SIT beyond respiratory diseases

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.

Oral immunotherapy for allergic conjunctivitis

Antigen-specific immunotherapy is expected to be a desirable treatment for allergic diseases. Currently, antigen-specific immunotherapy is performed by administering disease-causing antigens subcutaneously or sublingually. These approaches induce long-term remission in patients with allergic rhinitis or asthma. The oral route is an alternative to subcutaneous and sublingual routes, and can also induce long-term remission, a phenomenon known as "oral tolerance." The effectiveness of oral tolerance has been reported in the context of autoimmune diseases, food allergies, asthma, atopic dermatitis, and allergic rhinitis in both human patients and animal models. However, few studies have examined its efficacy in animal models of allergic conjunctivitis. Previously, we showed that ovalbumin feeding suppressed ovalbumin-induced experimental allergic conjunctivitis, indicating the induction of oral tolerance is effective in treating experimental allergic conjunctivitis. In recent years, transgenic rice has been developed that can induce oral tolerance and reduce the severity of anaphylaxis. The major Japanese cedar pollen antigens in transgenic rice, Cryptomeria japonica 1 and C. japonica 2, were deconstructed by molecular shuffling, fragmentation, and changes in the oligomeric structure. Thus, transgenic rice may be an effective treatment for allergic conjunctivitis.

Oral immunotherapy for milk allergy

BACKGROUND

The mainstay of treatment of IgE-mediated cow milk allergy (IMCMA) is an avoidance diet, which is especially difficult with a ubiquitous food like milk. Milk oral immunotherapy (MOIT) may be an alternative treatment, through desensitization or induction of tolerance.

OBJECTIVES

We aim to assess the clinical efficacy and safety of MOIT in children and adults with IMCMA as compared to a placebo treatment or avoidance strategy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched 13 databases for journal articles, conference proceedings, theses and unpublished trials, without language or date restrictions, using a combination of subject headings and text words. The search is up-to-date as of October 1, 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised controlled trials (RCT) were considered for inclusion. Blinded and open trial designs were included. Children and adults with IMCMA were included. MOIT administered by any protocol were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

A total of 2111 unique records were identified and screened for potential inclusion. Studies were selected, data extracted and methodological quality assessed independently by two reviewers. We attempted to contact the study investigators to inquire about data not published that was required for the analysis. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I² test. We estimated a pooled risk ratio (RR) for each outcome using a Mantel-Haenzel fixed-effect model if statistical heterogeneity was low as evaluated by an I² value less than 50%.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 157 records reviewed, 16 were included, representing five trials. In general, the studies were small and had inconsistent methodological rigor. Overall, the quality of evidence was rated as low. Each study used a different MOIT protocol. A total of 196 patients were studied (106 MOIT, 90 control) and all were children. Three studies were blinded and two used an avoidance diet control.  Sixty-six patients (62%) in the MOIT group were able to tolerate a full serving of milk (about 200 mL) compared to seven (8%) of the control group (RR 6.61, 95% CI 3.51 to 12.44). In addition, 27 (25%) in the MOIT group could ingest a partial serving of milk (10 to 184 mL) while none could in the control group (RR 9.34, 95% CI 2.72 to 32.09). None of the studies assessed the patients following a period off immunotherapy. Adverse reactions were common (97 of 106 MOIT patients had at least one symptom), although most were local and mild. Because of variability in reporting methods, adverse effects could not be combined quantitatively. For every 11 patients receiving MOIT, one required intramuscular epinephrine. One patient required it on two occasions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Studies to date have involved small numbers of patients and the quality of evidence is generally low. The current evidence shows that MOIT can lead to desensitization in the majority of individuals with IMCMA although the development of long-term tolerance has not been established. A major drawback of MOIT is the frequency of adverse effects, although most are mild and self-limited. The use of parenteral epinephrine is not infrequent. Because there are no standardized protocols, guidelines would be required prior to incorporating desensitization into clinical practice.