An algorithm for diagnosing IgE‐mediated food allergy in study participants who do not undergo food challenge

Time Trends, Regional Variation and Associations of Low-Allergy Formula Prescribing in England

BACKGROUND

Cow's milk allergy (CMA) overdiagnosis appears to be increasing and is associated with excessive low-allergy formula prescription. We evaluated recent trends and regional variation in low-allergy formula prescribing for CMA in England, and assessed potential risk factors for higher prescribing rates.

METHODS

Data on national and regional prescribing of low-allergy formulas were extracted from England's electronic prescription database using R. Region-level factors were evaluated for potential associations with regional low-allergy formula prescription rates using multivariate linear regression. Analysis of national prescribing trends covered 2007-2023, analysis of regional variation and region-level factors examined 2017-2019, prior to a re-organisation of the regional healthcare structure in England.

RESULTS

Low-allergy formula prescribing increased from 6.1 to 23.3 L per birth nationally, between 2007 and 2023. Regional prescribing rate varied from 0.8 to 47.6 L per birth in 2017-2019. We found significant associations between regional low-allergy formula prescribing rate and regional prescribing rates for milk feed thickeners Gaviscon Infant and Carobel Instant (β = 0.10, p < 0.01), and for other anti-reflux medications used in young children (β = 0.89 p < 0.01). Inconsistent associations were seen with prescribing junior adrenaline auto-injectors and oral antibiotics. A model including these four variables accounted for 37% of regional variation in low-allergy formula prescribing rate. Region-level socio-economic deprivation, CMA guideline recommendations and paediatric allergy service provision were not associated with low-allergy formula prescribing.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-allergy formula prescribing in England is increasing, varies significantly by region and is consistently associated with prescribing rates for milk feed thickeners and other anti-reflux medication for young children. Community prescribing behaviours may be important determinants of CMA overdiagnosis.

Emollient application from birth to prevent eczema in high-risk children: the BEEP RCT

Background

Atopic eczema is a common childhood skin problem linked with asthma, food allergy and allergic rhinitis that impairs quality of life.

Objectives

To determine whether advising parents to apply daily emollients in the first year can prevent eczema and/or other atopic diseases in high-risk children.

Design

A United Kingdom, multicentre, pragmatic, two-arm, parallel-group randomised controlled prevention trial with follow-up to 5 years.

Setting

Twelve secondary and four primary care centres.

Participants

Healthy infants (at least 37 weeks' gestation) at high risk of developing eczema, screened and consented during the third trimester or post delivery.

Interventions

Infants were randomised (1 : 1) within 21 days of birth to apply emollient (Doublebase Gel®; Dermal Laboratories Ltd, Hitchin, UK or Diprobase Cream®) daily to the whole body (excluding scalp) for the first year, plus standard skin-care advice (emollient group) or standard skin-care advice only (control group). Families were not blinded to allocation.

Main outcome measures

Primary outcome was eczema diagnosis in the last year at age 2 years, as defined by the UK Working Party refinement of the Hanifin and Rajka diagnostic criteria, assessed by research nurses blinded to allocation. Secondary outcomes up to age 2 years included other eczema definitions, time to onset and severity of eczema, allergic rhinitis, wheezing, allergic sensitisation, food allergy, safety (skin infections and slippages) and cost-effectiveness.

Results

One thousand three hundred and ninety-four newborns were randomised between November 2014 and November 2016; 693 emollient and 701 control. Adherence in the emollient group was 88% (466/532), 82% (427/519) and 74% (375/506) at 3, 6 and 12 months. At 2 years, eczema was present in 139/598 (23%) in the emollient group and 150/612 (25%) in controls (adjusted relative risk 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 1.16; p = 0.61 and adjusted risk difference -1.2%, 95% confidence interval -5.9% to 3.6%). Other eczema definitions supported the primary analysis. Food allergy (milk, egg, peanut) was present in 41/547 (7.5%) in the emollient group versus 29/568 (5.1%) in controls (adjusted relative risk 1.47, 95% confidence interval 0.93 to 2.33). Mean number of skin infections per child in the first year was 0.23 (standard deviation 0.68) in the emollient group versus 0.15 (standard deviation 0.46) in controls; adjusted incidence rate ratio 1.55, 95% confidence interval 1.15 to 2.09. The adjusted incremental cost per percentage decrease in risk of eczema at 2 years was £5337 (£7281 unadjusted). No difference between the groups in eczema or other atopic diseases was observed during follow-up to age 5 years via parental questionnaires.

