Interventions to reduce Staphylococcus aureus in the management of atopic eczema

A New Approach to Harness Probiotics Against Common Bacterial Skin Pathogens: Towards Living Antimicrobials

In this study, the potential of certain lactic acid bacteria—classified as probiotics and known to be antimicrobially active against pathogens or food-poisoning microorganisms—was evaluated with respect to their activity against bacterial skin pathogens. The aim of the study was to develop a plaster/bandage for the application of inhibitory substances produced by these probiotics when applied to diseased skin. For this purpose, two Streptococcus salivarius strains and one Lactobacillus plantarum were tested for production of antimicrobials (bacteriocin-like substances) active against Gram-positive and Gram-negative pathogens using established methods. A newly designed membrane test ensured that the probiotics produce antimicrobials diffusible through membranes. Target organisms used were Cutibacterium acnes, Staphylococcus aureus, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Moreover, the L. plantarum 8P-A3 strain was tested against additional bacteria involved in skin disorders. The Lactobacillales used were active against all potential skin pathogens tested. These probiotics could be enclosed between polymer membranes—one tight, the other permeable for their products, preserved by vacuum drying, and reactivated after at least three months storage. Importantly, the reactivated pads containing the probiotics demonstrated antibacterial activity on agar plates against all pathogens tested. This suggests that the probiotic containing pads may be topically applied for the treatment of skin disorders without the need for a regular antibiotic treatment or as an adjunctive therapy.

What is the evidence for the use of potassium permanganate for wound care?

Topics for Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin (DTB) review articles are selected by DTB's editorial board to provide concise overviews of medicines and other treatments to help patients get the best care. Articles include a summary of key points and a brief overview for patients. Articles may also have a series of multiple choice CME questions.

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.

A Real-Life Based Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Antibacterial Fabrics in Treating Atopic Dermatitis

BACKGROUND

Antibacterial clothes are classified as a complementary treatment in line with antisepsis, although meta-studies are unable to find significant improvements of eczemas.

METHODS

The antibacterial effectiveness of conventional AD clothes was compared across each other by (i) standard suspension tests for the appraisal of antibacterial products and (ii) a real-life setup of affected AD skin using S. aureus colonised artificial skin, to assess if functional clothes are effective under practical wear conditions. Additionally, the interaction of the fibre types with a moisturising cream was evaluated during a real wearing situation and after domestic laundry.

RESULTS

In the real-life setup simulating dry skin microenvironment, all samples failed to reduce S. aureus. Silver and zinc-fabrics showed a slight activity only under unrealistic moist conditions. When using standard suspension tests, samples differed considerably in their antibacterial effectiveness, where silver and zinc endowed fibres outperformed AEGIS endowed silk fabrics. Garments absorbed the cream dependent on the particular fibre types. Furthermore, domestic laundry was unable to completely remove the cream.

CONCLUSION

Considerable differences in the antibacterial effectiveness of conventional AD clothes were revealed. Under practical (dry) wear conditions, garments were unable to modify skin colonization with S. aureus, although effectiveness can be triggered by wetting the garments. Remnants of moisturising cream remain on the fibres after laundry.

A systematic literature review of the human skin microbiome as biomarker for dermatological drug development

AIMS

To explore the potential of the skin microbiome as biomarker in six dermatological conditions: atopic dermatitis (AD), acne vulgaris (AV), psoriasis vulgaris (PV), hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), seborrhoeic dermatitis/pityriasis capitis (SD/PC) and ulcus cruris (UC).

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. Two investigators independently reviewed the included studies and ranked the suitability microbiome implementation for early phase clinical studies in an adapted GRADE method.

RESULTS

In total, 841 papers were identified and after screening of titles and abstracts for eligibility we identified 42 manuscripts that could be included in the review. Eleven studies were included for AD, five for AV, 10 for PV, two for HS, four for SD and 10 for UC. For AD and AV, multiple studies report the relationship between the skin microbiome, disease severity and clinical response to treatment. This is currently lacking for the remaining conditions.

CONCLUSION

For two indications - AD and AV - there is preliminary evidence to support implementation of the skin microbiome as biomarkers in early phase clinical trials. For PV, UC, SD and HS there is insufficient evidence from the literature. More microbiome-directed prospective studies studying the effect of current treatments on the microbiome with special attention for patient meta-data, sampling methods and analysis methods are needed to draw more substantial conclusions.

Patients with Atopic Dermatitis Colonized with Staphylococcus aureus Have a Distinct Phenotype and Endotype

Patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) are commonly colonized with Staphylococcus aureus (AD S. aureus⁺), but what differentiates this group from noncolonized AD patients (AD S. aureus^-) has not been well studied. To evaluate whether these two groups have unique phenotypic or endotypic features, we performed a multicenter, cross-sectional study enrolling AD S. aureus⁺ (n = 51) and AD S. aureus^- (n = 45) participants defined by the presence or absence of S. aureus by routine culture techniques and nonatopic, noncolonized control individuals (NA S. aureus^-) (n = 46). Filaggrin (FLG) genotypes were determined, and disease severity (Eczema Area and Severity Index, Rajka-Langeland Severity Score, Investigator's Global Assessment score, Numerical Rating Scale, and Dermatology Life Quality Index) was captured. Skin physiology was assessed (transepidermal water loss [TEWL], stratum corneum integrity, hydration, and pH), and serum biomarkers were also measured. We found that AD S. aureus⁺ patients had more severe disease based on all scoring systems except itch (Numerical Rating Scale), and they had higher levels of type 2 biomarkers (eosinophil count, tIgE, CCL17, and periostin). Additionally, AD S. aureus⁺ patients had significantly greater allergen sensitization (Phadiatop and tIgE), barrier dysfunction (TEWL and stratum corneum integrity), and serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) than both the AD S. aureus^- and NA S. aureus^- groups. FLG mutations did not associate with S. aureus⁺ colonization. In conclusion, adult patients with AD who are colonized on their skin with S. aureus have more severe disease, greater type 2 immune deviation, allergen sensitization, barrier disruption, and LDH level elevation than noncolonized patients with AD.

