Interventions for infantile seborrhoeic dermatitis (including cradle cap)

Pediatric Dermatitis Seborrhoica - A Clinical and Therapeutic Review

Pediatric dermatitis seborrhoica (DS) is a common inflammatory disorder of infancy and adolescence distinct from atopic dermatitis. We performed a narrative review on clinical and therapeutic aspects of the disease. The prevalence varies geographically and can reach up to 10%. There is a slight male predominance. Although etiopathology is not well known, both endogenous and exogenous factors contribute. Skin microbiome and its interaction with sebaceous gland function is crucial. The inflammatory pathways include innate immune function and skin barrier disturbances. Malassezia spp. and certain bacteria are increased in lesional skin. DS develops in different clinical subtypes, from localized cephalic to disseminated disease with a risk of erythroderma and eczema herpeticatum. Treatment consists of skin care and topical and rarely systemic medical therapy. Cornerstones of treatment are antifungals and mild corticosteroids. Targeted treatment is on the horizon. Pediatric DS is a common disorder important in the differential diagnosis of skin problems in infants and and children. Due to better understanding of its pathogenesis, new treatment options are developed.

Enhanced rare disease mapping for phenome-wide genetic association in the UK Biobank

BACKGROUND

Rare diseases collectively affect up to 10% of the population, but often lack effective treatment, and typically little is known about their pathophysiology. Major challenges include suboptimal phenotype mapping and limited statistical power. Population biobanks, such as the UK Biobank, recruit many individuals who can be affected by rare diseases; however, investigation into their utility for rare disease research remains limited. We hypothesized the UK Biobank can be used as a unique population assay for rare diseases in the general population.

METHODS

We constructed a consensus mapping between ICD-10 codes and ORPHA codes for rare diseases, then identified individuals with each rare condition in the UK Biobank, and investigated their age at recruitment, sex bias, and comorbidity distributions. Using exome sequencing data from 167,246 individuals of European ancestry, we performed genetic association controlling for case/control imbalance (SAIGE) to identify potential rare pathogenic variants for each disease.

RESULTS

Using our mapping approach, we identified and characterized 420 rare diseases affecting 23,575 individuals in the UK Biobank. Significant genetic associations included JAK2 V617F for immune thrombocytopenic purpura (p = 1.24 × 10^-13) and a novel CALR loss of function variant for essential thrombocythemia (p = 1.59 × 10^-13). We constructed an interactive resource highlighting demographic information ( http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mattpat/rareDiseases.html ) and demonstrate transferability by applying our mapping to a medical claims database.

CONCLUSIONS

Enhanced disease mapping and increased power from population biobanks can elucidate the demographics and genetic associations for rare diseases.

The Efficacy and Safety of Pimecrolimus in Patients With Facial Seborrheic Dermatitis: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Facial seborrheic dermatitis (SD) is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that can affect the quality of life with frequent recurrences. There is no medication as yet to cure this disease completely. There are four general categories of agents that are used to treat SD: antifungal agents, keratolytics, corticosteroids, and lastly calcineurin inhibitors. Topical therapies are the mainstream line of treatment to be used for this skin condition.

The objective of this article is to critically review the published data in the literature on the use of topical pimecrolimus 1% topical cream as an option for treating facial SD. The final purpose of this review is to answer two questions: whether pimecrolimus topical cream is effective for the treatment of SD compared to the conventional current treatments and how safe is this treatment. 

The PubMed, Clinicaltrials.gov, MEDLINE + Embase, and Cochrane library databases were searched for original randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating pimecrolimus 1% topical cream and comparing it with other topical treatments for SD. A systematic review and meta-analysis were then conducted on the selected studies by grading the evidence and qualitative comparison of results among and within studies. A total of five studies were included in the review; however, only four were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis, in which pimecrolimus was compared with other treatments for the management of facial SD.

Pimecrolimus was found to be an effective topical treatment for facial SD, as it showed considerable desirable control of the symptoms in patients with facial SD clinically, in addition to a lower recurrence or relapsing rates; however, it had more side effects compared to other topical treatments, but the side effects were mild and tolerable.

