Efficacy and tolerance assessment of a new type of dermocosmetic in infants and children with moderate atopic dermatitis

Topical Treatments in Atopic Dermatitis: An Expansive Review

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common inflammatory skin condition found worldwide. It impacts patient quality of life (QoL) and is thought to arise as an inflammatory response to epidermal barrier dysfunction and hypersensitivity. AD can lead to large out-of-pocket costs and increased healthcare expenses over a lifetime. An analysis of all randomized control trials conducted since 1990 on topical therapies for AD were reviewed, including 207 trials in the final analysis. It was found that an average of 226 patients were enrolled over 2.43 arms. Common topical treatments included corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, JAK inhibitors, and phosphodiesterase inhibitors. The most utilized tools to identify treatment efficacy were the EASI, IGA, SCORAD, and PGA. There was a paucity of data on trials that evaluated efficacy, QoL, and cost of treatment simultaneously. This review highlights the need for comprehensive trials that evaluate multiple aspects of treatment, including financial cost and QoL impact, to ensure each patient has the best treatment modality for the management of their AD.

Monitoring Sleep and Scratch Improves Quality of Life in Patients with Atopic Dermatitis

Atopic dermatitis itch may cause sleep disturbance and impair quality of life. For patients finding topical therapy difficult to continue, it is important to control itch and reduce scratching. This study developed algorithms to measure nocturnal sleep and scratch, using an actigraph device worn on the back of the hand, and assessed smartphone application feedback to improve adherence with therapy. In the first trial, actigraph measurements in 5 participants who wore the device were highly correlated with measurements by a sleep-monitoring device beneath the mattress. Total actigraph-measured scratching duration for each hour of sleep was highly correlated with measurements by a person rating infrared video-recording of the sleepers. In the second trial, 40 patients with atopic dermatitis were randomly allocated into an intervention group that used the actigraph and smartphone application, and a control group that did not. Both groups were instructed to use the same moisturizer. Dermatology Life Quality Index scores decreased significantly from baseline and were lower than those in the control group at week 8. It is suggested that the device and associated smartphone application reinforced therapy adherence, moisturizer use, and contributed to improved quality of life in patients with atopic dermatitis.

How and what adverse events are reported and captured in randomized control trials of emollients in the treatment of eczema?

BACKGROUND

Emollients are universally recommended for atopic dermatitis/eczema ('eczema'), to improve the skin barrier and reduce symptoms. However, our knowledge of the frequency and nature of adverse effects associated with their use is limited.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to determine how well adverse events are reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of emollients for eczema.

METHODS

MEDLINE was searched from inception (1946) to May 2022. Inclusion criteria were RCTs of moisturizers or emollients used as a leave-on treatment (as the intervention or control) in adults or children with eczema. Exclusion criteria were non-RCTs; patients with other diagnoses included; use of emollient as bath additives, soap substitutes or as preventative; and not published in English. References of eligible papers were reviewed for any additional, relevant research. Data were extracted into an Excel spreadsheet and analysed descriptively. An assessment of study quality was carried out using the Joanna Briggs Institute tool for RCTs.

RESULTS

From 369 potential papers, 35 papers (reporting on 34 studies) were included. Most research was conducted in research centres or hospitals (unclear in 34%). In total, 89% reported collecting data on adverse events related to emollient treatment use but the methods used were poorly reported (40% unclear). Four papers used patient questionnaires/diaries. However, it was unclear how and what was collected as only two studies showed the questionnaires used.

CONCLUSIONS

Reporting of adverse events related to emollient use in trials of patients with eczema is poor and inconsistent. Agreement should be reached on how and what adverse events should be collected, to standardize reporting across studies.

Evaluation of the Efficacy of an Ecobiological Dermo-Cosmetic Product to Help Manage and Prevent Relapses of Eyelid Atopic Dermatitis

Purpose

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic relapsing, inflammatory disease which causes eczematous lesions. Itching and symptoms visibility can have a significant impact on quality of life. This is the case when eyelids are affected. Therefore, we evaluated a dermo-cosmetic product designed to care AD on eyelids.

Subjects and Methods

An initial analysis of the product included 20 healthy women with no AD signs. A clinical evaluation of the effect of the product on AD sign severity was performed on 33 subjects presenting AD symptoms on eyelids. We also analyzed the product's capacity to prevent relapses in a parallel group clinical evaluation performed on 66 subjects.