Multidrug and vancomycin resistance among clinical isolates of Staphylococcus aureus from different teaching hospitals in Nigeria

BACKGROUNDS

Staphylococcus aureus has emerged as a major public health concern because of the occurrence of multi-drug resistant strains. This study aimed at investigating the multi-drug and vancomycin resistance profile of S. aureus from different infection sites in some teaching hospitals in Nigeria.

METHODS

Swabs were collected from different infection sites from out-patients in three teaching hospitals from October 2015 to May, 2016. The antibiotic-susceptibility test was carried out with selected antibiotics usually administered anti-microbials in the treatment of infections in these hospitals. The prevalence of multi-drug and vancomycin resistance strains of S. aureus from clinical samples was determined using disk diffusion and agar dilution methods respectively.

RESULTS

The result showed (165)82.5% of the isolates were resistant to ≥3 antibiotics tested. They were highly resistant to ceftazidime 180(90%), cloxacillin 171(85.6%) and augmentin 167(83.3%), but susceptible to ofloxacin 150(75%), gentamicin 142(71.7%), erythromycin 122(61.1%), ceftriaxone 111(55.6%) and cefuroxime 103(51.7%). All the isolates from the HVS were all multidrug resistant strains. While (56)90.16% were multidrug resistant (MDR) in urine samples, followed by (8)88.89% MDR strains in sputum, (37)88.81% MDR strains in semen, (49)71.64% MDR strains in wounds and (6)60% MDR strains in ear swabs samples. Although (147)73.5% of the isolates were vancomycin susceptible S. aureus (VSSA), (30)15% were vancomycin intermediate resistant S. aureus (VISA) and (89)44.5% of the isolates were considered vancomycin resistant S. aureus (VRSA).

CONCLUSIONS

The high percentage of the VRSA could have resulted from compromising treatment options and inadequate antimicrobial therapy. The implication, infections caused by VRSA would be difficult to treat with vancomycin and other effective antibiotics of clinical importance. Ensuring proper monitoring of drug administration will, therefore, enhance the legitimate role of vancomycin as an empiric choice for both prophylaxis against and treatment of staphylococcal infections.

Effect of a lotion containing the heat-treated probiotic strain Lactobacillus johnsonii NCC 533 on Staphylococcus aureus colonization in atopic dermatitis

Objective

Staphylococcus aureus dominates the skin microbiota in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), with bacterial loads correlating with disease severity. The aim of this exploratory study was to investigate the effect of a cosmetic lotion containing heat-treated Lactobacillus johnsonii NCC 533 (HT La1) on S. aureus colonization in AD patients.

Methods

This open-label, multicenter study was performed in AD patients in Germany. First, detection of S. aureus was performed in all patients using the swab or scrub-wash method of sampling, followed by quantitative culture or quantitative polymerase chain reaction. Repeatability and reproducibility of all method combinations were evaluated to select the best combination of sampling and quantification. Second, a lotion containing HT La1 was applied to lesional skin twice daily for 3 weeks. Scoring using local objective SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD), measurement of S. aureus load, and lesional microbiome analysis were performed before and after the 3-week treatment period.

Results

Thirty-one patients with AD were included in the study. All sampling and quantification methods were found to be robust, reproducible, and repeatable for assessing S. aureus load. For simplicity, a combination of swab and quantitative polymerase chain reaction was chosen to assess the efficacy of HT La1. Following application of a lotion containing HT La1 to AD lesions for 3 weeks, a reduction in S. aureus load was observed in patients, which correlated with a decrease in local objective SCORAD. Interestingly, high baseline skin concentrations of S. aureus were associated with good responses to the lotion.

Conclusion

This study demonstrated that the application of a lotion containing HT La1 to the lesional skin of patients with AD for 3 weeks controlled S. aureus colonization and was associated with local clinical improvement (SCORAD). These findings support further development of topical treatments containing heat-treated nonreplicating beneficial bacteria for patients with AD.

Adjunctive Management of Itch in Atopic Dermatitis

Itch, or pruritus, is a hallmark feature of atopic dermatitis (AD). The impact of AD-related pruritus can range from mildly distressing or distracting to completely disabling. Traditionally, management of itch in AD patients has focused on restoring the altered skin barrier with topical emollients and/or reducing inflammation. A growing emphasis has been placed on directly targeting the neural transmission pathways that mediate itch signaling. Off-label use of neuromodulatory agents has helped reduce this aggravating symptom in atopic patients. This article reviews the current literature on the use of neuromodulatory agents and nonpharmacologic alternative therapies used to treat AD-related pruritus.

Oral and Topical Antibiotics for Clinically Infected Eczema in Children: A Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial in Ambulatory Care

PURPOSE

Eczema may flare because of bacterial infection, but evidence supporting antibiotic treatment is of low quality. We aimed to determine the effect of oral and topical antibiotics in addition to topical emollient and corticosteroids in children with clinically infected eczema.