Quality of Life of Infants, Toddlers and Preschoolers with Seborrhoeic, Allergic Contact and Atopic Dermatitis Before and During COVID-19 Pandemic

Introduction

Different aspects of quality of life (QoL) of infants and children with atopic dermatitis (AD) are well studied but there is a lack of studies on seborrhoeic dermatitis (SD) and allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). The aim of this study was to compare the impact of SD, ACD and AD on young children. Parts of questionnaires were filled in during the COVID-19 pandemic and therefore we decided to check if the pandemic affected dermatology-specific health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in our patients.

Methods

In this cross-sectional study approved by the local ethics committee of the Kiev City Clinical Dermatovenereologic Hospital parents of children with SD, ACD and AD from birth to 4 years old from the same department of dermatology were asked to fill in the dermatology-specific questionnaire the Infants and Toddlers Dermatology Quality of Life (InToDermQoL). Diagnoses were based on clinical manifestations and anamnesis. The study was carried out from 2018 till 2021.

Results

The InToDermQoL questionnaire was filled in by 176 parents of children with SD, ACD and AD. Mean total InToDermQoL scores were significantly higher in children with AD than in SD and ACD (P < 0.01). HRQoL of children with AD during the COVID-19 pandemic was significantly worse than before pandemic (41.30 ± 24.40 and 28.51 ± 17.67 respectively, P = 0.02). Scores of the item on ‘sleep problems’ significantly decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic in children with SD (1.19 ± 1.01 and 0.64 ± 0.63, P < 0.05), as did scores of the item on ‘rejection by other children’ in children with AD (0.96 ± 0.98 and 0.20 ± 0.45, P < 0.05).

Conclusions

To the best of our knowledge this is the first study on HRQoL of the youngest children with SD and ACD. In our study children with SD and ACD had comparable but lower impact of skin disease on their HRQoL than children with AD. The COVID-19 pandemic led to more severe HRQoL impairment in patients with AD visiting a dermatology department.

Treatment of cradle cap in infants with a new cosmetic non-steroidal gel cream: Clinical, laboratory, and instrumental evaluation

Background

Cradle cap is a benign and self‐limiting variant of seborrheic dermatitis (SD) that can be distressing for parents.

Aims

To assess by clinical/laboratory/instrumental evaluation the efficacy/tolerability of a gel cream containing piroctone olamine (antifungal), biosaccharide gum‐2 (antifungal), stearyl glycyrrhetinate (anti‐inflammatory), and zinc l‐pyrrolidone carboxylate (zinc‐PCA) (antiseborrheic) in the treatment of mild/ moderate cradle cap.

Methods

In this prospective, open‐label trial, 10 infants, with mild/moderate cradle cap enrolled at the Dermatology University Clinic of Catania (Italy) used the tested gel cream twice daily for 30 days. Degree of erythema was evaluated clinically by a 5‐point severity scale (from 0=no erythema to 4=severe erythema), at baseline, at 15 and 30 days. Desquamation was rated by dermoscopy evaluation using a 5‐point scale (from 0=no desquamation to 4=severe/many large adherent white flakes), at all time points. An Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) using a 6‐point scale (from −1=worsening to 4=complete response/clear) was also performed at 30 days. Five subjects, randomly selected, underwent double microbiological evaluation for bacteria and yeasts by cultures of cotton swabs at baseline and at 30 days. Tolerability/acceptability was evaluated on a 4‐point scale (from 0=very poor to 3=excellent) at 15 and 30 days. Data were processed using SAS version 9.

Results

At baseline, a significant colony‐forming unit (CFU) count for Malassezia furfur and Staphylococcus aureus was detected in 4 out of 5 selected patients. After 15 and 30 days, a statically significant reduction from baseline in erythema and desquamation severity was observed, along with a reduction in CFU count for Malassezia furfur and Staphylococcus aureus from baseline. No signs of local side effects were documented.

Conclusions

Our results indicate that the tested gel cream may represent a valid option to treat mild‐to‐moderate forms of cradle cap and support its antifungal and antibacterial properties.

