Effects of bathing interval on skin condition and axillary bacterial colonization in preterm infants

Skin care interventions in infants for preventing eczema and food allergy

BACKGROUND

Eczema and food allergy are common health conditions that usually begin in early childhood and often occur in the same people. They can be associated with an impaired skin barrier in early infancy. It is unclear whether trying to prevent or reverse an impaired skin barrier soon after birth is effective for preventing eczema or food allergy.

OBJECTIVES

Primary objective To assess the effects of skin care interventions such as emollients for primary prevention of eczema and food allergy in infants. Secondary objective To identify features of study populations such as age, hereditary risk, and adherence to interventions that are associated with the greatest treatment benefit or harm for both eczema and food allergy.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed an updated search of the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase in September 2021. We searched two trials registers in July 2021. We checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews, and scanned conference proceedings to identify further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs).  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs of skin care interventions that could potentially enhance skin barrier function, reduce dryness, or reduce subclinical inflammation in healthy term (> 37 weeks) infants (≤ 12 months) without pre-existing eczema, food allergy, or other skin condition. Eligible comparisons were standard care in the locality or no treatment. Types of skin care interventions could include moisturisers/emollients; bathing products; advice regarding reducing soap exposure and bathing frequency; and use of water softeners. No minimum follow-up was required.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

This is a prospective individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures, and primary analyses used the IPD dataset. Primary outcomes were cumulative incidence of eczema and cumulative incidence of immunoglobulin (Ig)E-mediated food allergy by one to three years, both measured at the closest available time point to two years. Secondary outcomes included adverse events during the intervention period; eczema severity (clinician-assessed); parent report of eczema severity; time to onset of eczema; parent report of immediate food allergy; and allergic sensitisation to food or inhalant allergen.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 33 RCTs comprising 25,827 participants. Of these, 17 studies randomising 5823 participants reported information on one or more outcomes specified in this review.  We included 11 studies, randomising 5217 participants, in one or more meta-analyses (range 2 to 9 studies per individual meta-analysis), with 10 of these studies providing IPD; the remaining 6 studies were included in the narrative results only.   Most studies were conducted at children's hospitals. Twenty-five studies, including all those contributing data to meta-analyses, randomised newborns up to age three weeks to receive a skin care intervention or standard infant skin care. Eight of the 11 studies contributing to meta-analyses recruited infants at high risk of developing eczema or food allergy, although the definition of high risk varied between studies. Durations of intervention and follow-up ranged from 24 hours to three years. All interventions were compared against no skin care intervention or local standard care. Of the 17 studies that reported information on our prespecified outcomes, 13 assessed emollients. We assessed most of the evidence in the review as low certainty and had some concerns about risk of bias. A rating of some concerns was most often due to lack of blinding of outcome assessors or significant missing data, which could have impacted outcome measurement but was judged unlikely to have done so. We assessed the evidence for the primary food allergy outcome as high risk of bias due to the inclusion of only one trial, where findings varied based on different assumptions about missing data. Skin care interventions during infancy probably do not change the risk of eczema by one to three years of age (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.31; risk difference 5 more cases per 1000 infants, 95% CI 28 less to 47 more; moderate-certainty evidence; 3075 participants, 7 trials) or time to onset of eczema (hazard ratio 0.86, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.14; moderate-certainty evidence; 3349 participants, 9 trials). Skin care interventions during infancy may increase the risk of IgE-mediated food allergy by one to three years of age (RR 2.53, 95% CI 0.99 to 6.49; low-certainty evidence; 976 participants, 1 trial) but may not change risk of allergic sensitisation to a food allergen by age one to three years (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.71; low-certainty evidence; 1794 participants, 3 trials). Skin care interventions during infancy may slightly increase risk of parent report of immediate reaction to a common food allergen at two years (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.61; low-certainty evidence; 1171 participants, 1 trial); however, this was only seen for cow's milk, and may be unreliable due to over-reporting of milk allergy in infants. Skin care interventions during infancy probably increase risk of skin infection over the intervention period (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.75; risk difference 17 more cases per 1000 infants, 95% CI one more to 38 more; moderate-certainty evidence; 2728 participants, 6 trials) and may increase the risk of infant slippage over the intervention period (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.99; low-certainty evidence; 2538 participants, 4 trials) and stinging/allergic reactions to moisturisers (RR 2.24, 95% 0.67 to 7.43; low-certainty evidence; 343 participants, 4 trials), although CIs for slippages and stinging/allergic reactions were wide and include the possibility of no effect or reduced risk. Preplanned subgroup analyses showed that the effects of interventions were not influenced by age, duration of intervention, hereditary risk, filaggrin (FLG) mutation, chromosome 11 intergenic variant rs2212434, or classification of intervention type for risk of developing eczema. We could not evaluate these effects on risk of food allergy. Evidence was insufficient to show whether adherence to interventions influenced the relationship between skin care interventions and eczema or food allergy development.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on low- to moderate-certainty evidence, skin care interventions such as emollients during the first year of life in healthy infants are probably not effective for preventing eczema; may increase risk of food allergy; and probably increase risk of skin infection. Further study is needed to understand whether different approaches to infant skin care might prevent eczema or food allergy.

Skin care interventions in infants for preventing eczema and food allergy

BACKGROUND

Eczema and food allergy are common health conditions that usually begin in early childhood and often occur together in the same people. They can be associated with an impaired skin barrier in early infancy. It is unclear whether trying to prevent or reverse an impaired skin barrier soon after birth is effective in preventing eczema or food allergy.

OBJECTIVES

Primary objective To assess effects of skin care interventions, such as emollients, for primary prevention of eczema and food allergy in infants Secondary objective To identify features of study populations such as age, hereditary risk, and adherence to interventions that are associated with the greatest treatment benefit or harm for both eczema and food allergy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to July 2020: Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. We searched two trials registers and checked reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We contacted field experts to identify planned trials and to seek information about unpublished or incomplete trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs of skin care interventions that could potentially enhance skin barrier function, reduce dryness, or reduce subclinical inflammation in healthy term (> 37 weeks) infants (0 to 12 months) without pre-existing diagnosis of eczema, food allergy, or other skin condition were included. Comparison was standard care in the locality or no treatment. Types of skin care interventions included moisturisers/emollients; bathing products; advice regarding reducing soap exposure and bathing frequency; and use of water softeners. No minimum follow-up was required.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

This is a prospective individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures, and primary analyses used the IPD dataset. Primary outcomes were cumulative incidence of eczema and cumulative incidence of immunoglobulin (Ig)E-mediated food allergy by one to three years, both measured by the closest available time point to two years. Secondary outcomes included adverse events during the intervention period; eczema severity (clinician-assessed); parent report of eczema severity; time to onset of eczema; parent report of immediate food allergy; and allergic sensitisation to food or inhalant allergen.