METHODS

We employed a 3-arm, blinded, randomized controlled trial in UK ambulatory care. Children with clinical, non-severely infected eczema were randomized to receive oral and topical placebos (control), oral antibiotic (flucloxacillin) and topical placebo, or topical antibiotic (fusidic acid) and oral placebo, for 1 week. We compared Patient Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) scores at 2 weeks using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).

RESULTS

We randomized 113 children (40 to control, 36 to oral antibiotic, and 37 to topical antibiotic). Mean (SD) baseline Patient Oriented Eczema Measure scores were 13.4 (5.1) for the control group, 14.6 (5.3) for the oral antibiotic group, and 16.9 (5.5) for the topical antibiotic group. At baseline, 104 children (93%) had 1 or more of the following findings: weeping, crusting, pustules, or painful skin. Mean (SD) POEM scores at 2 weeks were 6.2 (6.0) for control, 8.3 (7.3) for the oral antibiotic group, and 9.3 (6.2) for the topical antibiotic group. Controlling for baseline POEM score, neither oral nor topical antibiotics produced a significant difference in mean (95% CI) POEM scores (1.5 [-1.4 to 4.4] and 1.5 [-1.6 to 4.5] respectively). There were no significant differences in adverse effects and no serious adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

We found rapid resolution in response to topical steroid and emollient treatment and ruled out a clinically meaningful benefit from the addition of either oral or topical antibiotics. Children seen in ambulatory care with mild clinically infected eczema do not need treatment with antibiotics.

A randomised placebo-controlled trial of oral and topical antibiotics for children with clinically infected eczema in the community: the ChildRen with Eczema, Antibiotic Management (CREAM) study

BACKGROUND

Secondary skin infection is common during eczema exacerbations and many children are treated with antibiotics when this is suspected, although there is little high-quality evidence to justify this practice.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the clinical effectiveness of oral and topical antibiotics, in addition to standard treatment with emollients and topical corticosteroids, in children with clinically infected eczema.

DESIGN

Multicentre randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

SETTING

General practices and dermatology clinics in England, Wales and Scotland.

PARTICIPANTS

Children (aged 3 months to < 8 years) with a diagnosis of eczema (according to U.K. Working Party definition) and clinical suspicion of infection.

INTERVENTIONS

(1) Oral flucloxacillin and topical placebo; (2) topical fusidic acid (Fucidin(®), Leo Laboratories Limited) and oral placebo; and (3) oral and topical placebos, all for 1 week.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Patient-Orientated Eczema Measure (POEM) at 2 weeks (assessing subjective severity in the week following treatment).

RESULTS

We randomised 113 children (36 to oral antibiotic, 37 to topical antibiotic and 40 to placebo), which was fewer than our revised target sample size of 282. A total of 103 (92.0%) children had one or more clinical features suggestive of infection and 78 (69.6%) children had Staphylococcus aureus cultured from a skin swab. Oral and topical antibiotics resulted in a 1.52 [95% confidence interval (CI) -1.35 to 4.40] and 1.49 (95% CI -1.55 to 4.53) increase (worse subjective severity) in POEM score at 2 weeks, relative to placebo and controlling for baseline POEM score. Eczema Area and Severity Index (objective severity) scores were also higher (worse) in the intervention groups, at 0.20 (95% CI -0.12 to 0.52) and 0.42 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.75) for oral and topical antibiotics, respectively, at 2 weeks. Analyses of impact on the family, quality of life, daily symptom scores, and longer-term outcomes were all consistent with the finding of no or limited difference and a trend towards worse outcomes in the intervention groups. Sensitivity analyses, including adjusting for compliance and imputation for missing data, were consistent with the main findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that oral and topical antibiotics have no effect, or a harmful effect, on subjective eczema severity in children with clinically infected eczema in the community. The CIs around our estimates exclude a meaningful beneficial effect (published minimal clinically important difference for POEM is 3.4). Although most patients in this trial had features suggestive of infection and S. aureus on their skin, participants primarily had mild-moderate eczema and those with signs of more severe infection were often excluded. Clinicians should consider avoiding oral and topical antibiotic use in children with suspected infected eczema in the community who do not have signs of 'severe infection'. Further research should seek to understand how best to encourage the use of topical steroids and limit use of antibiotics in those with eczema flares without signs of severe infection, as well as developing tools to better phenotype eczema flares, in order to better define a population that may benefit from antibiotic treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials (EudraCT) number 2011-003591-37 and Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN96705420.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

A programme of research to set priorities and reduce uncertainties for the prevention and treatment of skin disease

Background

Skin diseases are very common and can have a large impact on the quality of life of patients and caregivers. This programme addressed four diseases: (1) eczema, (2) vitiligo, (3) squamous cell skin cancer (SCC) and (4) pyoderma gangrenosum (PG).

Objective

To set priorities and reduce uncertainties for the treatment and prevention of skin disease in our four chosen diseases.

Design

Mixed methods including eight systematic reviews, three prioritisation exercises, two pilot randomised controlled trials (RCTs), three feasibility studies, two core outcome initiatives, four funding proposals for national RCTs and one completed national RCT.

Setting

Secondary care, primary care and the general population.

Participants

Patients (and their caregivers) with eczema, vitiligo, SCC and PG, plus health-care professionals with an interest in skin disease.

Interventions

Our three intervention studies included (1) barrier enhancement using emollients from birth to prevent eczema (pilot RCT); (2) handheld narrowband ultraviolet light B therapy for treating vitiligo (pilot RCT); and (3) oral ciclosporin (Neoral®, Novartis Pharmaceuticals) compared with oral prednisolone for managing PG (pragmatic national RCT).

Results

Systematic reviews included two overarching systematic reviews of RCTs of treatments for eczema and vitiligo, an umbrella review of systematic reviews of interventions for the prevention of eczema, two reviews of treatments for SCC (one included RCTs and the second included observational studies), and three reviews of outcome measures and outcome reporting. Three prioritisation partnership exercises identified 26 priority areas for future research in eczema, vitiligo and SCC. Two international consensus initiatives identified four core domains for future eczema trials and seven core domains for vitiligo trials. Two pilot RCTs and three feasibility studies critically informed development of four trial proposals for external funding, three of which are now funded and one is pending consideration by funders. Our pragmatic RCT tested the two commonly used systemic treatments for PG (prednisolone vs. ciclosporin) and found no difference in their clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness. Both drugs showed limited benefit. Only half of the participants’ ulcers had healed by 6 months. For those with healed ulcers, recurrence was common (30%). Different side effect profiles were noted for each drug, which can inform clinical decisions on an individual patient basis. Three researchers were trained to PhD level and a dermatology patient panel was established to ensure patient involvement in all aspects of the programme.

Conclusions

Findings from this programme of work have already informed clinical guidelines and patient information resources. Feasibility studies have ensured that large national pragmatic trials will now be conducted on important areas of treatment uncertainty that address the needs of patients and the NHS. There is scope for considerable improvement in terms of trial design, conduct and reporting for RCTs of skin disease, which can be improved through wider collaboration, registration of trial protocols and complete reporting and international consensus over core outcome sets. Three national trials have now been funded as a result of this work. Two international initiatives to establish how best to measure the core outcome domains for eczema and vitiligo are ongoing.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials Barrier Enhancement for Eczema Prevention (BEEP) (ISRCTN84854178 and NCT01142999), Study of Treatments fOr Pyoderma GAngrenosum Patients (STOP GAP) (ISRCTN35898459) and Hand Held NB-UVB for Early or Focal Vitiligo at Home (HI-Light Pilot Trial) (NCT01478945).

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full inProgramme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 4, No. 18. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Scoping systematic review of treatments for eczema

Background

Eczema is a very common chronic inflammatory skin condition.

Objectives

To update the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) systematic review of treatments for atopic eczema, published in 2000, and to inform health-care professionals, commissioners and patients about key treatment developments and research gaps.

Data sources

Electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) were searched from the end of 2000 to 31 August 2013. Retrieved articles were used to identify further randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

Review methods

Studies were filtered according to inclusion criteria and agreed by consensus in cases of uncertainty. Abstracts were excluded and non-English-language papers were screened by international colleagues and data were extracted. Only RCTs of treatments for eczema were included, as other forms of evidence are associated with higher risks of bias. Inclusion criteria for studies included availability of data relevant to the therapeutic management of eczema; mention of randomisation; comparison of two or more treatments; and prospective data collection. Participants of all ages were included. Eczema diagnosis was determined by a clinician or according to published diagnostic criteria. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk-of-bias tool. We used a standardised approach to summarising the data and the assessment of risk of bias and we made a clear distinction between what the studies found and our own interpretation of study findings.

Results

Of 7198 references screened, 287 new trials were identified spanning 92 treatments. Trial reporting was generally poor (randomisation method: 2% high, 36% low, 62% unclear risk of bias; allocation concealment: 3% high, 15% low, 82% unclear risk of bias; blinding of the intervention: 15% high, 28% low, 57% unclear risk of bias). Only 22 (8%) trials were considered to be at low risk of bias for all three criteria. There was reasonable evidence of benefit for the topical medications tacrolimus, pimecrolimus and various corticosteroids (with tacrolimus superior to pimecrolimus and corticosteroids) for both treatment and flare prevention; oral ciclosporin; oral azathioprine; narrow band ultraviolet B (UVB) light; Atopiclair™ and education. There was reasonable evidence to suggest no clinically useful benefit for twice-daily compared with once-daily topical corticosteroids; corticosteroids containing antibiotics for non-infected eczema; probiotics; evening primrose and borage oil; ion-exchange water softeners; protease inhibitor SRD441 (Serentis Ltd); furfuryl palmitate in emollient; cipamfylline cream; andMycobacterium vaccaevaccine. Additional research evidence is needed for emollients, bath additives, antibacterials, specialist clothing and complementary and alternative therapies. There was no RCT evidence for topical corticosteroid dilution, impregnated bandages, soap avoidance, bathing frequency or allergy testing.

Limitations

The large scope of the review coupled with the heterogeneity of outcomes precluded formal meta-analyses. Our conclusions are still limited by a profusion of small, poorly reported studies.

Conclusions

Although the evidence base of RCTs has increased considerably since the last NIHR HTA systematic review, the field is still severely hampered by poor design and reporting problems including failure to register trials and declare primary outcomes, small sample size, short follow-up duration and poor reporting of risk of bias. Key areas for further research identified by the review include the optimum use of emollients, bathing frequency, wash products, allergy testing and antiseptic treatments. Perhaps the greatest benefit identified is the use of twice weekly anti-inflammatory treatment to maintain disease remission. More studies need to be conducted in a primary care setting where most people with eczema are seen in the UK. Future studies need to use the same core set of outcomes that capture patient symptoms, clinical signs, quality of life and the chronic nature of the disease.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme.

Consensus Guidelines for the Treatment of Atopic Dermatitis in Korea (Part I): General Management and Topical Treatment

Background

Since the treatment guidelines for atopic dermatitis (AD) were released by the Korean Atopic Dermatitis Association (KADA) work group in 2006, there have been several advances in AD management.

Objective

We aimed to establish updated evidence- and experience-based treatment guidelines for Korean AD.