Results

First, on the forearm skin of healthy subjects, the product reduces erythema and decreases transepidermal water loss when used for 28 days. Second, when clinically evaluated on subjects with eyelid symptoms undergoing a corticoid treatment, the product leads to reduced AD signs scored by a dermatologist, better self-evaluation of symptoms by subjects, and improved quality of life. Besides, upon assessment in a randomized controlled clinical evaluation with subjects prone to AD relapses but without symptoms, the product also drastically reduces relapse frequency. If erythema reduction is the only sign identified by a dermatologist, the product greatly and rapidly improves the quality of life of subjects.

Conclusion

These effects can be explained by the known actions of the product's ingredients. Rich in hydrating compounds, fatty acids and anti-inflammatory compounds, it aims at maintaining and restoring the epidermis structure and function to preserve it from irritants. It effectively shows that a daily care and hygiene routine with a dermo-cosmetic product designed according to an ecobiological approach leads to objective improvement of AD and subjective perception of quality of life.

The Role of a Novel Generation of Emollients, 'Emollients Plus', in Atopic Dermatitis

Emollients are the mainstay maintenance treatment for atopic dermatitis (AD). A novel generation of emollients, 'emollients plus', containing active, non-medicated substances, has softened the distinction between emollients and topical drugs. A literature search for selected key words was performed using PubMed. Additional papers were identified based on author expertise. Whilst the inclusion of five components of an ideal emollient has been proposed, no such consensus exists for emollients plus and they can vary markedly in their composition and modes of action for AD treatment. This could have a profound effect on their clinical efficacy. The efficacy of emollients plus in restoring and maintaining skin barrier function has been demonstrated on multiple levels, with evidence reported for their effects on the physical and biochemical, microbial, immunological, and neurosensory barriers. When selecting an appropriate AD treatment approach, the safety profiles of the available topical therapies must be carefully considered. There are several proposed treatment approaches for AD, including preventive, proactive, intermittent, and synergistic approaches. Emollients plus may be effective not only as maintenance therapy for AD, but also when used synergistically with anti-inflammatory pharmacological therapies.

Strategies for using topical corticosteroids in children and adults with eczema

BACKGROUND

Eczema is a common skin condition. Although topical corticosteroids have been a first-line treatment for eczema for decades, there are uncertainties over their optimal use.

OBJECTIVES

To establish the effectiveness and safety of different ways of using topical corticosteroids for treating eczema.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched databases to January 2021 (Cochrane Skin Specialised Register; CENTRAL; MEDLINE; Embase; GREAT) and five clinical trials registers. We checked bibliographies from included trials to identify further trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in adults and children with eczema that compared at least two strategies of topical corticosteroid use. We excluded placebo comparisons, other than for trials that evaluated proactive versus reactive treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods, with GRADE certainty of evidence for key findings. Primary outcomes were changes in clinician-reported signs and relevant local adverse events. Secondary outcomes were patient-reported symptoms and relevant systemic adverse events. For local adverse events, we prioritised abnormal skin thinning as a key area of concern for healthcare professionals and patients.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 104 trials (8443 participants). Most trials were conducted in high-income countries (81/104), most likely in outpatient or other hospital settings. We judged only one trial to be low risk of bias across all domains. Fifty-five trials had high risk of bias in at least one domain, mostly due to lack of blinding or missing outcome data. Stronger-potency versus weaker-potency topical corticosteroids Sixty-three trials compared different potencies of topical corticosteroids: 12 moderate versus mild, 22 potent versus mild, 25 potent versus moderate, and 6 very potent versus potent. Trials were usually in children with moderate or severe eczema, where specified, lasting one to five weeks. The most reported outcome was Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) of clinician-reported signs of eczema. We pooled four trials that compared moderate- versus mild-potency topical corticosteroids (420 participants). Moderate-potency topical corticosteroids probably result in more participants achieving treatment success, defined as cleared or marked improvement on IGA (52% versus 34%; odds ratio (OR) 2.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.41 to 3.04; moderate-certainty evidence). We pooled nine trials that compared potent versus mild-potency topical corticosteroids (392 participants). Potent topical corticosteroids probably result in a large increase in number achieving treatment success (70% versus 39%; OR 3.71, 95% CI 2.04 to 6.72; moderate-certainty evidence). We pooled 15 trials that compared potent versus moderate-potency topical corticosteroids (1053 participants). There was insufficient evidence of a benefit of potent topical corticosteroids compared to moderate topical corticosteroids (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.89; moderate-certainty evidence). We pooled three trials that compared very potent versus potent topical corticosteroids (216 participants). The evidence is uncertain with a wide confidence interval (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.09; low-certainty evidence). Twice daily or more versus once daily application We pooled 15 of 25 trials in this comparison (1821 participants, all reported IGA). The trials usually assessed adults and children with moderate or severe eczema, where specified, using potent topical corticosteroids, lasting two to six weeks. Applying potent topical corticosteroids only once a day probably does not decrease the number achieving treatment success compared to twice daily application (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.38; 15 trials, 1821 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Local adverse events Within the trials that tested 'treating eczema flare-up' strategies, we identified only 26 cases of abnormal skin thinning from 2266 participants (1% across 22 trials). Most cases were from the use of higher-potency topical corticosteroids (16 with very potent, 6 with potent, 2 with moderate and 2 with mild). We assessed this evidence as low certainty, except for very potent versus potent topical corticosteroids, which was very low-certainty evidence.  Longer versus shorter-term duration of application for induction of remission No trials were identified. Twice weekly application (weekend, or 'proactive therapy') to prevent relapse (flare-ups) versus no topical corticosteroids/reactive application Nine trials assessed this comparison, generally lasting 16 to 20 weeks. We pooled seven trials that compared weekend (proactive) topical corticosteroids therapy versus no topical corticosteroids (1179 participants, children and adults with a range of eczema severities, though mainly moderate or severe). Weekend (proactive) therapy probably results in a large decrease in likelihood of a relapse from 58% to 25% (risk ratio (RR) 0.43, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.57; 7 trials, 1149 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Local adverse events We did not identify any cases of abnormal skin thinning in seven trials that assessed skin thinning (1050 participants) at the end of treatment. We assessed this evidence as low certainty. Other comparisons  Other comparisons included newer versus older preparations of topical corticosteroids (15 trials), cream versus ointment (7 trials), topical corticosteroids with wet wrap versus no wet wrap (6 trials), number of days per week applied (4 trials), different concentrations of the same topical corticosteroids (2 trials), time of day applied (2 trials), topical corticosteroids alternating with topical calcineurin inhibitors versus topical corticosteroids alone (1 trial), application to wet versus dry skin (1 trial) and application before versus after emollient (1 trial). No trials compared branded versus generic topical corticosteroids and time between application of emollient and topical corticosteroids.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Potent and moderate topical corticosteroids are probably more effective than mild topical corticosteroids, primarily in moderate or severe eczema; however, there is uncertain evidence to support any advantage of very potent over potent topical corticosteroids. Effectiveness is similar between once daily and twice daily (or more) frequent use of potent topical corticosteroids to treat eczema flare-ups, and topical corticosteroids weekend (proactive) therapy is probably better than no topical corticosteroids/reactive use to prevent eczema relapse (flare-ups). Adverse events were not well reported and came largely from low- or very low-certainty, short-term trials. In trials that reported abnormal skin thinning, frequency was low overall and increased with increasing potency. We found no trials on the optimum duration of treatment of a flare, branded versus generic topical corticosteroids, and time to leave between application of topical corticosteroids and emollient. There is a need for longer-term trials, in people with mild eczema.

Efficacy of Nonprescription Moisturizers for Atopic Dermatitis: An Updated Review of Clinical Evidence

Twice-daily moisturization is recommended by international guidelines as the bedrock of the management of atopic dermatitis (AD). Moisturizers should be selected based on proven clinical effectiveness in improving the skin barrier and improving the symptoms of AD. We searched the PubMed database for clinical trials assessing daily moisturization for the treatment of AD published between 2006 and 2019. Studies had to assess the efficacy of commercially available moisturizers using objective measures of corneometry, transepidermal water loss, or incidence of flare as endpoints, and treatments had to be currently available to patients. Clinical studies showed that moisturization (typically twice daily) significantly improved the skin barrier in adults and children with AD. Longer-term flare studies showed that daily moisturization reduced the incidence of flares and extended the time between flares. Proactive moisturization of infants at high risk of developing AD may reduce its manifestation. Therapeutic moisturizers for AD are specifically formulated with ingredients that target symptoms of AD, such as itch, inflammation, or compromised skin barrier. The US FDA requires that any moisturizer available in the USA and claiming to treat AD must contain colloidal oatmeal. Healthcare providers can maximize compliance and outcomes by educating patients on the benefits of liberally applying a therapeutic moisturizer twice daily to support the skin barrier and help reduce the incidence of flares. Specific recommendations should be for clinically tested moisturizers evaluated using objective, validated skin assessments.