MAIN RESULTS

This review identified 33 RCTs, comprising 25,827 participants. A total of 17 studies, randomising 5823 participants, reported information on one or more outcomes specified in this review. Eleven studies randomising 5217 participants, with 10 of these studies providing IPD, were included in one or more meta-analysis (range 2 to 9 studies per individual meta-analysis). Most studies were conducted at children's hospitals. All interventions were compared against no skin care intervention or local standard care. Of the 17 studies that reported our outcomes, 13 assessed emollients. Twenty-five studies, including all those contributing data to meta-analyses, randomised newborns up to age three weeks to receive a skin care intervention or standard infant skin care. Eight of the 11 studies contributing to meta-analyses recruited infants at high risk of developing eczema or food allergy, although definition of high risk varied between studies. Durations of intervention and follow-up ranged from 24 hours to two years. We assessed most of this review's evidence as low certainty or had some concerns of risk of bias. A rating of some concerns was most often due to lack of blinding of outcome assessors or significant missing data, which could have impacted outcome measurement but was judged unlikely to have done so. Evidence for the primary food allergy outcome was rated as high risk of bias due to inclusion of only one trial where findings varied when different assumptions were made about missing data. Skin care interventions during infancy probably do not change risk of eczema by one to two years of age (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.31; moderate-certainty evidence; 3075 participants, 7 trials) nor time to onset of eczema (hazard ratio 0.86, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.14; moderate-certainty evidence; 3349 participants, 9 trials). It is unclear whether skin care interventions during infancy change risk of IgE-mediated food allergy by one to two years of age (RR 2.53, 95% CI 0.99 to 6.47; 996 participants, 1 trial) or allergic sensitisation to a food allergen at age one to two years (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.69; 1055 participants, 2 trials) due to very low-certainty evidence for these outcomes. Skin care interventions during infancy may slightly increase risk of parent report of immediate reaction to a common food allergen at two years (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.61; low-certainty evidence; 1171 participants, 1 trial). However, this was only seen for cow's milk, and may be unreliable due to significant over-reporting of cow's milk allergy in infants. Skin care interventions during infancy probably increase risk of skin infection over the intervention period (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.77; moderate-certainty evidence; 2728 participants, 6 trials) and may increase risk of infant slippage over the intervention period (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.99; low-certainty evidence; 2538 participants, 4 trials) or stinging/allergic reactions to moisturisers (RR 2.24, 95% 0.67 to 7.43; low-certainty evidence; 343 participants, 4 trials), although confidence intervals for slippages and stinging/allergic reactions are wide and include the possibility of no effect or reduced risk. Preplanned subgroup analyses show that effects of interventions were not influenced by age, duration of intervention, hereditary risk, FLG mutation,  or classification of intervention type for risk of developing eczema. We could not evaluate these effects on risk of food allergy. Evidence was insufficient to show whether adherence to interventions influenced the relationship between skin care interventions and risk of developing eczema or food allergy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Skin care interventions such as emollients during the first year of life in healthy infants are probably not effective for preventing eczema, and probably increase risk of skin infection. Effects of skin care interventions on risk of food allergy are uncertain. Further work is needed to understand whether different approaches to infant skin care might promote or prevent eczema and to evaluate effects on food allergy based on robust outcome assessments.

Bathing or Not Bathing: Which Is Better for Umbilical Cord Separation Time and Bacterial Colonization in Neonates?

Background: Sepsis is the third cause of death in the first month of life, and the umbilical cord is an important source for sepsis Objectives: We compared the effects of bathing or not bathing on bacterial colonization and cord separation time. Methods: A quasi-experimental study assessed term newborns at Golestan hospital, Tehran, Iran, from 2019 to 2020 in three groups. Bath (B) group included neonates who were bathed with tub water every two days (n = 90). Clean product (CP) group neonates were bathed with cleaners every two days (n = 87). Dry care cord (D) group neonates were not bathed during the first 10 days (n = 63). Periumbilical cord swabs were collected on the 10th day and cultured in blood agar and Eosin methylene blue agar. Bacterial sensitivity tests were done by disk diffusion. Results: The average time to cord separation was 8.2 ± 1.74 days (group B: 9.1 ± 2.1 days, group CP: 8.7 ± 1.82 days, group D: 6.8 ± 1.3 days), which was shorter in group D (P= 0.048). The positive culture rates were 77.8% in group B, 78.1% in group CP, and 74.6% in group D, which were not significantly different between the groups (P = 0.073). Staphylococcus aureus was the most common isolated species. Staphylococcus epidermis and Escherichia coli were the other most common species. Conclusions: Bathing with or without cleaners is safe. No-bath and water bath with or without cleaners had no difference in the rate and type of bacterial culture in umbilical cord but the cord separation time was shorter in the no-bath group. Therefore, in the first week, if a mother does not believe in bathing her baby, she should not be denounced and told that she did something wrong with cord hygiene.