Methods

We collected a database of references from relevant systematic AD reviews and guidelines regarding general AD management such as bathing and skin care, avoidance of exacerbating factors, education and psychosocial support, and the use of moisturizers and topical anti-inflammatory and antipruritic drugs. Evidence for each statement was graded and the strength of the recommendation for each statement classified. Thirty-nine KADA council members participated in three rounds of voting to establish an expert consensus of recommendations.

Results

Basic AD treatment includes proper bathing and skin care, avoidance of exacerbating factors, proper education and psychosocial support, and use of moisturizers. The regular use of moisturizer has a steroid-sparing effect and reduces relapse episodes. The short- and long-term use of topical corticosteroids and calcineurin inhibitors improves AD symptoms and should be encouraged to use in an active and proactive treatment. Wet-wrap therapy can be used for rapid recovery of acute exacerbation. Topical antipruritic drugs cannot be recommended for the treatment of AD.

Conclusion

This report provides up-to-date evidence- and experience-based treatment guidelines for AD regarding general management and topical treatment. In addition, the average agreement scores obtained by a panel of experts based on the Korean healthcare system and patient adherence are presented.

Advances in the diagnosis and therapeutic management of atopic dermatitis

Atopic dermatitis is a very prevalent disease that affects children as well as adults. The disease has a severe impact on quality of life for the patients and their families. The skin in atopic dermatitis patients is a site of both a severe inflammatory reaction dominated by lymphocytes and decreased skin barrier function. The treatment of the disease is mainly aimed at reducing the inflammation in the skin and/or restoring the skin barrier function. However, most of the treatments used today singularly aim at reducing the inflammation in the skin. Depending on the severity of the disease, the anti-inflammatory treatment may be topical or systemic, but basic treatment, no matter the severity, should always be emollients. In addition, new studies have shown good effects of psychosocial interventions, such as eczema schools, for patients and their families. This review covers the latest trends in the treatment of atopic dermatitis.

Validation of the global resource of eczema trials (GREAT database)

Background

Eczema (syn. Atopic Eczema or Atopic Dermatitis) is a chronic, relapsing, itchy skin condition which probably results from a combination of genetic and environmental factors. The Global Resource of EczemA Trials (GREAT) is a collection of records of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for eczema treatment produced from a highly sensitive search of six reference databases. We sought to assess the sensitivity of the GREAT database as a tool to save future researchers repeating extensive bibliographic searches.

Methods

All Cochrane systematic review on treatments for eczema and five non-Cochrane systematic reviews on eczema were identified as a reference set to assess the utility of the GREAT database in identifying randomised controlled trials (RCTs). RCTs included in the systematic reviews were checked for inclusion in the GREAT database by two independent authors. A third author resolved any disagreements.

Results

Five Cochrane and six non-Cochrane systematic reviews containing a total of 105 RCTs of eczema treatments were included. Of these, 95 fitted the inclusion criteria for the GREAT database and 88 were published from 2000 onwards. Of the 88 eligible studies, 92% were found in the GREAT database. Seven trials were not included in the GREAT database - two of these were reported within a review paper and one as an abstract with no trial results.

Conclusions

The sensitivity of the GREAT database for trials from 2000 onwards was high (75/88 trials, 94%). Sensitivity for the period prior to 2000 was less sensitive, due to differences in how the trials were identified prior to this time.

‘Dual’ filtering for new records has recently become part of the GREAT database methodology and should further improve the sensitivity of the database in time. The GREAT database can be considered as a primary source for future systematic reviews including randomised controlled trials of eczema treatments, but searches should be supplemented by checking reference lists for eligible trials, searching trial registries and contacting pharmaceutical companies for unpublished studies.

House dust mite reduction and avoidance measures for treating eczema

BACKGROUND

Eczema is an inflammatory skin disease that tends to involve skin creases, such as the folds of the elbows or knees; it is an intensely itchy skin condition, which can relapse and remit over time. As many as a third of people with eczema who have a positive test for allergy to house dust mite have reported worsening of eczema or respiratory symptoms when exposed to dust.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of all house dust mite reduction and avoidance measures for the treatment of eczema.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to 14 August 2014: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library (2014, Issue 8), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), LILACS (from 1982), and the GREAT database. We also searched five trials registers and checked the reference lists of included and excluded studies for further references to relevant studies. We handsearched abstracts from international eczema and allergy meetings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any of the house dust mite reduction and avoidance measures for the treatment of eczema, which included participants of any age diagnosed by a clinician with eczema as defined by the World Allergy Organization. We included all non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions that sought to reduce or avoid exposure to house dust mite and their allergenic faeces. The comparators were any active treatment, no treatment, placebo, or standard care only.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently checked the titles and abstracts identified, and there were no disagreements. We contacted authors of included studies for additional information. We assessed the risk of bias using Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven studies of 324 adults and children with eczema. Overall, the included studies had a high risk of bias. Four of the seven trials tested interventions with multiple components, and three tested a single intervention. Two of the seven trials included only children, four included children and adults, and one included only adults. Interventions to reduce or avoid exposure to house dust mite included covers for mattresses and bedding, increased or high-quality vacuuming of carpets and mattresses, and sprays that kill house dust mites.Four studies assessed our first primary outcome of 'Clinician-assessed eczema severity using a named scale'. Of these, one study (n = 20) did not show any significant short-term benefit from allergen impermeable polyurethane mattress encasings and acaricide spray versus allergen permeable cotton mattress encasings and placebo acaricide spray. One study (n = 60) found a modest statistically significant benefit in the Six Area, Six Sign Atopic Dermatitis (SASSAD) scale over six months (mean difference of 4.2 (95% confidence interval 1.7 to 6.7), P = 0.008) in favour of a mite impermeable bedding system combined with benzyltannate spray and high-filtration vacuuming versus mite permeable cotton encasings, water with a trace of alcohol spray, and a low-filtration vacuum cleaner. The third study (n = 41) did not compare the change in severity of eczema between the two treatment groups. The fourth study (n = 86) reported no evidence of a difference between the treatment groups.With regard to the secondary outcomes 'Participant- or caregiver-assessed global eczema severity score' and the 'Amount and frequency of topical treatment required', one study (n = 20) assessed these outcomes with similar results being reported for these outcomes in both groups. Four studies (n = 159) assessed 'Sensitivity to house dust mite allergen using a marker'; there was no clear evidence of a difference in sensitivity levels reported between treatments in any of the four trials.None of the seven included studies assessed our second primary outcome 'Participant- or caregiver-assessed eczema-related quality of life using a named instrument' or the secondary outcome of 'Adverse effects'.We were unable to combine any of our results because of variability in the interventions and paucity of data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We were unable to determine clear implications to inform clinical practice from the very low-quality evidence currently available. The modest treatment responses reported were in people with atopic eczema, specifically with sensitivity to one or more aeroallergens. Thus, their use in the eczema population as a whole is unknown. High-quality long-term trials of single, easy-to-administer house dust mite reduction or avoidance measures are worth pursuing.