Limitations

Two emollient types were used which could have had different effects. The median time for starting emollients was 11 days after birth. Some contamination occurred in the control group (< 20%). Participating families were unblinded and reported on some outcomes.

Conclusions

We found no evidence that daily emollient during the first year of life prevents eczema in high-risk children. Emollient use was associated with a higher risk of skin infections and a possible increase in food allergy. Emollient use is unlikely to be considered cost-effective in this context.

Future research

To pool similar studies in an individual patient data meta-analysis.

Trial registration

This trial is registered as ISRCTN21528841.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 12/67/12) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 29. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Prevalence and risk factors for milk allergy overdiagnosis in the BEEP trial cohort

BACKGROUND

Cow's milk allergy (CMA) overdiagnosis in young children appears to be increasing and has not been well characterised. We used a clinical trial population to characterise CMA overdiagnosis and identify individual-level and primary care practice-level risk factors.

METHODS

We analysed data from 1394 children born in England in 2014-2016 (BEEP trial, ISRCTN21528841). Participants underwent formal CMA diagnosis at ≤2 years. CMA overdiagnosis was defined in three separate ways: parent-reported milk reaction; primary care record of milk hypersensitivity symptoms; and primary care record of low-allergy formula prescription.

RESULTS

CMA was formally diagnosed in 19 (1.4%) participants. CMA overdiagnosis was common: 16.1% had parent-reported cow's milk hypersensitivity, 11.3% primary care recorded milk hypersensitivity and 8.7% had low-allergy formula prescription. Symptoms attributed to cow's milk hypersensitivity in participants without CMA were commonly gastrointestinal and reported from a median age of 49 days. Low-allergy formula prescriptions in participants without CMA lasted a median of 10 months (interquartile range 1, 16); the estimated volume consumed was a median of 272 litres (26, 448). Risk factors for CMA overdiagnosis were high practice-based low-allergy formula prescribing in the previous year and maternal report of antibiotic prescription during pregnancy. Exclusive formula feeding from birth was associated with increased low-allergy formula prescription. There was no evidence that practice prescribing of paediatric adrenaline auto-injectors or anti-reflux medications, or maternal features such as anxiety, age, parity and socioeconomic status were associated with CMA overdiagnosis.

CONCLUSION

CMA overdiagnosis is common in early infancy. Risk factors include high primary care practice-based low-allergy formula prescribing and maternal report of antibiotic prescription during pregnancy.

Developing a Prediction Model for Determination of Peanut Allergy Status in the Learning Early About Peanut Allergy (LEAP) Studies

BACKGROUND

The Learning Early About Peanut Allergy (LEAP) study team developed a protocol-specific algorithm using dietary history, peanut-specific IgE, and skin prick test (SPT) to determine peanut allergy status if the oral food challenge (OFC) could not be administered or did not provide a determinant result.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate how well the algorithm determined allergy status in LEAP; to develop a new prediction model to determine peanut allergy status when OFC results are not available in LEAP Trio, a follow-up study of LEAP participants and their families; and to compare the new prediction model with the algorithm.

METHODS

The algorithm was developed for the LEAP protocol before the analysis of the primary outcome. Subsequently, a prediction model was developed using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Using the protocol-specified algorithm, 73% (453/617) of allergy determinations matched the OFC, 0.6% (4/617) were mismatched, and 26% (160/617) participants were nonevaluable. The prediction model included SPT, peanut-specific IgE, Ara h 1, Ara h 2, and Ara h 3. The model inaccurately predicted 1 of 266 participants as allergic who were not allergic by OFC and 8 of 57 participants as not allergic who were allergic by OFC. The overall error rate was 9 of 323 (2.8%) with an area under the curve of 0.99. The prediction model additionally performed well in an external validation cohort.

CONCLUSION

The prediction model performed with high sensitivity and accuracy, eliminated the problem of nonevaluable outcomes, and can be used to estimate peanut allergy status in the LEAP Trio study when OFC is not available.

Skin care interventions in infants for preventing eczema and food allergy

BACKGROUND

Eczema and food allergy are common health conditions that usually begin in early childhood and often occur in the same people. They can be associated with an impaired skin barrier in early infancy. It is unclear whether trying to prevent or reverse an impaired skin barrier soon after birth is effective for preventing eczema or food allergy.

OBJECTIVES

Primary objective To assess the effects of skin care interventions such as emollients for primary prevention of eczema and food allergy in infants. Secondary objective To identify features of study populations such as age, hereditary risk, and adherence to interventions that are associated with the greatest treatment benefit or harm for both eczema and food allergy.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed an updated search of the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase in September 2021. We searched two trials registers in July 2021. We checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews, and scanned conference proceedings to identify further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs).  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs of skin care interventions that could potentially enhance skin barrier function, reduce dryness, or reduce subclinical inflammation in healthy term (> 37 weeks) infants (≤ 12 months) without pre-existing eczema, food allergy, or other skin condition. Eligible comparisons were standard care in the locality or no treatment. Types of skin care interventions could include moisturisers/emollients; bathing products; advice regarding reducing soap exposure and bathing frequency; and use of water softeners. No minimum follow-up was required.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

This is a prospective individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures, and primary analyses used the IPD dataset. Primary outcomes were cumulative incidence of eczema and cumulative incidence of immunoglobulin (Ig)E-mediated food allergy by one to three years, both measured at the closest available time point to two years. Secondary outcomes included adverse events during the intervention period; eczema severity (clinician-assessed); parent report of eczema severity; time to onset of eczema; parent report of immediate food allergy; and allergic sensitisation to food or inhalant allergen.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 33 RCTs comprising 25,827 participants. Of these, 17 studies randomising 5823 participants reported information on one or more outcomes specified in this review.  We included 11 studies, randomising 5217 participants, in one or more meta-analyses (range 2 to 9 studies per individual meta-analysis), with 10 of these studies providing IPD; the remaining 6 studies were included in the narrative results only.   Most studies were conducted at children's hospitals. Twenty-five studies, including all those contributing data to meta-analyses, randomised newborns up to age three weeks to receive a skin care intervention or standard infant skin care. Eight of the 11 studies contributing to meta-analyses recruited infants at high risk of developing eczema or food allergy, although the definition of high risk varied between studies. Durations of intervention and follow-up ranged from 24 hours to three years. All interventions were compared against no skin care intervention or local standard care. Of the 17 studies that reported information on our prespecified outcomes, 13 assessed emollients. We assessed most of the evidence in the review as low certainty and had some concerns about risk of bias. A rating of some concerns was most often due to lack of blinding of outcome assessors or significant missing data, which could have impacted outcome measurement but was judged unlikely to have done so. We assessed the evidence for the primary food allergy outcome as high risk of bias due to the inclusion of only one trial, where findings varied based on different assumptions about missing data. Skin care interventions during infancy probably do not change the risk of eczema by one to three years of age (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.31; risk difference 5 more cases per 1000 infants, 95% CI 28 less to 47 more; moderate-certainty evidence; 3075 participants, 7 trials) or time to onset of eczema (hazard ratio 0.86, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.14; moderate-certainty evidence; 3349 participants, 9 trials). Skin care interventions during infancy may increase the risk of IgE-mediated food allergy by one to three years of age (RR 2.53, 95% CI 0.99 to 6.49; low-certainty evidence; 976 participants, 1 trial) but may not change risk of allergic sensitisation to a food allergen by age one to three years (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.71; low-certainty evidence; 1794 participants, 3 trials). Skin care interventions during infancy may slightly increase risk of parent report of immediate reaction to a common food allergen at two years (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.61; low-certainty evidence; 1171 participants, 1 trial); however, this was only seen for cow's milk, and may be unreliable due to over-reporting of milk allergy in infants. Skin care interventions during infancy probably increase risk of skin infection over the intervention period (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.75; risk difference 17 more cases per 1000 infants, 95% CI one more to 38 more; moderate-certainty evidence; 2728 participants, 6 trials) and may increase the risk of infant slippage over the intervention period (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.99; low-certainty evidence; 2538 participants, 4 trials) and stinging/allergic reactions to moisturisers (RR 2.24, 95% 0.67 to 7.43; low-certainty evidence; 343 participants, 4 trials), although CIs for slippages and stinging/allergic reactions were wide and include the possibility of no effect or reduced risk. Preplanned subgroup analyses showed that the effects of interventions were not influenced by age, duration of intervention, hereditary risk, filaggrin (FLG) mutation, chromosome 11 intergenic variant rs2212434, or classification of intervention type for risk of developing eczema. We could not evaluate these effects on risk of food allergy. Evidence was insufficient to show whether adherence to interventions influenced the relationship between skin care interventions and eczema or food allergy development.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on low- to moderate-certainty evidence, skin care interventions such as emollients during the first year of life in healthy infants are probably not effective for preventing eczema; may increase risk of food allergy; and probably increase risk of skin infection. Further study is needed to understand whether different approaches to infant skin care might prevent eczema or food allergy.

Early food intervention and skin emollients to prevent food allergy in young children (PreventADALL): a factorial, multicentre, cluster-randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Primary prevention of food allergy by early introduction of allergenic foods seems promising. We aimed to determine whether early food introduction or the application of regular skin emollients in infants from a general population reduced the risk of food allergy.

METHODS

This 2 × 2 factorial, cluster-randomised trial was done at Oslo University Hospital and Østfold Hospital Trust, Oslo, Norway, and Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. Infants of women recruited antenatally at the routine 18-week ultrasound examination were cluster-randomised at birth to the following groups: (1) no intervention group; (2) the skin intervention group (skin emollients; bath additives and facial cream; from age 2 weeks to <9 months, both at least four times per week); (3) the food intervention group (early complementary feeding of peanut, cow's milk, wheat, and egg from age 3 months); or (4) combined intervention group (skin and food interventions). Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) using computer-generated randomisation based on clusters of 92 geographical areas and eight 3-month time blocks. Study personnel performing clinical assessments were masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was allergy to any interventional food at 36 months of age. The primary efficacy analysis was done by intention-to-treat analysis, which included all participants who were randomly assigned, apart from three individuals who withdrew their consent. This was a study performed within ORAACLE (the Oslo Research Group of Asthma and Allergy in Childhood; the Lung and Environment). This study is registered as ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02449850.

FINDINGS

We recruited 2697 women with 2701 pregnancies, from whom 2397 newborn infants were enrolled between April 14, 2015, and April 11, 2017. Of these infants, 597 were randomly assigned to the no intervention group, 575 to the skin intervention group, 642 to the food intervention group, and 583 to the combined intervention group. One participant in each of the no intervention, food intervention, and skin intervention groups withdrew consent and were therefore not included in any analyses. Food allergy was diagnosed in 44 children; 14 (2·3%) of 596 infants in the non-intervention group, 17 (3·0%) of 574 infants in the skin intervention group, six (0·9%) of 641 infants in the food intervention group, and seven (1·2%) of 583 infants in the combined intervention group. Peanut allergy was diagnosed in 32 children, egg allergy in 12 children, and milk allergy in four children. None had allergy to wheat. Prevalence of food allergy was reduced in the food intervention group compared with the no food intervention group (risk difference -1·6% [95% CI -2·7 to -0·5]; odds ratio [OR] 0·4 [95% CI 0·2 to 0·8]), but not compared with the skin intervention group (0·4% [95% CI -0·6 to 1· 5%]; OR 1·3 [0·7 to 2·3]), with no significant interaction effect (p=1·0). Preventing food allergy in one child required early exposure to allergenic foods in 63 children. No serious adverse events were observed.

INTERPRETATION

Exposure to allergenic foods from 3 months of age reduced food allergy at 36 months in a general population. Our results support that early introduction of common allergenic foods is a safe and effective strategy to prevent food allergy.

FUNDING

Full funding sources listed at end of paper (see Acknowledgments).

Food Allergy Prevention: Early Versus Late Introduction of Food Allergens in Children

The emergence of food allergies in children is crucial for various medical fields seeking a viable strategy for allergy prevention. The most well-recognized approach adopted by numerous health care and government institutions hinges on the delay in the introduction of food allergens, which supposedly protects infants from sensitization and decreases the possibility of allergy development. However, recent experimental findings indicate that the benefits of this approach might be overestimated, as early exposure to allergenic foods has been shown to yield more advantageous outcomes. Multiple investigations on the causes of allergic diseases report that avoiding food allergies might be related to early consumption of these allergens. Alternatively, delaying the contact with allergenic nourishments, explored in contemporary research, has been proven to result in a higher prevalence of allergies among children, originating such conditions as atopic diseases and extreme sensitization to foods. The current paper compares the two prominent strategies of allergenic food introduction, gathering the most pertinent modern evidence to distinguish whether exposure to food allergens should be delayed or advanced.

The Basophil Activation Test for Clinical Management of Food Allergies: Recent Advances and Future Directions

The basophil activation test (BAT) is an ex vivo functional assay that measures by flow cytometry the degree of basophil degranulation after stimulation with an allergen. In recent years, there has been an increased interest in the diagnostic value of the BAT as it has the potential to mimic the clinical phenotype of sIgE sensitized patients, in contrast to allergen-specific IgE levels. This diagnostic potential would be of particular interest for food allergies present early in life such as peanut, cow’s milk and eggs, which require an expensive, time-consuming and patient unfriendly oral food challenge (OFC) for diagnosis. However, routine applications of the BAT for clinical use are not yet feasible due to the lack of standardized protocols and large clinical validation studies. This review will summarize the current data regarding the application of the BAT in food allergy (FA) for cow’s milk, egg and peanut, being the most common causes of FA in children. Additionally, it will discuss the hurdles for widespread clinical use of the BAT and possible future directions for this diagnostic procedure.

Developments in the field of allergy in 2020 through the eyes of Clinical and Experimental Allergy

While 2020 will be remembered for the global coronavirus pandemic, there were also important advances in the field of allergy. In this review article, we summarize key findings reported in Clinical and Experimental Allergy during 2020. We hope this provides readers with an accessible snapshot of the work published in our journal during this time.

Skin care interventions in infants for preventing eczema and food allergy

BACKGROUND

Eczema and food allergy are common health conditions that usually begin in early childhood and often occur together in the same people. They can be associated with an impaired skin barrier in early infancy. It is unclear whether trying to prevent or reverse an impaired skin barrier soon after birth is effective in preventing eczema or food allergy.

OBJECTIVES

Primary objective To assess effects of skin care interventions, such as emollients, for primary prevention of eczema and food allergy in infants Secondary objective To identify features of study populations such as age, hereditary risk, and adherence to interventions that are associated with the greatest treatment benefit or harm for both eczema and food allergy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to July 2020: Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. We searched two trials registers and checked reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We contacted field experts to identify planned trials and to seek information about unpublished or incomplete trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs of skin care interventions that could potentially enhance skin barrier function, reduce dryness, or reduce subclinical inflammation in healthy term (> 37 weeks) infants (0 to 12 months) without pre-existing diagnosis of eczema, food allergy, or other skin condition were included. Comparison was standard care in the locality or no treatment. Types of skin care interventions included moisturisers/emollients; bathing products; advice regarding reducing soap exposure and bathing frequency; and use of water softeners. No minimum follow-up was required.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

This is a prospective individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures, and primary analyses used the IPD dataset. Primary outcomes were cumulative incidence of eczema and cumulative incidence of immunoglobulin (Ig)E-mediated food allergy by one to three years, both measured by the closest available time point to two years. Secondary outcomes included adverse events during the intervention period; eczema severity (clinician-assessed); parent report of eczema severity; time to onset of eczema; parent report of immediate food allergy; and allergic sensitisation to food or inhalant allergen.

MAIN RESULTS

This review identified 33 RCTs, comprising 25,827 participants. A total of 17 studies, randomising 5823 participants, reported information on one or more outcomes specified in this review. Eleven studies randomising 5217 participants, with 10 of these studies providing IPD, were included in one or more meta-analysis (range 2 to 9 studies per individual meta-analysis). Most studies were conducted at children's hospitals. All interventions were compared against no skin care intervention or local standard care. Of the 17 studies that reported our outcomes, 13 assessed emollients. Twenty-five studies, including all those contributing data to meta-analyses, randomised newborns up to age three weeks to receive a skin care intervention or standard infant skin care. Eight of the 11 studies contributing to meta-analyses recruited infants at high risk of developing eczema or food allergy, although definition of high risk varied between studies. Durations of intervention and follow-up ranged from 24 hours to two years. We assessed most of this review's evidence as low certainty or had some concerns of risk of bias. A rating of some concerns was most often due to lack of blinding of outcome assessors or significant missing data, which could have impacted outcome measurement but was judged unlikely to have done so. Evidence for the primary food allergy outcome was rated as high risk of bias due to inclusion of only one trial where findings varied when different assumptions were made about missing data. Skin care interventions during infancy probably do not change risk of eczema by one to two years of age (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.31; moderate-certainty evidence; 3075 participants, 7 trials) nor time to onset of eczema (hazard ratio 0.86, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.14; moderate-certainty evidence; 3349 participants, 9 trials). It is unclear whether skin care interventions during infancy change risk of IgE-mediated food allergy by one to two years of age (RR 2.53, 95% CI 0.99 to 6.47; 996 participants, 1 trial) or allergic sensitisation to a food allergen at age one to two years (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.69; 1055 participants, 2 trials) due to very low-certainty evidence for these outcomes. Skin care interventions during infancy may slightly increase risk of parent report of immediate reaction to a common food allergen at two years (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.61; low-certainty evidence; 1171 participants, 1 trial). However, this was only seen for cow's milk, and may be unreliable due to significant over-reporting of cow's milk allergy in infants. Skin care interventions during infancy probably increase risk of skin infection over the intervention period (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.77; moderate-certainty evidence; 2728 participants, 6 trials) and may increase risk of infant slippage over the intervention period (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.99; low-certainty evidence; 2538 participants, 4 trials) or stinging/allergic reactions to moisturisers (RR 2.24, 95% 0.67 to 7.43; low-certainty evidence; 343 participants, 4 trials), although confidence intervals for slippages and stinging/allergic reactions are wide and include the possibility of no effect or reduced risk. Preplanned subgroup analyses show that effects of interventions were not influenced by age, duration of intervention, hereditary risk, FLG mutation,  or classification of intervention type for risk of developing eczema. We could not evaluate these effects on risk of food allergy. Evidence was insufficient to show whether adherence to interventions influenced the relationship between skin care interventions and risk of developing eczema or food allergy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Skin care interventions such as emollients during the first year of life in healthy infants are probably not effective for preventing eczema, and probably increase risk of skin infection. Effects of skin care interventions on risk of food allergy are uncertain. Further work is needed to understand whether different approaches to infant skin care might promote or prevent eczema and to evaluate effects on food allergy based on robust outcome assessments.

Daily emollient during infancy for prevention of eczema: the BEEP randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Skin barrier dysfunction precedes eczema development. We tested whether daily use of emollient in the first year could prevent eczema in high-risk children.

METHODS

We did a multicentre, pragmatic, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial in 12 hospitals and four primary care sites across the UK. Families were approached via antenatal or postnatal services for recruitment of term infants (at least 37 weeks' gestation) at high risk of developing eczema (ie, at least one first-degree relative with parent-reported eczema, allergic rhinitis, or asthma, diagnosed by a doctor). Term newborns with a family history of atopic disease were randomly assigned (1:1) to application of emollient daily (either Diprobase cream or DoubleBase gel) for the first year plus standard skin-care advice (emollient group) or standard skin-care advice only (control group). The randomisation schedule was created using computer-generated code (stratified by recruiting centre and number of first-degree relatives with atopic disease) and participants were assigned to groups using an internet-based randomisation system. The primary outcome was eczema at age 2 years (defined by UK working party criteria) with analysis as randomised regardless of adherence to allocation for participants with outcome data collected, and adjusting for stratification variables. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN21528841. Data collection for long-term follow-up is ongoing, but the trial is closed to recruitment.

FINDINGS

1394 newborns were randomly assigned to study groups between Nov 19, 2014, and Nov 18, 2016; 693 were assigned to the emollient group and 701 to the control group. Adherence in the emollient group was 88% (466 of 532) at 3 months, 82% (427 of 519) at 6 months, and 74% (375 of 506) at 12 months in those with complete questionnaire data. At age 2 years, eczema was present in 139 (23%) of 598 infants with outcome data collected in the emollient group and 150 (25%) of 612 infants in the control group (adjusted relative risk 0·95 [95% CI 0·78 to 1·16], p=0·61; adjusted risk difference -1·2% [-5·9 to 3·6]). Other eczema definitions supported the results of the primary analysis. Mean number of skin infections per child in year 1 was 0·23 (SD 0·68) in the emollient group versus 0·15 (0·46) in the control group; adjusted incidence rate ratio 1·55 (95% CI 1·15 to 2·09).

INTERPRETATION

We found no evidence that daily emollient during the first year of life prevents eczema in high-risk children and some evidence to suggest an increased risk of skin infections. Our study shows that families with eczema, asthma, or allergic rhinitis should not use daily emollients to try and prevent eczema in their newborn.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment.