Effects of Topical Oils on Neonatal Skin: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To identify studies that aimed to determine the effects of topical oils on neonatal skin.

DATA SOURCES

Authors searched PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Science Direct databases.

STUDY SELECTION

The databases were searched for studies published through February 2022 (when the search was conducted) using the keywords "skin", "neonatal", "infant", and "oil". Fourteen randomized controlled trials that met the eligibility criteria were included in the review.

DATA EXTRACTION

Researchers used the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) reporting guidelines to guide this systematic review. Two authors reviewed and evaluated the articles independently.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The 14 studies included in this review were conducted with a total of 5,683 neonates, most of whom were preterm. The included studies used blended sunflower (n = 8), coconut (n = 5), almond (n = 2), olive (n = 1), mustard (n = 1), and vegetable (n = 1) oils. These studies investigated the effects of topical oils on the skin's barrier functions and skin integrity. Most studies used noninvasive measurement devices to evaluate the skin's barrier functions; they used a variety of scoring systems to evaluate skin integrity. Eleven of the studies concluded that the oils used in the skincare of neonates effectively improve the skin condition and barrier functions of the skin. However, three studies found equivocal, negative, or mixed findings.

CONCLUSION

Although current evidence indicates a potential benefit, more studies with a high level of evidence on the subject are required.

Maintaining Skin Integrity in Neonates with Sunflower Seed Oil and Liquid Vaseline: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Study

OBJECTIVE

To test the effectiveness of sunflower seed oil (SSO) and liquid Vaseline (LV) in maintaining skin integrity in term and preterm neonates in the neonatal ICU. Because the skin of the neonate is still immature, disruption of skin integrity is a commonly observed problem.

METHODS

In this randomized controlled study, 90 preterm and term neonates in the neonatal ICU of a state hospital were equally divided into three groups. The skin condition of the neonates in all three groups was assessed using the Neonatal Skin Condition Score (NSCS); assessments were made a total of nine times at 48-hour intervals. The skin of the neonates in the first group was moisturized with SSO, and the second group was moisturized with LV, once a day, a total of 16 times. Moisturizer was not applied to the skin of the third group of neonates (the control group).

RESULTS

The median gestational age was 37.0 weeks (range, 36.0-38.0 weeks). After the third evaluation, the median NSCS scores for the neonates in the SSO and LV groups were significantly lower than for those in the control group (P < .001). The control group's median NSCS scores did not change throughout the period of the study.

CONCLUSIONS

Both SSO and LV are harmless to the skin of neonates and can be used to maintain their skin integrity. More advanced studies are needed to evaluate the effects of topical oils on maintaining skin integrity.

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.

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.

Diagnosis and treatment of xerosis cutis - a position paper

BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE

Xerosis cutis (also referred to as xeroderma, dry skin, asteatosis) affects more than 10 million individuals in Germany. It is among the most common dermatological diagnoses and a cardinal symptom of many dermatological, internal and neurological diseases. Even though it has been established that basic skin care plays a significant role in the management of patients with xerosis cutis, there are as yet no evidence-based algorithms for diagnosis and treatment.

OBJECTIVE

The present position paper provides physicians across all specialties with a practical, symptom-based approach to the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of xerosis cutis.

METHODS

Within a structured decision-making process, a panel of experienced dermatologists first defined questions relevant to everyday clinical practice, which were then addressed by a systematic review of the literature. Based on the evidence available as well as expert consensus, diagnostic and treatment algorithms were subsequently developed and agreed upon.

RESULTS

Xerosis cutis is generally diagnosed on clinical grounds. Possible trigger factors must be avoided, and comorbidities should be adequately and specifically treated. Suitable skin care products should be chosen with a view to improving skin hydration and restoring its barrier function. They should therefore contain both rehydrating and lipid-replenishing components. The "drier" the skin appears, the greater the lipid content should be (preferably using water-in-oil formulations). The choice of ingredients is based on a patient's individual symptoms, such as scaling (e.g., urea), fissures/rhagades (e.g., urea or dexpanthenol), erythema (e.g., licochalcone A) and pruritus (e.g., polidocanol). Other factors to be considered include the site affected and patient age. Ingredients or rather combinations thereof for which there is good clinical evidence should be preferentially used. The best evidence by far is available for urea, whose efficacy in the treatment of xerosis is further enhanced by combining it with other natural moisturizing components and ceramides. The "xerosimeter" is a tool developed in an effort to facilitate patient management and for training purposes. It not only includes practical tools for diagnosis and follow-up but also a classification of ingredients and a structured treatment algorithm.