Quadri dermatologici della regione perioculare

Un piccolo atlante in 36 immagini

Interventions for infantile seborrhoeic dermatitis (including cradle cap)

BACKGROUND

Infantile seborrhoeic dermatitis (ISD) is a chronic, inflammatory, scaling skin condition, which causes redness and a greasy scaling rash in infants and young children. It can last from weeks to months, but rarely years. When it occurs on the scalp, it is referred to as 'cradle cap'. While benign and self-limiting, irrelevant of its location on the body, it can distress parents. The effectiveness of commonly promoted treatments is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions for infantile seborrhoeic dermatitis in children from birth to 24 months of age.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to 22 May 2018: Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We searched trials registers and checked reference lists of included studies for further references to randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We searched for unpublished RCTs and grey literature via web search engines, and wrote to authors and pharmaceutical companies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs of interventions for ISD in children from birth up to 24 months who were clinically diagnosed by a healthcare practitioner with ISD or cradle cap. We allowed comparison of any treatment to no treatment or placebo, and the comparison of two or more treatments or a combination of treatments.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcome measures were 'Change in severity score from baseline to end of study' and 'Percentage of infants treated who develop adverse effects or intolerance to treatment'. The secondary outcome was 'Improvement in quality of life (QoL) as reported by parents'.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six RCTs (one with a cross-over design) randomising 310 children and reporting outcomes for 297 children. Most participants were aged under seven months with only two participants aged over one year (seven and 12 years old); where specified, 60% were boys. In two studies, condition severity was mild to moderate; one study included two participants with severe ISD; the other studies did not describe baseline severity or described it as body surface area affected.The study setting was not always clear but likely a paediatric outpatient clinic in the following countries: Thailand, Israel, USA, France, and Australia.Two studies compared oral biotin (a B group vitamin) against placebo, two studies compared proprietary products against placebo cream or a control shampoo, and two studies compared topical corticosteroids against other products. The studies were generally short-term, between 10 and 42 days' duration; only one study followed the participants until resolution of the rash or eight months of age.We assessed the risk of bias as unclear for most aspects due to lack of reporting, but two of the studies were at high risk of performance and detection bias due to the appearance of the intervention, the trial design (open-label), or use of overlabelled tubes. Two trials had a high risk of attrition bias.All the results given below were based on very low-quality evidence. Treatment duration ranged from one week to three weeks.For the two trials comparing biotin versus placebo (n = 35), one did not report a measure of change in severity (only change in duration of rash) while the other did not report raw data (only 'no statistically significant difference'), measured at three weeks. Neither trial reported on adverse events.Two trials compared proprietary products against placebo (n = 160). One trial assessed change in severity via percentage success (96% of participants in non-steroidal cream Promiseb versus 92% in placebo), and reported no adverse events (both assessed at day 14). The other trial assessed change in severity via reduction in lesional score (surface area covered), finding better results for lactamide MEA gel (a moisturising agent) plus shampoo (81.4%) compared with shampoo only (70.2%; P = 0.0092). No adverse events were described, but signs of discomfort were similar in both groups (both assessed at day 21).In the comparison of topical steroids versus another product, change in severity was measured through evaluation of cure and body surface (n = 102).In one trial comparing hydrocortisone 1% lotion with licochalcone 0.025% lotion, there was no significant difference in participants cured (95.8% with hydrocortisone compared to 97.1% with licochalcone). One person in the licochalcone group developed more erythema, but there were no other adverse events (both outcomes assessed at day 14). In the trial comparing flumethasone pivalate 0.02% ointment versus eosin 2% aqueous solution, a reduction in body surface area affected was seen in both groups at day 10 (9% with corticosteroid versus 7% with aqueous solution), with all infants showing less than 10% involvement. There were no adverse events (both outcomes assessed at day 10).No studies measured QoL.We found no trials testing commonly used treatments such as mineral oils, salicylic acid, or antifungals.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review identified only a limited number of studies investigating the effects of interventions for ISD in infants and young children. Unlike the reviews investigating the effects of treatments in adults, our results showed that there is uncertainty regarding the effectiveness and safety of studied treatments due to the very low-certainty evidence for all comparisons and outcomes.We assessed most bias domains as at unclear risk, but there was a high risk of bias for (mainly) performance, attrition, and detection bias. Evidence was limited further by imprecision (small studies, low number of events), indirectness (mainly with the outcomes assessed), and poor trial reporting. In most studies, the prognosis for the condition was favourable regardless of intervention but interpretation is limited by the very low-certainty evidence.Further research is needed with large, well-conducted, and well-reported intervention trials, particularly of interventions commonly recommended or used, such as emollients or shampoos and brushing, antifungals, or steroids. All studies should report standardised and validated relevant outcome measures, including adverse events, severity, and QoL, and they should be conducted in primary care settings where the majority of ISD is managed. Future trials should compare against placebo, no treatment, or standard care.