Novel petrolatum-based ointment that is highly moisturizing and has superior usability with increased adherence in patients with facial dry skin

BACKGROUND

Petrolatum is often used to suppress water evaporation from the skin surface. However, its stickiness, shininess, and other factors make it inconvenient for continuous use.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness and usability between a newly developed petrolatum-based ointment (NOV^® II Moisture Balm) and white petrolatum.

METHODS

Twenty-nine subjects with atopic dermatitis or xeroderma with symptoms of dry skin applied NOV^® II Moisture Balm on the right sides of the face and white petrolatum on the left side, respectively, for 8-12 weeks. The skin conditions (erythema, exudate/crusting, dryness, and itch) were scored, stratum corneum water content and transepidermal water loss (TEWL) were measured, and the free amino acid and thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP) levels in the stratum corneum were analyzed before and end of the trial.

RESULTS

Dryness, exudate/crusting, and TEWL decreased significantly on both the white petrolatum and the NOV^® II Moisture Balm sides, while stratum corneum water content and the free amino acid levels in the stratum corneum increased significantly. On the NOV^® II Moisture Balm side, erythema and the TSLP levels decreased significantly. In a questionnaire on usability, the subjects felt NOV^® II Moisture Balm spread better and were less sticky and shiny than white petrolatum, and more subjects wanted to continue using NOV^® II Moisture Balm.

CONCLUSIONS

NOV^® II Moisture Balm was equivalent to white petrolatum in moisturizing and improving the physiologic functions of the skin, but had superior usability.

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.

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.

Emollients and moisturizers for eczema: abridged Cochrane systematic review including GRADE assessments

Eczema is a chronic inflammatory skin disorder with considerable impact on quality of life. Emollients or moisturizers are widely recommended, but are these effective and safe? We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Skin Register, CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, the GREAT database and five trial registers to December 2015. We included 77 RCTs with 6603 participants. Seven studies (9%) were at low risk of bias, 34 (44%) had unclear risk and 36 (47%) were at high risk. The quality of the evidence was mainly low or moderate for the prespecified outcomes. The most important comparison, 'moisturizer vs. no moisturizer', showed improved Scoring Atopic Dermatitis values in the moisturizer group compared with no moisturizer [mean difference -2·42, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4·55 to -0·28], but did not meet the minimal important difference of 8·7. Fewer flares were seen (risk ratio 0·40, 95% CI 0·23-0·70) and the rate of flares was reduced (hazard ratio 3·74, 95% CI 1·86-7·50). The groups applying moisturizer used less topical corticosteroids over 6-8 weeks (mean difference -9·30 g, 95% CI 15·3 to -3·27). Glycyrrhetinic acid-, urea- and glycerol-containing creams worked better than their controls (vehicle, placebo or no moisturizer) according to both participants and physicians. More flares were reported with moisturizer alone than when combined with twice-weekly fluticasone propionate (risk ratio 2·17, 95% CI 1·55-3·11). Adding moisturizers to topical anti-inflammatory treatment was more effective than anti-inflammatory treatment alone and resulted in fewer flares.

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.

Microbiome in healthy skin, update for dermatologists

The skin is a complex barrier organ made of a symbiotic relationship between microbial communities and host tissue via complex signals provided by the innate and the adaptive immune systems. It is constantly exposed to various endogenous and exogenous factors which impact this balanced system potentially leading to inflammatory skin conditions comprising infections, allergies or autoimmune diseases. Unlike the gut and stool microbiome which has been studied and described for many years, investigations on the skin or scalp microbiome only started recently. Researchers in microbiology and dermatology started using modern methods such as pyrosequencing assays of bacterial 16S rRNA genes to identify and characterize the different microorganisms present on the skin, to evaluate the bacterial diversity and their relative abundance and to understand how microbial diversity may contribute to skin health and dermatological conditions. This article aims to provide an overview on the knowledge about the skin microbiota, the microbiome and their importance in dermatology.