CONCLUSION

The structured symptom- and evidence-based approach proposed herein contains a road map for diagnosis and treatment of xerosis cutis. It aims to raise awareness in terms of prevention and early treatment of this condition and may thus improve quality of life and prevent potential sequelae.

Impact of sunflower seed oil versus mustard seed oil on skin barrier function in newborns: a community-based, cluster-randomized trial

Background

Natural vegetable oils are widely used for newborn massage in many low resource settings. Animal models indicated that sunflower seed oil (SSO) can accelerate skin barrier recovery following damage, while other oils, including mustard oil (MO), may cause further skin barrier damage. The objective was to compare the effects of two SSO and MO used for routine massage on skin integrity in premature and full-term neonates.

Methods

This community-based cluster randomized controlled trial included 995 neonates assigned to full body massage with sunflower seed oil (SSO, intervention) or mustard seed oil (MO, standard practice) from July 2012–May 2014 in Sarlahi, Nepal. Skin integrity measures were evaluated over 28 days, including skin condition (erythema, rash, dryness), skin surface pH, stratum corneum (SC) cohesion/protein concentration, and transepidermal water loss (TEWL). Overall means and rates of change in these skin measures were compared between oil groups using bivariate random-effects models.

Results

500 and 495 live born neonates received repeated massage with MO and SSO, respectively. Skin pH decreased more quickly for SSO than MO in the first week of life, with a difference in mean daily reductions of 0.02 (95% CI: 0.002–0.040). Erythema, rash and dryness increased (worsened) over days 1–14 then decreased by day 28, with no significant oil group differences. TEWL increased over time, with no significant oil group differences. Gestational age did not modify the effect; the slightly faster decrease in skin pH among SSO infants was similar in magnitude between term and preterm infants.

Conclusions

Oil type may contribute to differences in skin integrity when neonates are massaged regularly. The more rapid acid mantle development observed for SSO may be protective for neonates in lower resource settings.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01177111); registered August 6th, 2010.

Prevention and treatment of diaper dermatitis

Diaper dermatitis (DD) is one of the most common skin conditions that infants suffer from and their caregivers manage in the first months post-birth. As such, questions of effective prevention and treatment of the condition often arise. Nonmedical skincare practices that support healthy skin barrier function can prevent DD manifestation or alleviate the condition in many cases. The usage of barrier emollients and improved diaper technology contributes to keeping moisture and irritants away from an infant's delicate skin. This paper addresses facts behind commonly asked questions from caregivers regarding DD and discusses effective measures to prevent and treat the condition.

Betulin-Based Oleogel to Improve Wound Healing in Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa: A Prospective Controlled Proof-of-Concept Study

Introduction

Skin fragility and recurrent wounds are hallmarks of hereditary epidermolysis bullosa (EB). Treatment options to accelerate wound healing are urgently needed. Oleogel-S10 contains a betulin-rich triterpene extract from birch bark. In this study, we tested the wound healing properties of topical Oleogel-S10 in patients with dystrophic EB.

Methods

We conducted an open, blindly evaluated, controlled, prospective phase II pilot trial in patients with dystrophic EB (EudraCT number 2010-019945-24). Healing of wounds treated with and without topical Oleogel-S10 was compared. Primary efficacy variable was faster reepithelialization as determined by 2 blinded experts. The main secondary outcome variable of the study was percentage of wound epithelialization.

Results

Twelve wound pairs of 10 patients with dystrophic EB were evaluated. In 5 of 12 cases, both blinded reviewers considered epithelialization of the intervention wounds as superior. In 3 cases, only one reviewer considered Oleogel-S10 as superior and the other one as equal to control. Measurements of wound size showed a trend towards accelerated wound healing with the intervention but without reaching statistical significance.

Conclusion

Our results indicate a potential for faster reepithelialization of wounds in patients with dystrophic EB when treated with Oleogel-S10 but larger studies are needed to confirm significance.