Atopic dermatitis in children: clinical features, pathophysiology, and treatment

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic, relapsing, highly pruritic skin condition resulting from disruption of the epithelial barrier and associated immune dysregulation in the skin of genetically predisposed hosts. AD generally develops in early childhood, has a characteristic age-dependent distribution and is commonly associated with elevated IgE, peripheral eosinophilia, and other allergic diseases. Medications such as antihistamines have demonstrated poor efficacy in controlling AD-associated itch. Education of patients regarding the primary underlying defects and provision of a comprehensive skin care plan is essential for disease maintenance and management of flares.

The role of antiseptic agents in atopic dermatitis

The skin of individuals with atopic dermatitis has a susceptibility to be colonized with Staphylococcus aureus. This has been associated with increased frequency and severity of exacerbations of atopic dermatitis. Therefore, there is a growing interest in the use of antiseptic agents to target primary bacterial colonization and infection. Antiseptic agents have been found to be better tolerated and less likely to induce bacterial resistance as compared to antibiotics. There is also a wide variety of antiseptic agents available. The efficacy of antiseptic agents has yet to be established as the studies reviewed previously have been small and of suboptimal quality. This review discusses the rationale behind targeting S. aureus with antiseptic agents and presents findings from a review of studies assessing the efficacy of antiseptics in atopic dermatitis in the last five years. Four studies were found, including a bleach bath study which has already been reviewed elsewhere. The remaining 3 studies assessed the efficacy of sodium hypochlorite containing cleansing body wash, sodium hypochlorite baths and 1% triclosan in leave on emollient. These studies suggested some benefit for the inclusion of antiseptic use with the mainstay management of atopic dermatitis, including a potential steroid sparring effect. However, there are many limitations to these studies which therefore warrant further investigation on the impact of antiseptic use in atopic dermatitis.

The diagnosis and graded therapy of atopic dermatitis

BACKGROUND

Atopic dermatitis is the most common skin disease in children, with a prevalence of 10% to 15%, and is common in adults as well. Close coordination between primary care physicians and specialists is essential for the adequate treatment of chronically and severely affected patients.

METHOD

This article is a review of pertinent publications that were retrieved by a selective search in Pubmed, with additional consideration of the guidelines of the Association of Medical Scientific Societies in Germany (AWMF) and the European Dermatology Forum.

RESULTS

Trigger factors such as skin irritants, allergens, microbial pathogens, and psychological factors can affect the condition of the skin differently in individual patients and should be individually assessed. The use of skin moisturising creams or emollients along with avoidance of specific and unspecific irritants is of great importance, as these patients have an impaired cutaneous barrier. Topical anti-inflammatory treatment with glucocorticoids or calcineurin inhibitors is a central part of the management of atopic dermatitis; in exceptional cases, severely affected patients are treated with systemic anti-inflammatory drugs. Interdisciplinary patient education has been found to be an effective tool in the complex management of this disease. Chronically and severely affected patients present special challenges for diagnosis and treatment.

CONCLUSION

Recent advances in the understanding of the molecular basis of cutaneous barrier disorders and of congenital and acquired immune disorders have led to new approaches to the treatment of atopic dermatitis.

Consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) and the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in medical journals

BACKGROUND

An overwhelming body of evidence stating that the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal has accrued over time. In the mid-1990s, in response to these concerns, an international group of clinical trialists, statisticians, epidemiologists, and biomedical journal editors developed the CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement. The CONSORT Statement, most recently updated in March 2010, is an evidence-based minimum set of recommendations including a checklist and flow diagram for reporting RCTs and is intended to facilitate the complete and transparent reporting of trials and aid their critical appraisal and interpretation. In 2006, a systematic review of eight studies evaluating the "effectiveness of CONSORT in improving reporting quality in journals" was published.

OBJECTIVES

To update the earlier systematic review assessing whether journal endorsement of the 1996 and 2001 CONSORT checklists influences the completeness of reporting of RCTs published in medical journals.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted electronic searches, known item searching, and reference list scans to identify reports of evaluations assessing the completeness of reporting of RCTs. The electronic search strategy was developed in MEDLINE and tailored to EMBASE. We searched the Cochrane Methodology Register and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews using the Wiley interface. We searched the Science Citation Index, Social Science Citation Index, and Arts and Humanities Citation Index through the ISI Web of Knowledge interface. We conducted all searches to identify reports published between January 2005 and March 2010, inclusive.