Recommendation for hygiene and topical in neonatology from the French Neonatal Society

We sought to establish guidelines for hygiene care in newborns based on a systematic review of the literature and grading of evidence using the Groupe de Réflexion et d'Evaluation de l'Environement des Nouveau-nés (GREEN) methodology. We examined 45 articles and 4 reports from safety agencies. These studies recommend a tub bath (rather than a sponge bath) for full-term infants and a swaddle bath for preterm newborns. They also recommend against daily cleansing of preterm infants. The literature emphasized that hygiene care must consider the clinical state of the newborn, including the level of awareness and behavioral responses. Hospitalized newborns treated with topical agents may also experience high exposure to potentially harmful excipients of interest. Caregivers should therefore be aware of the excipients present in the different products they use. In high-resource countries, the available data do not support the use of protective topical agents for preterm infants.Conclusions: We recommend individualization of hygiene care for newborns. There is increasing concern regarding the safety of excipients in topical agents that are used in neonatology. A multidisciplinary approach should be used to identify an approach that requires lower levels of excipients and alternative excipients. What is known: • Hygiene care is one of the most basic and widespread types of care received by healthy and sick newborns worldwide. • There is no current guideline on hygiene for preterm or hospitalized term newborn. What is new: • The French Group of Reflection and Evaluation of the environment of Newborns (GREEN) provided here guidelines based on the current body of evidence. • Caregivers should be aware of the many issues related to hygiene care of newborns including newborns' behavioral responses to hygiene care, exposition to excipients of interest, and the potential risk of protective topical agents in a preterm infant. provided here guidelines based on the current body of evidence. • Caregivers should be aware of the many issues related to hygiene care of newborns including newborns' possible behavioral responses to hygiene care, exposition to excipients of interest and the potential risk of protective topical agents in a preterm infant.

Infant skin care: updates and recommendations

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Neonatal skin acclimates rapidly to dry, aerobic conditions at birth and skin function gradually matures throughout infancy. Gentle skin care practices support the ongoing development and function of newborn skin. This article reviews research updates and current skin care recommendations for full-term infants, premature infants, and infants born with severe cutaneous manifestations of genetic skin disorders.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although safe early bathing of full-term infants with environmental controls is possible, delaying the first newborn bath for 12-24 h of life offers benefits of increased parental bonding and breastfeeding success. Swaddled bathing every 4 days is an effective bathing strategy for premature neonates. Among infants with a family history of atopic dermatitis, regular application of bland skin moisturizers reduces their risk of developing the disease. For newborns with erosive or blistering genetic skin conditions, use of specialized wound dressings and emollients promotes wound healing and helps limit skin damage. Environmental control with humidified incubators helps prevent life-threatening hypernatremic dehydration among babies born with collodion membranes; however, affected infants can tolerate breaks outside of the humidifier to promote parent-infant bonding.

SUMMARY

This article reviews infant skin care recommendations relevant to pediatric practice. Research to further optimize newborn skin care is ongoing, particularly, for the special populations of premature neonates and infants born with severe skin disease.

Newborn Skin Care

The skin serves as a unique barrier from the outside world and undergoes critical changes during its development and maturation. This article reviews evidence-based recommendations for the routine care of newborn skin that should be integrated into the pediatrician's practice. [Pediatr Ann. 2019;48(1):e11-e15.].

Evidence-based skin care in preterm infants

Most guidelines on neonatal skin care emphasize issues pertaining to healthy, term infants. Few address the complex task of skin barrier maintenance in preterm, very preterm, and extremely preterm infants. Here, we provide an evidence-based review of the literature on skin care of preterm neonates. Interestingly, the stratum corneum does not fully develop until late in the third trimester, and as such, the barrier function of preterm skin is significantly compromised. Numerous interventions are available to augment the weak skin barrier of neonates. Plastic wraps reduce the incidence of hypothermia while semipermeable and transparent adhesive dressings improve skin quality and decrease the incidence of electrolyte abnormalities. Tub bathing causes less body temperature variability than sponge bathing and can be performed as infrequently as once every four days without increasing bacterial colonization of the skin. Topical emollients, particularly sunflower seed oil, appear to reduce the incidence of skin infections in premature neonates-but only in developing countries. In developed countries, studies indicate that topical petrolatum ointment increases the risk of candidemia and coagulase-negative Staphylococcus infection in the preterm population, perhaps by creating a milieu similar to occlusive dressings. For preterm infants with catheters, povidone-iodine and chlorhexidine are comparably effective at preventing catheter colonization. Further studies are necessary to examine the safety and efficacy of various skin care interventions in premature infants with an emphasis placed on subclassifying the patient population. In the interim, it may be beneficial to develop guidelines based on the current body of evidence.