1
|
Stichtenoth G, Gonser M, Hentschel R, Janke E, Maul H, Schmitt A, Steppat S, Werner J, Herting E. Betreuung von Neugeborenen in der Geburtsklinik (Entwicklungsstufe
S2k, AWMF-Leitlinien-Register-Nr. 024–005, März 2021). Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol 2024; 228:137-150. [PMID: 38608666 DOI: 10.1055/a-2195-3995] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 04/14/2024]
Affiliation(s)
- Guido Stichtenoth
- Klinik für Kinder- und Jugendmedizin, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck
| | - Markus Gonser
- Universitätsspital Zürich, Klinik für Geburtshilfe, Zürich, Schweiz
| | - Roland Hentschel
- Neonatologie/Intensivmedizin, Zentrum für Kinder- und Jugendmedizin, Universitätsklinikum Freiburg
| | - Evelin Janke
- Katholische Bildungsstätte für Berufe im Sozial- und Gesundheitswesen GmbH, Akademie St. Franziskus, Lingen (Ems)
| | - Holger Maul
- Geburtshilfe und Pränatalmedizin, Asklepios Klinik Barmbek, Hamburg
| | - Anne Schmitt
- Hochschule für Technik und Wirtschaft des Saarlandes, Saarbrücken
| | | | - Janne Werner
- Florence-Nightingale-Krankenhaus, Kaiserswerther Diakonie, Düsseldorf
| | - Egbert Herting
- Klinik für Kinder- und Jugendmedizin, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Kelleher MM, Phillips R, Brown SJ, Cro S, Cornelius V, Carlsen KCL, Skjerven HO, Rehbinder EM, Lowe AJ, Dissanayake E, Shimojo N, Yonezawa K, Ohya Y, Yamamoto-Hanada K, Morita K, Axon E, Cork M, Cooke A, Van Vogt E, Schmitt J, Weidinger S, McClanahan D, Simpson E, Duley L, Askie LM, Williams HC, Boyle RJ. Skin care interventions in infants for preventing eczema and food allergy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2022; 11:CD013534. [PMID: 36373988 PMCID: PMC9661877 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013534.pub3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maeve M Kelleher
- National Heart & Lung Institute, Section of Inflammation and Repair, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Rachel Phillips
- Imperial Clinical Trials Unit, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Sara J Brown
- Centre for Genomic and Experimental Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Suzie Cro
- Imperial Clinical Trials Unit, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | | | - Karin C Lødrup Carlsen
- Division of Paediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
- Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| | - Håvard O Skjerven
- Division of Paediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
| | - Eva M Rehbinder
- Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
- Department of Dermatology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
| | - Adrian J Lowe
- Allergy and Lung Health Unit, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Eishika Dissanayake
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
| | - Naoki Shimojo
- Center for Preventive Medical Sciences, Chiba University, Chiba, Japan
| | - Kaori Yonezawa
- Department of Midwifery and Women's Health, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Yukihiro Ohya
- Allergy Center, National Center for Child Health and Development, Tokyo, Japan
| | | | - Kumiko Morita
- Department of Pediatrics, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Emma Axon
- Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Michael Cork
- Sheffield Dermatology Research, Department of Infection, Immunity & Cardiovascular Disease, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Alison Cooke
- Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, School of Health Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Eleanor Van Vogt
- Imperial Clinical Trials Unit, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Jochen Schmitt
- Center for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Faculty of Medicine Carl Gustav Carus, Technischen Universität (TU) Dresden, Dresden, Germany
| | - Stephan Weidinger
- Department of Dermatology and Allergy, University Hospital Scheswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany
| | - Danielle McClanahan
- Department of Dermatology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA
| | - Eric Simpson
- Department of Dermatology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA
| | - Lelia Duley
- Nottingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Lisa M Askie
- NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia
| | - Hywel C Williams
- Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Robert J Boyle
- National Heart & Lung Institute, Section of Inflammation and Repair, Imperial College London, London, UK
- Cochrane Skin, Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Kelleher MM, Cro S, Cornelius V, Lodrup Carlsen KC, Skjerven HO, Rehbinder EM, Lowe AJ, Dissanayake E, Shimojo N, Yonezawa K, Ohya Y, Yamamoto-Hanada K, Morita K, Axon E, Surber C, Cork M, Cooke A, Tran L, Van Vogt E, Schmitt J, Weidinger S, McClanahan D, Simpson E, Duley L, Askie LM, Chalmers JR, Williams HC, Boyle RJ. Skin care interventions in infants for preventing eczema and food allergy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 2:CD013534. [PMID: 33545739 PMCID: PMC8094581 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013534.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maeve M Kelleher
- National Heart & Lung Institute, Section of Inflammation and Repair, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Suzie Cro
- Imperial Clinical Trials Unit, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | | | - Karin C Lodrup Carlsen
- Division of Paediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
- Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| | - Håvard O Skjerven
- Division of Paediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
| | - Eva M Rehbinder
- Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
- Department of Dermatology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
| | - Adrian J Lowe
- Allergy and Lung Health Unit, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Eishika Dissanayake
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
| | - Naoki Shimojo
- Center for Preventive Medical Sciences, Chiba University, Chiba, Japan
| | - Kaori Yonezawa
- Department of Midwifery and Women's Health, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Yukihiro Ohya
- Allergy Center, National Center for Child Health and Development, Tokyo, Japan
| | | | - Kumiko Morita
- Department of Pediatrics, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Emma Axon
- Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Christian Surber
- Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
- Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Michael Cork
- Sheffield Dermatology Research, Department of Infection, Immunity & Cardiovascular Disease, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Alison Cooke
- Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, School of Health Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Lien Tran
- Imperial Clinical Trials Unit, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Eleanor Van Vogt
- Imperial Clinical Trials Unit, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Jochen Schmitt
- Center for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Faculty of Medicine Carl Gustav Carus, Technischen Universität (TU) Dresden, Dresden, Germany
| | - Stephan Weidinger
- Department of Dermatology and Allergy, University Hospital Scheswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany
| | - Danielle McClanahan
- Department of Dermatology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA
| | - Eric Simpson
- Department of Dermatology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA
| | - Lelia Duley
- Nottingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Lisa M Askie
- NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia
| | - Joanne R Chalmers
- Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Hywel C Williams
- Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Robert J Boyle
- National Heart & Lung Institute, Section of Inflammation and Repair, Imperial College London, London, UK
- Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Kelleher MM, Cro S, Cornelius V, Axon E, Lodrup Carlsen KC, Skjerven HO, Rehbinder EM, Lowe A, Dissanayake E, Shimojo N, Yonezawa K, Ohya Y, Yamamoto-Hanada K, Morita K, Surber C, Cork M, Cooke A, Tran L, Askie LM, Duley L, Chalmers JR, Williams HC, Boyle RJ. Skincare interventions in infants for preventing eczema and food allergy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013534] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/10/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Maeve M Kelleher
- Imperial College London; Department of Medicine, Section of Paediatrics; St Mary's Campus London UK
| | - Suzie Cro
- Imperial College London; Imperial Clinical Trials Unit; 1st Floor, Stadium House 68 Wood Lane London UK W12 7RH
| | - Victoria Cornelius
- Imperial College London; Imperial Clinical Trials Unit; 1st Floor, Stadium House 68 Wood Lane London UK W12 7RH
| | - Emma Axon
- University of Nottingham; Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology; King's Meadow Campus Nottingham UK NG7 2NR
| | - Karin C Lodrup Carlsen
- Oslo University Hospital; Division of Paediatric and Adolescent Medicine; Oslo Norway NO-0424
- University of Oslo; Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Clinical Medicine; PO Box 4956 Nydalen Oslo Norway NO-0424
| | - Håvard Ove Skjerven
- Oslo University Hospital; Division of Paediatric and Adolescent Medicine; Oslo Norway NO-0424
| | - Eva Maria Rehbinder
- University of Oslo; Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Clinical Medicine; PO Box 4956 Nydalen Oslo Norway NO-0424
- Oslo University Hospital; Department of Dermatology; Oslo Norway
| | - Adrian Lowe
- University of Melbourne; Allergy and Lung Health Unit, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health; Melbourne Victoria Australia 3053
| | - Eishika Dissanayake
- University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health; Department of Pediatrics; Madison Wisconsin USA
| | - Naoki Shimojo
- Graduate School of Medicine, Chiba University; Department of Pediatrics; 1-8-1 Inohana Chuo-Ku Chiba Japan 260-8670
| | - Kaori Yonezawa
- Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo; Department of Midwifery and Women's Health; Tokyo Japan
| | - