of being prescribed an antimicrobial than Emollient patients. In the Aveeno-First (n = 1943) versus Aveeno-Never (n = 1943) sub-analysis, costs per patient were lower in the Aveeno-First compared with the Aveeno-Never groups (£133.46 vs. £141.11; p = 0.0069). The Aveeno-Never group had ≥21% greater odds of being prescribed TCS or antimicrobial than the Aveeno-First group. In the Aveeno-First (n = 1357) versus Aveeno-Subsequently (n = 1357) sub-analysis, total costs were lower in the Aveeno-First group (£140.35 vs. £206.43; p < 0.001). Patients in the Aveeno-Subsequently group had 91% greater odds of being prescribed TCS and 75% greater odds of being prescribed an antimicrobial than the Aveeno-First group.

CONCLUSIONS

Acknowledging limitations from unknown disease severity in the CRPD, the prescription of emollients to treat DS&E was associated with fewer primary care visits, reduced healthcare utilisation and reduced cost. Prescribing emollients, especially those containing colloidal oatmeal, was associated with fewer TCS and antimicrobial prescriptions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study is registered at http://isrctn.com/ISRCTN91126037 .

A clinician's reference guide for the management of atopic dermatitis in Asians

Background

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common skin condition among Asians. Recent studies have shown that Asian AD has a unique clinical and immunologic phenotype compared with European/American AD.

Objective

The Asian Academy of Dermatology and Venereology Expert Panel on Atopic Dermatitis developed this reference guide to provide a holistic and evidence-based approach in managing AD among Asians.

Methods

Electronic searches were performed to retrieve relevant systematic reviews and guidelines on AD. Recommendations were appraised for level of evidence and strength of recommendation based on the U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network guidelines. These practice points were based on the consensus recommendations discussed during the Asia Pacific Meeting of Experts in Dermatology held in Bali, Indonesia in October 2016 and April 2017.

Results

The Expert Panel recommends an approach to treatment based on disease severity. The use of moisturizers is recommended across all levels of AD severity, while topical steroids are recommended only for flares not controlled by conventional skin care and moisturizers. Causes of waning efficacy must be explored before using topical corticosteroids of higher potency. Topical calcineurin inhibitors are recommended for patients who have become recalcitrant to steroid, in chronic uninterrupted use, and when there is steroid atrophy, or when there is a need to treat sensitive areas and pediatric patients. Systemic steroids have a limited role in AD treatment and should be avoided if possible. Educational programs that allow a patient-centered approach in AD management are recommended as an adjunct to conventional therapies. Recommendations on the use of phototherapy, systemic drugs, and emerging treatments are also included.

Conclusion

The management of AD among Asians requires a holistic approach, integrating evidence-based treatments while considering accessibility and cultural acceptability.

Leukotriene receptor antagonists for eczema

BACKGROUND

Eczema is a common, chronic, inflammatory skin condition that is frequently associated with atopic conditions, including asthma. Leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) have a corticosteroid-sparing role in asthma, but their role in eczema remains controversial. Currently available topical therapies for eczema are often poorly tolerated, and use of systemic agents is restricted by their adverse effect profile. A review of alternative treatments was therefore warranted.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the possible benefits and harms of leukotriene receptor antagonists for eczema.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases to September 2017: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and the GREAT database. We also searched five trial registries, and handsearched the bibliographies of all extracted studies for further relevant trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of LTRAs alone or in combination with other (topical or systemic) treatments compared with other treatments alone such as topical corticosteroids or placebo for eczema in the acute or chronic (maintenance) phase of eczema in adults and children.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcome measures were change in disease severity, long-term symptom control, and adverse effects of treatment. Secondary outcomes were change in corticosteroid requirement, reduction of pruritis, quality of life, and emollient requirement. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

Only five studies (including a total of 202 participants) met the inclusion criteria, all of which assessed oral montelukast; hence, we found no studies assessing other LTRAs. Treatment ranged from four to eight weeks, and outcomes were assessed at the end of treatment; therefore, we could only report short-term measurements (defined as less than three months follow-up from baseline). Montelukast dosing was 10 mg for adults (age 14 years and above) and 5 mg for children (age 6 years to 14 years). One study included children (aged 6 years and above) among their participants, while the remaining studies only included adults (participant age ranged from 16 to 70 years). The participants were diagnosed with moderate-to-severe eczema in four studies and moderate eczema in one study. The study setting was unclear in two studies, multicentre in two studies, and single centre in one study; the studies were conducted in Europe and Bangladesh. Two studies were industry funded. The comparator was placebo in three studies and conventional treatment in two studies. The conventional treatment comparator was a combination of antihistamines and topical corticosteroids (plus oral antibiotics in one study).Four of the studies did not adequately describe their randomisation or allocation concealment method and were considered as at unclear risk of selection bias. Only one study was at low risk of performance and detection bias. However, we judged all studies to be at low risk of attrition and reporting bias.We found no evidence of a difference in disease severity of moderate-to-severe eczema after short-term use of montelukast (10 mg) when compared with placebo. The outcome was assessed using the modified EASI (Eczema Area and Severity Index) score and SASSAD (Six Area, Six Sign Atopic Dermatitis) severity score (standardised mean difference 0.29, with a positive score showing montelukast is favoured, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.23 to 0.81; 3 studies; n = 131; low-quality evidence).When short-term montelukast (10 mg) treatment was compared with conventional treatment in one study, the mean improvement in severity of moderate-to-severe eczema was greater in the intervention group (measured using SCORAD (SCORing of Atopic Dermatitis) severity index) (mean difference 10.57, 95% CI 4.58 to 16.56; n = 31); however, another study of 32 participants found no significant difference between groups using the same measure (mean improvement was 25.2 points with montelukast versus 23.9 points with conventional treatment; no further numerical data provided). We judged the quality of the evidence as very low for this outcome, meaning the results are uncertain.All studies reported their adverse event rate during treatment. Four studies (136 participants) reported no adverse events. In one study of 58 participants with moderate eczema who received montelukast 10 mg (compared with placebo), there was one case of septicaemia and one case of dizziness reported in the intervention group, both resulting in study withdrawal, although whether these effects were related to the medication is unclear. Mild side effects (e.g. headache and mild gastrointestinal disturbances) were also noted, but these were fairly evenly distributed between the montelukast and placebo groups. The quality of evidence for this outcome was low.No studies specifically evaluated emollient requirement or quality of life. One study that administered treatment for eight weeks specifically evaluated pruritus improvement at the end treatment and topical corticosteroid use during treatment. We found no evidence of a difference between montelukast (10 mg) and placebo for both outcomes (low-quality evidence, n = 58). No other study assessed these outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this review are limited to montelukast. There was a lack of evidence addressing the review question, and the quality of the available evidence for most of the measured outcomes was low. Some primary and secondary outcomes were not addressed at all, including long-term control.We found no evidence of a difference between montelukast (10 mg) and placebo on disease severity, pruritus improvement, and topical corticosteroid use. Very low-quality evidence means we are uncertain of the effect of montelukast (10 mg) compared with conventional treatment on disease severity. Participants in only one study reported adverse events, which were mainly mild (low-quality evidence).There is no evidence that LTRA is an effective treatment for eczema. Serious limitations were that all studies focused on montelukast and only included people with moderate-to-severe eczema, who were mainly adults; and that each outcome was evaluated with a small sample size, if at all.Further large randomised controlled trials, with a longer treatment duration, of adults and children who have eczema of all severities may help to evaluate the effect of all types of LTRA, especially on eczema maintenance.

Both children and adult patients with difficult-to-treat atopic dermatitis have high prevalences of concomitant allergic contact dermatitis and are frequently polysensitized

BACKGROUND

Concomitant allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) has been described as a possible cause of atopic dermatitis (AD) becoming difficult-to-treat. However, contact sensitization in this patient group has barely been studied.

OBJECTIVE

To study the occurrence of ACD in a population of difficult-to-treat AD children and adults.

METHODS

Clinical and patch test information of 48 patients with difficult-to-treat AD unresponsive to conventional outpatient treatments was gathered retrospectively. We studied prevalence and relevance of common allergens, performed dynamic patch test analysis and assessed occurrence of polysensitization.

RESULTS

In 48 patients with difficult-to-treat AD, 75% (n = 36/48) had a concomitant contact allergy, and 39% (n = 14/36) of these patients were polysensitized. ACD and polysensitization prevalences were equal amongst children and adults. The most frequent and relevant reactions were seen against wool alcohols, surfactants cocamidopropyl betaine and dimethylaminopropylamine, bichromate and fragrance mix I. Dynamic pattern analysis showed these reactions to be mostly allergic and not irritative of nature.

CONCLUSION

Difficult-to-treat AD patients frequently suffer from concomitant (multiple) contact allergies, and this may be a reason why the AD turns into a difficult-to-treat disease. Awareness of this phenomenon is necessary, as pragmatic implementation of allergen avoidance strategies may be helpful in getting disease control in this population.

A Systematic Scoping Literature Review of Publications Supporting Treatment Guidelines for Pediatric Atopic Dermatitis in Contrast to Clinical Practice Patterns

INTRODUCTION

Treatment guidelines endorse a variety of strategies for atopic dermatitis (AD) which may vary from published data and clinical practice patterns. The objective of this review was to quantify the volume of available medical literature supporting pediatric AD treatments and compare these patterns to those recommended by published guidelines and/or clinical practice patterns.

METHODS

Searches of Embase (2005-2016) and abstracts from selected meetings (2014-2016) related to AD treatment in patients younger than 17 years of age yielded references that were assessed by study design, primary treatment, age groups, and AD severity.

RESULTS

Published literature partially supports clinical guidelines, with emollients and topical medications being the most investigated. There were disproportionately more publications for topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCI) compared with topical corticosteroids (TCS); however, the search interval may have biased the results toward treatments approved near the beginning of the time frame. In contrast, publications documenting clinical practice patterns reflect greater use of emollients and TCS (over TCI), as well as systemic corticosteroids. Data is relatively limited for long-term and combination treatment, treatment of severe AD, and patients younger than 2 years of age, and completely lacking for systemic corticosteroids.

CONCLUSION

This scoping review demonstrates that available medical literature largely supports published guidelines for topical therapy; however, clinical practice patterns are less aligned. There is a lack of data for older, more frequently used generic treatments, including oral antihistamines, oral antibiotics, and systemic corticosteroids. Overall, literature is lacking for long-term treatment, treatment for patients younger than 2 years of age, and for systemic treatment for severe disease.

FUNDING

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Emollient prescribing formularies in England and Wales: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

To identify and compare emollient formularies across all clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) and local health boards (LHBs) in England and Wales.

DESIGN

Formularies were retrieved via CCG/LHB websites or Google search (October 2016-February 2017). Data on structure and content were extracted, and descriptive analyses were undertaken.

SETTING

209 English CCGs and 7 Welsh LHBs.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Number and structure of formularies; number, type and name of emollients and bath additive recommendedandnot recommended; and any rationale given.

RESULTS

102formularies were identified, which named 109 emollients and 24 bath additives. Most were structured in an 'order of preference' (63%) and/or formulation (51%) format. Creams and ointments were the most commonly recommended types of emollients, and three ointments were the most commonly recommended specific emollients (71%-79% of formularies). However, there was poor consensus over which emollient should be used first line and 4 out of 10 of the most recommended lotions and creams contained antimicrobials or urea. Patient preference (60%) and/or cost (58%) were the most common reasons given for the recommendations. Of the 82% of formularies that recommend the use of bath additives, 75% did not give any reasons for their recommendation.

CONCLUSIONS

Emollient formularies in England and Wales vary widely in their structure, recommendations and rationale. The reasons for such inconsistencies are unclear, risk confusion and make for inequitable regional variation. There is poor justification for multiple different, conflicting formularies.

Investigating the therapeutic potential of a probiotic in a clinical population with chronic hand dermatitis

BACKGROUND

Hand dermatitis or hand eczema (HD) is one of the most common dermatologic conditions. Lesions, scaling, pruritus and pain are chronic and relapsing. Improved HD has been reported with the probiotic composed of Lactobacillus acidophilus CL1285, Lactobacillus casei LBC80R and Lactobacillus rhamnosus CLR2 (Bio-K+).

PURPOSE

Investigation of the therapeutic potential of this probiotic as the sole systemic treatment for adults with nonacute HD.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

A single-center study documented clinical ratings and patient-reported outcomes in adults with chronic HD. The probiotic was taken orally for 12 weeks, adjunctive to standard topical treatments and preventative measures.

RESULTS

Most of the 30 subjects with mild to severe HD were compliant with the probiotic. Around 22 of the 30 subjects were able to complete the study, and of these subjects, an improvement was noted in 19. One required systemic therapy, and one subject was not able to tolerate the probiotic and therefore discontinued the study. 23% of the subjects achieved clear or almost clear hands by the end of 12 weeks. Pruritus, which was a common complaint at baseline, was improved with 59% of symptomatic patients within 2 weeks.

CONCLUSION

It is feasible and safe to administer Bio-K+ for HD. Clinicians saw an improvement in most subjects' hands, and cases of significant improvement in dermatitis were documented. Pruritus was the most rapidly relieved symptom, as reported by patients.

Beneficial Effects of Antioxidant Furfuryl Palmitate in Non-pharmacologic Treatments (Prescription Emollient Devices, PEDs) for Atopic Dermatitis and Related Skin Disorders

Introduction

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common chronic inflammatory skin disease; it requires long-term treatments focused on symptomatic relief. Current first-line treatments include moisturizers and topical corticosteroids. Recently, topical antioxidants have been added to moisturizer formulations to alleviate mild-to-moderate AD. The aim of this review was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of furfuryl palmitate, a new antioxidant molecule, and furfuryl derivatives.

Methods

A PubMed/Google Scholar search was conducted using the term “furfuryl palmitate” (and its derivatives, including AR-GG27^®) combined with “skin,” “atopic dermatitis,” and “atopic eczema.” Existing trials including adult and pediatric patients with AD and related skin disorders were evaluated. The treatment indication(s), number of subjects, treatment protocols, results, and side effects were recorded.

Results

Effective treatments with furfuryl palmitate and furfuryl derivatives have been reported for the following conditions: atopic, seborrheic, irritative, and allergic contact dermatitis, eczema, xerosis, and cutaneous inflammatory pathologies. All the products tested showed a good tolerability profile.

Conclusion

Studies performed up to now showed that furfuryl derivatives can efficaciously contrast signs and symptoms of mild-to-moderate AD, erythema, and widespread diffuse cutaneous pathologies in both adult and pediatric patients, representing a real alternative to steroids and a valid aid in the treatment of skin disorders, with no side effects and without requiring precautions in use.

Funding

Relife S.r.l. - Menarini Group.

Plain Language Summary

Plain language summary available for this article.

Emollient bath additives for the treatment of childhood eczema (BATHE): multicentre pragmatic parallel group randomised controlled trial of clinical and cost effectiveness

OBJECTIVES

To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of including emollient bath additives in the management of eczema in children.

DESIGN

Pragmatic randomised open label superiority trial with two parallel groups.

SETTING

96 general practices in Wales and western and southern England.

PARTICIPANTS

483 children aged 1 to 11 years, fulfilling UK diagnostic criteria for atopic dermatitis. Children with very mild eczema and children who bathed less than once weekly were excluded.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants in the intervention group were prescribed emollient bath additives by their usual clinical team to be used regularly for 12 months. The control group were asked to use no bath additives for 12 months. Both groups continued with standard eczema management, including leave-on emollients, and caregivers were given standardised advice on how to wash participants.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was eczema control measured by the patient oriented eczema measure (POEM, scores 0-7 mild, 8-16 moderate, 17-28 severe) weekly for 16 weeks. Secondary outcomes were eczema severity over one year (monthly POEM score from baseline to 52 weeks), number of eczema exacerbations resulting in primary healthcare consultation, disease specific quality of life (dermatitis family impact), generic quality of life (child health utility-9D), utilisation of resources, and type and quantity of topical corticosteroid or topical calcineurin inhibitors prescribed.

RESULTS

483 children were randomised and one child was withdrawn, leaving 482 children in the trial: 51% were girls (244/482), 84% were of white ethnicity (447/470), and the mean age was 5 years. 96% (461/482) of participants completed at least one post-baseline POEM, so were included in the analysis, and 77% (370/482) completed questionnaires for more than 80% of the time points for the primary outcome (12/16 weekly questionnaires to 16 weeks). The mean baseline POEM score was 9.5 (SD 5.7) in the bath additives group and 10.1 (SD 5.8) in the no bath additives group. The mean POEM score over the 16 week period was 7.5 (SD. 6.0) in the bath additives group and 8.4 (SD 6.0) in the no bath additives group. No statistically significant difference was found in weekly POEM scores between groups over 16 weeks. After controlling for baseline severity and confounders (ethnicity, topical corticosteroid use, soap substitute use) and allowing for clustering of participants within centres and responses within participants over time, POEM scores in the no bath additives group were 0.41 points higher than in the bath additives group (95% confidence interval -0.27 to 1.10), below the published minimal clinically important difference for POEM of 3 points. The groups did not differ in secondary outcomes, economic outcomes, or adverse effects.

CONCLUSIONS

This trial found no evidence of clinical benefit from including emollient bath additives in the standard management of eczema in children. Further research is needed into optimal regimens for leave-on emollient and soap substitutes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN84102309.

Emollient treatment of atopic dermatitis: latest evidence and clinical considerations

Aim

To review current classes of emollients in the market, their clinical efficacy in atopic dermatitis (AD) and considerations for choice of an emollient.

Methods

PubMed Clinical Queries under Clinical Study Categories (with Category limited to Therapy and Scope limited to Narrow) and Systematic Reviews were used as the search engine. Keywords of ‘emollient or moisturizer’ and ‘atopic dermatitis’ were used.

Overview of findings

Using the keywords of ‘emollient’ and ‘atopic dermatitis’, there were 105 and 36 hits under Clinical Study Categories (with Category limited to Therapy and Scope limited to Narrow) and Systematic Reviews, respectively. Plant-derived products, animal products and special ingredients were discussed. Selected proprietary products were tabulated.

Conclusions

A number of proprietary emollients have undergone trials with clinical data available on PubMed-indexed journals. Most moisturizers showed some beneficial effects, but there was generally no evidence that one moisturizer is superior to another. Choosing an appropriate emollient for AD patients would improve acceptability and adherence for emollient treatment. Physician’s recommendation is the primary consideration for patients when selecting a moisturizer/emollient; therefore, doctors should provide evidence-based information about these emollients.

GP and parent dissonance about the assessment and treatment of childhood eczema in primary care: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

To compare parents' and clinicians' perspectives on the assessment and treatment of children with eczema in primary care.

DESIGN

Qualitative interview study with purposive and snowball sampling and thematic analysis.

SETTING

14 general practices in the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

11 parents of children with eczema and 15 general practitioners (GPs) took part in semistructured individual interviews.

RESULTS

We identified several areas of dissonance between parents and GPs. First, parents sought a 'cause' of eczema, such as an underlying allergy, whereas GPs looked to manage the symptoms of an incurable condition. Second, parents often judged eczema severity in terms of psychosocial impact, while GPs tended to focus on the appearance of the child's skin. Third, parents sought 'more natural' over-the-counter treatments or complementary medicine, which GPs felt unable to endorse because of their unknown effectiveness and potential harm. Fourth, GPs linked poor outcomes to unrealistic expectations of treatment and low adherence to topical therapy, whereas parents reported persisting with treatment and despondency with its ineffectiveness. Consultations were commonly described by parents as being dominated by the GP, with a lack of involvement in treatment decisions. GPs' management of divergent views varied, but avoidance strategies were often employed.

CONCLUSIONS

Divergent views between parents and clinicians regarding the cause and treatment of childhood eczema can probably only be bridged by clinicians actively seeking out opinions and sharing rationale for their approach to treatment. Together with assessing the psychosocial as well as the physical impact of eczema, asking about current or intended use of complementary therapy and involving parents in treatment decisions, the management of eczema and patient outcomes could be improved.

Applying a vernix caseosa based formulation accelerates skin barrier repair by modulating lipid biosynthesis

Restoring the lipid homeostasis of the stratum corneum (SC) is a common strategy to enhance skin barrier function. Here, we used a ceramide containing vernix caseosa (VC)-based formulation and were able to accelerate barrier recovery in healthy volunteers. The recovery was examined over 16 days by monitoring trans-epidermal water loss (TEWL) after barrier disruption by tape-stripping. Four skin sites were used to examine the effects of both treatment and barrier recovery. After 16 days, samples were harvested at these sites to examine the SC ceramide composition and lipid organization. Changes in ceramide profiles were identified using principal component analysis. After barrier recovery, the untreated sites showed increased levels of ceramide subclass AS and ceramides with a 34 total carbon-atom chain length, while the mean ceramide chain length was reduced. These changes were diminished by treatment with the studied formulation, which concurrently increased the formulated ceramides. Correlations were observed between SC lipid composition, lipid organization, and TEWL, and changes in the ceramide subclass composition suggest changes in the ceramide biosynthesis. These results suggest that VC-based formulations enhance skin barrier recovery and are attractive candidates to treat skin disorders with impaired barrier properties.

Prolonging Time to Flare in Pediatric Atopic Dermatitis: A Randomized, Investigator-Blinded, Controlled, Multicenter Clinical Study of a Ceramide-Containing Moisturizer

INTRODUCTION

Delaying or preventing flares is important in atopic dermatitis (AD) management. The objective of the study was to evaluate whether using a ceramide-containing moisturizer in addition to a body wash during latent AD can delay flares.

METHODS

This was a randomized, investigator-blinded, parallel-group, controlled study among Chinese children with a history of mild to moderate AD, within 1 week of successful treatment with a topical corticosteroid. Subjects were randomized to receive moisturizer twice daily and body wash once daily, or body wash alone once daily for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was time to flare [necessitating medical therapy and/or Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) > 1 (at least mild AD)]. Other efficacy endpoints were AD characteristics and emollient effects. The patient-reported outcome comprised satisfaction at week 12. The safety endpoint was incidence of undesirable events.

RESULTS

A total of 64 subjects aged 2-12 years were randomized. Median time to flare was delayed by nearly 2 months for moisturizer/body wash compared to body wash alone (89 vs. 27 days, respectively). A significantly earlier onset of action in terms of fewer flares favoring moisturizer was found at week 4 (31 vs. 59%, respectively, p = 0.022), and after 12 weeks, fewer flares occurred (50 vs. 72%). At week 12 for flare-free subjects, nearly half in both groups had clear IGA, and an emollient effect in terms of less dryness or burning was more marked for moisturizer/body wash. Both products led to high patient satisfaction and were well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

A regimen incorporating a moisturizer plus body wash delayed AD flares by nearly 2 months compared to body wash alone, and yielded high patient satisfaction.

FUNDING

Galderma R&D.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02589392.

Consumer Preferences, Product Characteristics, and Potentially Allergenic Ingredients in Best-selling Moisturizers

Importance

Because moisturizer use is critical for the prevention and treatment of numerous dermatological conditions, patients frequently request product recommendations from dermatologists.

Objective

To determine the product performance characteristics and ingredients of best-selling moisturizers.

Design and Setting

This cohort study involved publicly available data of the top 100 best-selling whole-body moisturizing products at 3 major online retailers (Amazon, Target, and Walmart). Products marketed for use on a specific body part (eg, face, hands, eyelids) were excluded.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Pairwise comparisons of median price per ounce on the basis of marketing claims (eg, dermatologist recommended, fragrance free, hypoallergenic) and presence of ingredients represented in the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) series were conducted using Wilcoxon rank sum tests. The effect of vehicle type (eg, ointment, lotion, cream, butter) was assessed using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Cross-reactors and botanicals for fragrances were derived from the American Contact Dermatitis Society's Contact Allergen Management Program database.

Results

A total of 174 unique best-selling moisturizer products were identified, constituting 109 713 reviews as of August 2016. The median price per ounce was $0.59 (range, $0.10-$9.51 per ounce) with a wide range (9400%). The most popular vehicles were lotions (102 [59%]), followed by creams (22 [13%]), oils (21 [12%]), butters (14 [8%]), and ointments (3 [2%]). Only 12% (n = 21) of best-selling moisturizer products were free of NACDG allergens. The 3 most common allergens were fragrance mix (n = 87), paraben mix (n = 75), and tocopherol (n = 74). Products with the claim "dermatologist recommended" had higher median price per ounce ($0.79; interquartile range [IQR], $0.56-$1.27) than products without the claim ($0.59; IQR, $0.34-$0.92). Products with the claim "phthalate free" had higher median price per ounce ($1.38; IQR, $0.86-$1.63) than products without the claim ($0.59; IQR, $0.35-$0.91). Lotions (median, $0.49; IQR, $0.31-0.68) were statistically less expensive per ounce than butters (median, $1.20; IQR, $0.76-$1.63), creams (median, $0.80; IQR, $0.69-$1.25) and oils (median, $1.30; IQR, $0.64-$2.43). For products with a claim of "fragrance free," 18 (45%) had at least 1 fragrance cross-reactor or botanical ingredient. Products without any ingredients in the NACDG (median, $0.83; IQR, $0.47-$1.69) were not statistically more expensive per ounce than products with 1 or more allergens (median, $0.60; IQR, $0.35-$1.06).

Conclusions and Relevance

Best-selling moisturizers vary widely by price and product characteristics. Given the lack of readily available comparison data on moisturizer efficacy, dermatologists should balance consumer preference, price, and allergenicity in their recommendations.

Performance and Tolerability of the Moisturizers Cetaphil® and Excipial® in Atopic Dermatitis: What is the Evidence Based on Randomized Trials?

Introduction

Moisturizers play a prominent role in the management of atopic dermatitis by improving the impaired skin barrier function and enhancing skin hydration. Their efficacy was evaluated in a recently published Cochrane Review ‘Emollients and moisturizers for eczema’.

Objective

In the present review, we summarize the performance and safety of Cetaphil^® and Excipial^® moisturizing products.

Methods

This review was carried out in compliance with standard Cochrane methodological procedures, which means independent study selection, data extraction, assessment of risk of bias, and analyses by two review authors. The quality of evidence for the predefined outcomes was rated with the GRADE approach. The prespecified outcomes of the review included participant assessments, satisfaction, adverse events, investigator assessments, prevention of flares, change in use of topical active treatment, skin barrier function and quality of life.

Results

Four randomized controlled studies examining these moisturizers were included in the previously published Cochrane Review. For the performance and tolerability of these moisturizers, there was very low to moderate quality evidence for the prespecified outcomes.

Conclusion

The results from these four studies are in line with those of the Cochrane Review that moisturizers themselves have beneficial effects, and that combining moisturizers with active topical treatment produced better results when compared to active topical treatment alone.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s13555-017-0184-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Emollients and moisturisers for eczema

BACKGROUND

Eczema is a chronic skin disease characterised by dry skin, intense itching, inflammatory skin lesions, and a considerable impact on quality of life. Moisturisation is an integral part of treatment, but it is unclear if moisturisers are effective.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of moisturisers for eczema.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases to December 2015: Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, the GREAT database. We searched five trials registers and checked references of included and excluded studies for further relevant trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in people with eczema.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 77 studies (6603 participants, mean age: 18.6 years, mean duration: 6.7 weeks). We assessed 36 studies as at a high risk of bias, 34 at unclear risk, and seven at low risk. Twenty-four studies assessed our primary outcome 'participant-assessed disease severity', 13 assessed 'satisfaction', and 41 assessed 'adverse events'. Secondary outcomes included investigator-assessed disease severity (addressed in 65 studies), skin barrier function (29), flare prevention (16), quality of life (10), and corticosteroid use (eight). Adverse events reporting was limited (smarting, stinging, pruritus, erythema, folliculitis).Six studies evaluated moisturiser versus no moisturiser. 'Participant-assessed disease severity' and 'satisfaction' were not assessed. Moisturiser use yielded lower SCORAD than no moisturiser (three studies, 276 participants, mean difference (MD) -2.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.55 to -0.28), but the minimal important difference (MID) (8.7) was unmet. There were fewer flares with moisturisers (two studies, 87 participants, RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.70), time to flare was prolonged (median: 180 versus 30 days), and less topical corticosteroids were needed (two studies, 222 participants, MD -9.30 g, 95% CI -15.3 to -3.27). There was no statistically significant difference in adverse events (one study, 173 participants, risk ratio (RR) 15.34, 95% CI 0.90 to 261.64). Evidence for these outcomes was low quality.With Atopiclair (three studies), 174/232 participants experienced improvement in participant-assessed disease severity versus 27/158 allocated to vehicle (RR 4.51, 95% CI 2.19 to 9.29). Atopiclair decreased itching (four studies, 396 participants, MD -2.65, 95% CI -4.21 to -1.09) and achieved more frequent satisfaction (two studies, 248 participants, RR 2.14, 95% CI 1.58 to 2.89), fewer flares (three studies, 397 participants, RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.31), and lower EASI (four studies, 426 participants, MD -4.0, 95% CI -5.42 to -2.57), but MID (6.6) was unmet. The number of participants reporting adverse events was not statistically different (four studies, 430 participants, RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.33). Evidence for these outcomes was moderate quality.Participants reported skin improvement more frequently with urea-containing cream than placebo (one study, 129 participants, RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.53; low-quality evidence), with equal satisfaction between the two groups (one study, 38 participants, low-quality evidence). Urea-containing cream improved dryness (investigator-assessed) more frequently (one study, 128 participants, RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.71; moderate-quality evidence) with fewer flares (one study, 44 participants, RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.92; low-quality evidence), but more participants in this group reported adverse events (one study, 129 participants, RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.34; moderate-quality evidence).Three studies assessed glycerol-containing moisturiser versus vehicle or placebo. More participants in the glycerol group noticed skin improvement (one study, 134 participants, RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.48; moderate-quality evidence), and this group saw improved investigator-assessed SCORAD (one study, 249 participants, MD -2.20, 95% CI -3.44 to -0.96; high-quality evidence), but MID was unmet. Participant satisfaction was not addressed. The number of participants reporting adverse events was not statistically significant (two studies, 385 participants, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.19; moderate-quality evidence).Four studies investigated oat-containing moisturisers versus no treatment or vehicle. No significant differences between groups were reported for participant-assessed disease severity (one study, 50 participants, RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.46; low-quality evidence), satisfaction (one study, 50 participants, RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.52; very low-quality evidence), and investigator-assessed disease severity (three studies, 272 participants, standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.23, 95% CI -0.66 to 0.21; low-quality evidence). In the oat group, there were fewer flares (one study, 43 participants, RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.7; low-quality evidence) and less topical corticosteroids needed (two studies, 222 participants, MD -9.30g, 95% CI 15.3 to -3.27; low-quality evidence), but more adverse events were reported (one study, 173 participants; Peto odds ratio (OR) 7.26, 95% CI 1.76 to 29.92; low-quality evidence).All moisturisers above were compared to placebo, vehicle, or no moisturiser. Participants considered moisturisers more effective in reducing eczema (five studies, 572 participants, RR 2.46, 95% CI 1.16 to 5.23; low-quality evidence) and itch (seven studies, 749 participants, SMD -1.10, 95% CI -1.83 to -0.38) than control. Participants in both treatment arms reported comparable satisfaction (three studies, 296 participants, RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.26; low-quality evidence). Moisturisers led to lower investigator-assessed disease severity (12 studies, 1281 participants, SMD -1.04, 95% CI -1.57 to -0.51; high-quality evidence) and fewer flares (six studies, 607 participants, RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.62; moderate-quality evidence), but there was no difference in adverse events (10 studies, 1275 participants, RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.30; moderate-quality evidence).Topical active treatment combined with moisturiser was more effective than active treatment alone in reducing investigator-assessed disease severity (three studies, 192 participants, SMD -0.87, 95% CI -1.17 to -0.57; moderate-quality evidence) and flares (one study, 105 participants, RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.93), and was preferred by participants (both low-quality evidence). There was no statistically significant difference in number of adverse events (one study, 125 participants, RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.19; very low-quality evidence). Participant-assessed disease severity was not addressed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Most moisturisers showed some beneficial effects, producing better results when used with active treatment, prolonging time to flare, and reducing the number of flares and amount of topical corticosteroids needed to achieve similar reductions in eczema severity. We did not find reliable evidence that one moisturiser is better than another.