Lack of evidence for a protective effect of prolonged breastfeeding on childhood eczema: lessons from the International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood (ISAAC) Phase Two

BACKGROUND

Exclusive breastfeeding for at least 4 months is recommended by many governments and allergy organizations to prevent allergic disease.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether exclusive breastfeeding protects against childhood eczema.

METHODS

Study subjects comprised 51,119 randomly selected 8- to 12-year-old schoolchildren in 21 countries. Information on eczema and breastfeeding was gathered by parental questionnaire. Children were also examined for flexural eczema and underwent skin prick testing. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for each study centre and then pooled across populations.

RESULTS

There was a small increase in the risk of reported 'eczema ever' in association with 'breastfeeding ever' and breastfeeding < 6 months [pooled adjusted OR 1·11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1·00-1·22 and OR 1·10, 95% CI 1·02-1·20, respectively]. There was no significant association between reported 'eczema ever' and breastfeeding > 6 months (pooled adjusted OR 1·09, 95% CI 0·94-1·26). Risk estimates were very similar for exclusive breastfeeding < 2 months, 2-4 months and > 4 months and for eczema symptoms in the past 12 months and eczema on skin examination. As for more severe eczema, breastfeeding per se conveyed a risk reduction on sleep disturbed eczema (pooled adjusted OR 0·71, 95% CI 0·53-0·96), but this effect was lost where children had been exclusively breastfed for > 4 months (pooled adjusted OR 1·02, 95% CI 0·67-1·54). Allergic sensitization and a history of maternal allergic disease did not modify any of these findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there was a protective effect of ever having been breastfed on more severe disease, we found no evidence that exclusive breastfeeding for 4 months or longer protects against eczema. Our results are consistent with findings from a recent systematic review of prospective studies. The U.K. breastfeeding guidelines with regard to eczema should be reviewed. Intervention studies are now required to explore how and when solids should be introduced alongside breastfeeding to aid protection against eczema and other allergic diseases.

Overview of Reviews The prevention of eczema in infants and children: an overview of Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews

BACKGROUND: Eczema is the most common inflammatory skin disease of childhood, characterized by an itchy red rash that usually involves the face and skin folds. There is currently no curative treatment for eczema, so the reduction of eczema incidence through disease prevention is a desirable goal. Potential interventions for preventing eczema include exclusive breastfeeding, hydrolysed protein formulas and soy formulas when bottle feeding, maternal antigen avoidance, omega oil supplementation, prebiotics and probiotics. OBJECTIVES: This overview of reviews aims to present the current body of data from Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews to provide the most up-to-date evidence on the efficacy and safety of interventions to prevent eczema in infants and children at different risk levels for developing allergic disease. METHODS: Our pool of Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews came from the 2010 United Kingdom National Health Service (NHS) Evidence Skin Disorders Annual Evidence Updates Mapping Exercise on Atopic Eczema. This group used a comprehensive search strategy last conducted in August 2010 to identify all systematic reviews on eczema prevention. We identified all reviews that met our pre-specified inclusion criteria, and data were extracted, analysed, compiled into tables and synthesized using quantitative and qualitative methods. MAIN RESULTS: Seven systematic reviews containing 39 relevant trials with 11 897 participants were included in this overview. Overall, there was no clear evidence that any of the main interventions reviewed reduced eczema incidence. In subgroup analyses of infants at high risk of allergic disease, an observational study found that exclusive breastfeeding for at least six months compared with introduction of solids at three to six months decreased the incidence of eczema by 60% (risk ratio (RR): 0.40; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.21, 0.78), and a randomized controlled trial found that prebiotics compared with no prebiotics decreased incidence by 58% (RR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.21, 0.84). However, each of these findings was based on the results of a single small trial, and no intervention reduced eczema incidence beyond the first two years of life. Although we pre-specified incidence of atopic eczema (i.e. eczema associated with immunoglobulin E (IgE) sensitization) as a primary outcome, data on whether participants diagnosed with eczema were truly atopic were largely lacking from systematic reviews. Similarly, data on atopy, measured using skin prick tests or specific IgE tests to allergens, were not reported in many reviews. No interventions were found to decrease atopy when reported. Adverse events data were generally lacking, but data from a trial of probiotics versus no probiotics showed significantly more spitting up in the first one (RR: 1.88; 95% CI: 1.03, 3.45) and two (RR: 1.69; 95% CI: 1.02, 2.80) months of life, but no overall increase in risk of gastrointestinal symptoms in the first year. AUTHORS#ENTITYSTARTX02019; CONCLUSIONS: Although there is currently no clear evidence showing that any of the interventions examined in this overview prevent eczema in participants not selected for risk of allergic disease, there is some evidence that exclusive breastfeeding for at least six months and prebiotics might reduce eczema incidence in high-risk participants. However, these conclusions are based on limited evidence with methodological shortcomings. Future research on prevention of eczema is needed and should examine different types of hydrolysed formulas, prebiotics and probiotics, as well as enhancement of the skin barrier and other novel approaches in infants at different risk levels for developing allergic disease.

What's new in skin cancer? An analysis of guidelines and systematic reviews published in 2008-2009

This review summarizes clinically important findings from 17 systematic reviews and 2 guidelines on skin cancer indexed between April 2008 and April 2009. Melanoma primary-prevention measures, such as education, are more likely to be successful in younger children than adolescents, and general population screening for melanoma by whole-body examination is not currently supported by the evidence. A large systematic review of melanoma and pregnancy concluded that pregnancy does not affect prognosis. Two systematic reviews imply that sunburn later in life also increases the risk of melanoma, and that it is just as important as sunburn early in life. Three systematic reviews discussed the role of positron emission tomography and sentinel lymph-node biopsy for melanoma staging, but produced conflicting results. Superior diagnostic accuracy of dermatoscopy over naked-eye examination for melanoma was found in one review, while a second implied nonsignificantly higher sensitivity of computer-based diagnostic methods over dermatoscopy for melanoma but with reduced specificity. There were no identified randomized controlled trials of treatments for unresectable recurrent melanoma, and a review of immunotherapy with vaccines for melanoma failed to prove improved overall and disease-free survival. Guidelines for the management of basal cell carcinoma call for risk stratification, based on numerous factors including tumour size, site and histological subtype. Squamous cell carcinoma of the ear has been shown to spread to regional lymph nodes more commonly than to other sites, and may be predicted by depth of invasion, tumour size, cellular differentiation and completeness of excision.

A multicentre randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of ion-exchange water softeners for the treatment of eczema in children: the Softened Water Eczema Trial (SWET)

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether installation of an ion-exchange water softener in the home could improve atopic eczema in children and, if so, to establish its likely cost and cost-effectiveness.

DESIGN

An observer-blind, parallel-group randomised controlled trial of 12 weeks duration followed by a 4-week observational period. Eczema was assessed by research nurses blinded to intervention at baseline, 4 weeks, 12 weeks and 16 weeks. The primary outcome was analysed as intent-to-treat, using the randomised allocation rather than actual treatment received. A secondary per-protocol analysis excluded participants who failed to receive their allocated treatment and who were deemed to be protocol violators.

SETTING

Secondary and primary care referral centres in England (UK) serving a variety of ethnic and social groups and including children living in both urban and periurban homes.

PARTICIPANTS

Three hundred and thirty-six children (aged 6 months to 16 years) with moderate/severe atopic eczema, living in homes in England supplied by hard water (≥ 200 mg/l calcium carbonate).

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomised to either installation of an ion-exchange water softener plus usual eczema care (group A) for 12 weeks or usual eczema care alone (group B) for 12 weeks. This was followed by a 4-week observational period, during which water softeners were switched off/removed from group A homes and installed in group B homes. Standard procedure was to soften all water in the home, but to provide mains (hard) water at a faucet-style tap in the kitchen for drinking and cooking. Participants were therefore exposed to softened water for bathing and washing of clothes, but continued to drink mains (hard) water. Usual care was defined as any treatment that the child was currently using in order to control his or her eczema. New treatment regimens used during the trial period were documented.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome was the difference between group A and group B in mean change in disease severity at 12 weeks compared with baseline, as measured using the Six Area, Six Sign Atopic Dermatitis (SASSAD) score. This is an objective severity scale completed by blinded observers (research nurses) unaware of the allocated intervention. Secondary outcomes included use of topical medications, night-time movement, patient-reported eczema severity and a number of quality of life measures. A planned subgroup analysis was conducted, based on participants with at least one mutation in the gene encoding filaggrin (a protein in the skin thought to be important for normal skin barrier function).

RESULTS

Target recruitment was achieved (n = 336). The analysed population included 323 children who had complete data. The mean change in primary outcome (SASSAD) at 12 weeks was -5.0 [standard deviation (SD) 8.8] for the water softener group (group A) and -5.7 (SD 9.8) for the usual care group (group B) [mean difference 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.37 to 2.69, p = 0.53]. The per-protocol analysis supported the main analysis, and there was no evidence that the treatment effect varied between children with and without mutations in the filaggrin gene. No between-group differences were found in the three secondary outcomes that were assessed blindly (use of topical medications; night-time movement; proportion showing reasonable, good or excellent improvement). Small, but statistically significant, differences in favour of the water softener were found in three of the secondary outcomes that were assessed by participants [Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM); well-controlled weeks (WCWs); Dermatitis Family Index (DFI)]. The results of the economic evaluation, and the uncertainty surrounding them, suggest that ion-exchange water softeners are unlikely to be a cost-effective intervention for children with atopic eczema from an NHS perspective.

CONCLUSIONS

Water softeners provided no additional benefit to usual care in this study population. Small, but statistically significant, differences were found in some secondary outcomes as reported by parents, but it is likely that such improvements were the result of response bias. Whether or not the wider benefits of installing a water softener in the home are sufficient to justify the purchase of a softener is something for individual householders to consider on a case-by-case basis. This trial demonstrated overwhelming demand for non-pharmacological interventions for the treatment of eczema, and this is something that should be considered when prioritising future research in the field.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN71423189.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 15, No. 8. See the HTA programme website for further project information. Results of this trial are also published at www.plosmedicine.org.

Mapping randomized controlled trials of treatments for eczema--the GREAT database (the Global Resource of EczemA Trials: a collection of key data on randomized controlled trials of treatments for eczema from 2000 to 2010)

Background

Massive duplication of effort occurs when researchers all over the world undertake extensive searches for randomized controlled trials when preparing systematic reviews, when developing evidence-based guidelines and when applying for research funding for eczema treatments. Such duplication wastes valuable resources.

Searching for randomized controlled trials of eczema is a laborious task involving scrutiny of thousands of individual references from diverse electronic databases in order to obtain a few papers of interest. Clinicians and patients who wish to find out more about a particular treatment are at risk of missing the relevant evidence if they are not trained in electronic bibliographic searching. Systematic reviews cannot be relied upon to comprehensively inform current optimal eczema treatments due to incomplete coverage and because many may be out of date.

An international, publically available and comprehensive resource which brings together all randomized controlled trials on eczema treatment using a highly sensitive search has the potential to release more filtered knowledge about patient care to those who need it most and to significantly shorten the duration and costs of many clinical eczema research and guideline projects.

Description

The Global Resource of EczemA Trials brings together information on all randomized controlled trials of eczema treatments published from the beginning of 2000 up to the end of 2010 and will be updated every month.

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in The Cochrane Library and the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, AMED and CINHAL databases. We included 268 RCTs (24^th March 2011) covering over 70 different treatment interventions.

The structure of the Global Resource of Eczema Trials allows the user as much, or as little, specificity when retrieving information on trials as they wish, in an easy to use format. For each trial, the database gives the citation for the published report and also provides enough information to enable a user to decide whether the trial is worth further scrutiny.

Conclusions

The Global Resource of Eczema Trials has been created to facilitate knowledge mobilization into healthcare and to reduce wastage of research time through unnecessary duplication. The collective time saved by research groups around the world can now be used to make strides in optimising the treatment of eczema, in order to further benefit people with eczema. The database can be accessed free of charge at http://www.greatdatabase.org.uk

What's new in atopic eczema? An analysis of systematic reviews published in 2008 and 2009

This review summarizes clinically important findings from nine systematic reviews of the causes, treatment and prevention of atopic eczema (AE) published between August 2008 and August 2009. Two systematic reviews concluded that there is a strong and consistent association between filaggrin (FLG) mutations and development of eczema. The associations between FLG mutations and atopic sensitization, rhinitis and asthma are weaker than between FLG mutations and eczema, especially if those who also have eczema are excluded. The relationship between transforming growth factor levels in breast milk and eczema development is still unclear. A further systematic review found no strong evidence of a protective effect of exclusive breastfeeding for at least 3 months against eczema, even in those with a positive family history of atopy. Based on a systematic review and meta-analysis of six randomized controlled trials, supplementation with omega-3 and omega-6 oils is unlikely to play an important role in the primary prevention of eczema or allergic diseases in general. There is little evidence to support dietary restrictions of certain foods in unselected children with AE. There is also little evidence to suggest a clinically useful benefit from using probiotics in patients with established eczema. A systematic review of topical pimecrolimus and tacrolimus added little additional information to previous reviews, and did not provide any new data on long-term safety. Both of these drugs work in AE, and may reduce flares and usage of topical corticosteroids; however, there is still uncertainty about how they compare with topical corticosteroids.

Validation of epidemiological tools for eczema diagnosis in Brazilian children: the ISAAC's and UK Working Party's criteria

Background

Instruments for field diagnosis of eczema are increasingly used, and it is essential to understand specific limitations to make best use of their strengths. Our objective was to assess the validity of ISAAC and UK Working Party criteria for field diagnosis of eczema in children.

Methods

We performed a cohort study in urban Brazil. Parents/guardians of 1,419 children answered ISAAC phase II questionnaire. Children were examined for skin lesions (UKWP protocol). Two dermatologists examined most cases of eczema (according to ISAAC or UKWP), and a sample without eczema.

Results

Agreement between repeat questionnaires on the filter question was poor (kappa = 0.4). Agreement between the 2 dermatologists was fair (kappa = 0.6). False positive reports included scabies in 39% of ISAAC cases and 33% of UKWP cases. Sensitivity and PPV were low (ISAAC: 37.1% and 16.1%; UKWP: 28.6% and 23.8%). Specificity and NPV were high (ISAAC: 90.0% and 96.6%; UKWP: 95.3% and 96.2%). One-year prevalence of eczema was 11.3% (ISAAC), 5.9% (UKWP) and 4.9% (adjusted dermatologist diagnosis). Point prevalence of scabies (alone or not) was 43%, 33% and 18%, in eczemas according to ISAAC, to UKWP and to dermatologists. The reasons why children with eczema were not identified by ISAAC or UKWP were wrongly denying dry skin, itchy rash or personal history of atopic diseases. A limitation is that questionnaire was already validated in Brazil, but not field tested in this specific setting.

Conclusions

Studies using UKWP or ISAAC criteria should include a validation arm, to contribute to the understanding of potential limitations of their use in different contexts and to explore solutions. We list specific recommendations.

What's new in acne? An analysis of systematic reviews published in 2009-2010

This review highlights clinically important findings about acne treatment identified in nine systematic reviews published or indexed in the period March 2009 to February 2010. A systematic review of dietary influences on acne suggested that a possible role of dietary factors in acne cannot be dismissed, as the studies to date have not been sufficiently large or robust. Another review looked at benzoyl peroxide, which may be enjoying a comeback because of increasing bacterial resistance to antibiotics, and suggested that there was a lack of evidence that stronger preparations were more effective than weaker ones. The same team also carried out a systematic review addressing the question of whether topical retinoids cause an initial worsening of acne. They found no evidence to suggest initial worsening of acne severity, although there was evidence of skin irritation that typically settled by 8-12 weeks. A review of oral isotretinoin and psychiatric side-effects reinforced a possible link between the two, although it pointed out that the better-quality primary studies were still inconclusive. An updated Cochrane Review confirmed the efficacy of combined oral contraceptives (COCs) in reducing acne lesion counts. It also found that the evidence to support COCs containing cyproterone acetate over others was very limited. Another Cochrane Review failed to show any benefit of spironolactone for acne, based on limited studies. Three reviews examined laser and light therapies, and found some evidence of superiority only for blue or blue/red light treatment over placebo light, but a general absence of comparisons against other acne treatments. Photodynamic therapy had consistent benefits over placebo but was associated with significant side-effects and was not shown to be better than topical adapalene.

A case report and critical appraisal of the literature on the use of DermaSilk in children with atopic dermatitis

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is easily aggravated by detergents, synthetic and woollen clothing, and bacterial colonization. Cotton clothing is often recommended for children with AD, but cotton can contain rough fibres that may act as skin irritants. In contrast, silk is characterized by smooth fibres with minimal potential for irritation. We report a sericin-free silk (DermaSilk), which is treated with AEGIS AEM5772/5, a product that has antibacterial properties, and evaluate its use in the treatment of AD.

Problems in the reporting of acne clinical trials: a spot check from the 2009 Annual Evidence Update on Acne Vulgaris

In the course of producing the 2009 NHS Evidence--skin disorders Annual Evidence Update on Acne Vulgaris, 25 randomised controlled trials were examined. From these, at least 12 potentially serious problems of trial reporting were identified. Several trials concluded no effect of a treatment yet they were insufficiently powered to exclude potentially useful benefits. There were examples of duplicate publication and "salami publication", as well as two trials being combined and reported as one. In some cases, an incorrect "within-groups" statistical comparison was made and one trial report omitted original efficacy data and included only P values. Both of the non-inferiority studies examined failed to pre-specify a non-inferiority margin. Trials reported as "double-blind" compared treatments that were dissimilar in appearance or had differing adverse effect profiles. In one case an intention-to-treat analysis was not performed and there was a failure to account for all of the randomized participants. Trial results were made to sound more impressive by selective outcome reporting, emphasizing the statistical significance of treatment effects that were clinically insignificant, and by the use of larger-sounding odds ratios rather than rate ratios for common events. Most of the reporting problems could have been avoided by use of the CONSORT guidelines and prospective trial registration on a public clinical trials database.

Interventions for preventing occupational irritant hand dermatitis

BACKGROUND

Occupational irritant hand dermatitis (OIHD) is an important cause of discomfort in the working population. Different preventive measures are in place but it is not clear how effective these are.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of interventions for preventing OIHD in healthy people who work in occupations where the skin is at risk of damage.

SEARCH STRATEGY

In May 2010, we searched the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in The Cochrane Library, MEDLlNE and EMBASE. Conference proceedings, and ongoing trials registers were also searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) studying the effectiveness of barrier creams, moisturisers, gloves, complex educational interventions, and other interventions for the prevention of OIHD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed the trials and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Four RCTs involving 894 participants from different occupations were included. The primary outcome was numbers of new cases.One large RCT of 708 print and dye workers compared 2 barrier creams (containing silicone or hydrocarbon) versus no intervention. Fewer workers using barrier creams developed OIHD than those who did not (39.9% versus 45%, (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.07. P = 0.11) but this was not statistically significant.In 1 RCT of 54 metal workers less developed OIHD when using an after work emollient or a barrier cream compared to no intervention. There was no statistical difference between the groups at different times of follow-up.One RCT of 111 cleaners and kitchen workers compared a moisturiser (Locobase) versus no intervention using a cross-over design. While using the moisturiser no participant developed OIHD. During the control period with no skin treatment, 19 (20.4%) out of 93 participants developed OIHD.One RCT of 21 hairdressers compared a barrier cream containing aluminium chlorohydrate (Excipial protect) versus its vehicle. No participant developed OIHD while the products were used.Only limited side-effects such as transient itching, stinging, and dryness were reported for the interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although the findings of this review were generally positive, no statistical significance was reached. We conclude that at present there is insufficient evidence for the effectiveness of most of the interventions used in the primary prevention of OIHD. This does not mean that current measures are necessarily ineffective, as the limited studies to date have been rather small and of poor quality. Larger well designed RCTs are now needed in different workplaces to establish the effectiveness of various preventative strategies.

The SINS trial: a randomised controlled trial of excisional surgery versus imiquimod 5% cream for nodular and superficial basal cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Basal cell carcinoma is the commonest human cancer. Despite increasing incidence it remains poorly researched. While not life threatening it can cause significant cosmetic disfigurement. Imiquimod, a cream which enhances the body's immune response, may help deal with the number of cases that occur in low-risk sites, especially when good cosmetic results and home use without surgery are needed.This study aims 1. To compare excisional surgery with imiquimod cream for nodular or superficial basal cell carcinoma in low risk sites, with respect to 3 year clinical clearance, cost-effectiveness and cosmetic results. 2. To ascertain if certain phenotypic features and gene polymorphisms predict tumour responsiveness to treatment.

METHODS/DESIGN

Five hundred participants with low risk nodular or superficial basal cell carcinoma will be recruited from hospitals to this multi-centre, randomised, parallel group, controlled phase III trial. Treatment in the imiquimod group is for 6 weeks for superficial basal cell carcinoma and 12 weeks for nodular basal cell carcinoma. Both treatment groups are followed up in clinic for 3 years. Primary outcome variable: the proportion of participants with clinical evidence of success (no recurrence) at 3 years. The primary outcome will be compared between the two treatment groups. Secondary outcomes include: i) clinical success at 1, 2 and 5 years, ii) time to first recurrence, iii) cosmetic appearance of lesion site after treatment, iv) level of pain, and v) cost-effectiveness. Safety and tolerability data will also be reported.

DISCUSSION

This study protocol describes a pragmatic randomised controlled trial which it is hoped will address the above uncertainties. Three-year results will be available towards the end of 2010.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Meta-register: NCT00066872, Eudract No. 2004-004506-24, ISRCTN48755084.

Cars, CONSORT 2010, and clinical practice

Just like you would not buy a car without key information such as service history, you would not "buy" a clinical trial report without key information such as concealment of allocation. Implementation of the updated CONSORT 2010 statement enables the reader to see exactly what was done in a trial, to whom and when. A fully "CONSORTed" trial report does not necessarily mean the trial is a good one, but at least the reader can make a judgement. Clear reporting is a pre-requisite for judgement of study quality. The CONSORT statement evolves as empirical research moves on. CONSORT 2010 is even clearer than before and includes some new items with a particular emphasis on selective reporting of outcomes. The challenge is for everyone to use it.