SELECTION CRITERIA

In addition to studies identified in the original systematic review on this topic, comparative studies evaluating the completeness of reporting of RCTs in any of the following comparison groups were eligible for inclusion in this review: 1) Completeness of reporting of RCTs published in journals that have and have not endorsed the CONSORT Statement; 2) Completeness of reporting of RCTs published in CONSORT-endorsing journals before and after endorsement; or 3) Completeness of reporting of RCTs before and after the publication of the CONSORT Statement (1996 or 2001). We used a broad definition of CONSORT endorsement that includes any of the following: (a) requirement or recommendation in journal's 'Instructions to Authors' to follow CONSORT guidelines; (b) journal editorial statement endorsing the CONSORT Statement; or (c) editorial requirement for authors to submit a CONSORT checklist and/or flow diagram with their manuscript. We contacted authors of evaluations reporting data that could be included in any comparison group(s), but not presented as such in the published report and asked them to provide additional data in order to determine eligibility of their evaluation. Evaluations were not excluded due to language of publication or validity assessment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We completed screening and data extraction using standardised electronic forms, where conflicts, reasons for exclusion, and level of agreement were all automatically and centrally managed in web-based management software, DistillerSR(®). One of two authors extracted general characteristics of included evaluations and all data were verified by a second author. Data describing completeness of reporting were extracted by one author using a pre-specified form; a 10% random sample of evaluations was verified by a second author. Any discrepancies were discussed by both authors; we made no modifications to the extracted data. Validity assessments of included evaluations were conducted by one author and independently verified by one of three authors. We resolved all conflicts by consensus.For each comparison we collected data on 27 outcomes: 22 items of the CONSORT 2001 checklist, plus four items relating to the reporting of blinding, and one item of aggregate CONSORT scores. Where reported, we extracted and qualitatively synthesised data on the methodological quality of RCTs, by scale or score.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-three publications reporting 50 evaluations were included. The total number of RCTs assessed within evaluations was 16,604 (median per evaluation 123 (interquartile range (IQR) 77 to 226) published in a median of six (IQR 3 to 26) journals. Characteristics of the included RCT populations were variable, resulting in heterogeneity between included evaluations. Validity assessments of included studies resulted in largely unclear judgements. The included evaluations are not RCTs and less than 8% (4/53) of the evaluations reported adjusting for potential confounding factors.   Twenty-five of 27 outcomes assessing completeness of reporting in RCTs appeared to favour CONSORT-endorsing journals over non-endorsers, of which five were statistically significant. 'Allocation concealment' resulted in the largest effect, with risk ratio (RR) 1.81 (99% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 2.61), suggesting that 81% more RCTs published in CONSORT-endorsing journals adequately describe allocation concealment compared to those published in non-endorsing journals. Allocation concealment was reported adequately in 45% (393/876) of RCTs in CONSORT-endorsing journals and in 22% (329/1520) of RCTs in non-endorsing journals. Other outcomes with results that were significant include: scientific rationale and background in the 'Introduction' (RR 1.07, 99% CI 1.01 to 1.14); 'sample size' (RR 1.61, 99% CI 1.13 to 2.29); method used for 'sequence generation' (RR 1.59, 99% CI 1.38 to 1.84); and an aggregate score over reported CONSORT items, 'total sum score' (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.68 (99% CI 0.38 to 0.98)).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence has accumulated to suggest that the reporting of RCTs remains sub-optimal. This review updates a previous systematic review of eight evaluations. The findings of this review are similar to those from the original review and demonstrate that, despite the general inadequacies of reporting of RCTs, journal endorsement of the CONSORT Statement may beneficially influence the completeness of reporting of trials published in medical journals. Future prospective studies are needed to explore the influence of the CONSORT Statement dependent on the extent of editorial policies to ensure adherence to CONSORT guidance.

Breastfeeding and mucosal and cutaneous colonization by Staphylococcus aureus in atopic children

BACKGROUND

Studies on the effects of breastfeeding on the development of Atopic Dermatitis (AD) have shown controversial results. The importance of this condition deserves further studies; in particular, it remains unclear whether colonization of atopic patients by Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) through breastfeeding is relevant to the development of AD.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the potential relation between breastfeeding and colonization by S. aureus in atopic patients.

METHOD

Transversal study of atopic patients, aged from 4 to 24 months, both genders, receiving outpatient care and 72 mothers. Data on infant breastfeeding practices and on clinical-epidemiological profile were registered. Swabs of the infants' nares and skin (cubital fossa) and swabs of the mothers' nares were collected. For univariate analysis, X2 (chi-square) and Fischer Exact's test were used.

RESULTS

Among breastfed children, S. aureus was isolated from 8 (25.8%) infants' nares swabs and from 4 (12.9%) skin swabs. Among not breastfed children, S. aureus was isolated from 10 (20.8%) infants' nares swabs and from 11 (22.9%) skin swabs. Sixteen mothers (22.2%) had S. aureus isolated from their nares swabs. There was no significant association between breastfeeding and S. aureus colonization (child skin and/or nares). However, there was a degree of concordance for S. aureus carriage among mothers and infants. Among 72 pairs, 56 (77.8%) were concordant.

CONCLUSION

Breastfeeding was not associated with S. aureus muco-cutaneous colonization in atopic infants.

Interventions for impetigo

BACKGROUND

Impetigo is a common, superficial bacterial skin infection, which is most frequently encountered in children. There is no generally agreed standard therapy, and guidelines for treatment differ widely. Treatment options include many different oral and topical antibiotics as well as disinfectants. This is an updated version of the original review published in 2003.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of treatments for impetigo, including non-pharmacological interventions and 'waiting for natural resolution'.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated our searches of the following databases to July 2010: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 2005), EMBASE (from 2007), and LILACS (from 1982). We also searched online trials registries for ongoing trials, and we handsearched the reference lists of new studies found in the updated search.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of treatments for non-bullous, bullous, primary, and secondary impetigo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent authors undertook all steps in data collection. We performed quality assessments and data collection in two separate stages.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 57 trials in the first version of this review. For this update 1 of those trials was excluded and 12 new trials were added. The total number of included trials was, thus, 68, with 5578 participants, reporting on 50 different treatments, including placebo. Most trials were in primary impetigo or did not specify this.For many of the items that were assessed for risk of bias, most studies did not provide enough information. Fifteen studies reported blinding of participants and outcome assessors.Topical antibiotic treatment showed better cure rates than placebo (pooled risk ratio (RR) 2. 24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.61 to 3.13) in 6 studies with 575 participants. In 4 studies with 440 participants, there was no clear evidence that either of the most commonly studied topical antibiotics (mupirocin and fusidic acid) was more effective than the other (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.11).In 10 studies with 581 participants, topical mupirocin was shown to be slightly superior to oral erythromycin (pooled RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.13). There were no significant differences in cure rates from treatment with topical versus other oral antibiotics. There were, however, differences in the outcome from treatment with different oral antibiotics: penicillin was inferior to erythromycin, in 2 studies with 79 participants (pooled RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.56), and cloxacillin, in 2 studies with 166 participants (pooled RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.08).There was a lack of evidence for the benefit of using disinfectant solutions. When 2 studies with 292 participants were pooled, topical antibiotics were significantly better than disinfecting treatments (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.32).The reported number of side-effects was low, and most of these were mild. Side-effects were more common for oral antibiotic treatment compared to topical treatment. Gastrointestinal effects accounted for most of the difference.Worldwide, bacteria causing impetigo show growing resistance rates for commonly used antibiotics. For a newly developed topical treatment, retapamulin, no resistance has yet been reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is good evidence that topical mupirocin and topical fusidic acid are equally, or more, effective than oral treatment. Due to the lack of studies in people with extensive impetigo, it is unclear if oral antibiotics are superior to topical antibiotics in this group. Fusidic acid and mupirocin are of similar efficacy. Penicillin was not as effective as most other antibiotics. There is a lack of evidence to support disinfection measures to manage impetigo.

Management of itch in atopic dermatitis

Atopic dermatitis is a common, pruritic, inflammatory skin disorder. Chronic, localized, or even generalized pruritus is the diagnostic hallmark of atopic dermatitis, and its management remains a challenge for physicians. The threshold for itch and alloknesis is markedly reduced in these patients, and infections can promote exacerbation and thereby increase the itch. Modern management consists of anti-inflammatory, occasionally antiseptic, as well as antipruritic therapies to address the epidermal barrier as well as immunomodulation or infection. Mild forms of atopic dermatitis may be controlled with topical therapies, but moderate-to-severe forms often require a combination of systemic treatments consisting of antipruritic and immunosuppressive drugs, phototherapy, and topical compounds. In addition, patient education and a therapeutic regimen to help the patient cope with the itch and eczema are important adjuvant strategies for optimized long-term management. This review highlights various topical, systemic, and complementary and alternative therapies, as well as provide a therapeutic ladder for optimized long-term control of itch in atopic dermatitis.

[A comparative in vitro study of cell toxicity of clinically used antiseptics]

PURPOSE

Local skin antiseptics are the standard of care for chronic and non-healing wounds. However, little is known about their potential toxic properties. This study investigates the impact of three commercially available and widely used antiseptics on vitality and proliferation of human cutaneous cells.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Three antiseptics, Lavasept (PHMB), Octenisept (octenidine) and Betaisodona (PVP-iodine) were tested for their cytotoxic effects towards HaCaT cells, primary human keratinocytes and fibroblasts using MTT assay and BrDU ELISA.

RESULTS

Lavasept showed only slight to moderate toxic effects on cellular vitality and proliferation. Ocentisept and Betaisodona induced severe reduction of cell vitality (p<0.05) to 0% surviving fibroblasts at 7.5% (Betaisodona) and 12.5% Octenisept, respectively. Furthermore, poliferative activity was reduced to 0% in keratinocytes at 7.5% concentration of Betaisodona and Ocentisept.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that frequently used wound- and skin antiseptics show severe cytotoxic effects towards cutaneous cells. Furthermore, antimicrobial efficacy and toxic properties must be included in the clinical decision process for optimal therapy of chronic wounds. The PHMB solution Lavasept showed best results regarding toxicity in this study.

Recent insights into atopic dermatitis and implications for management of infectious complications

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common complex disease that frequently follows a chronic relapsing course and affects the quality of life of patients and families in a significant manner. New insights into the pathophysiology of AD point to an important role of structural abnormalities in the epidermis combined with immune dysregulation. Patients with AD have a unique predisposition to colonization or infection by a number of microbial organisms, most notably Staphylococcus aureus and herpes simplex virus. A multipronged approach directed at healing or protecting the skin barrier and addressing the immune dysregulation is necessary to improve the likelihood of successful outcomes.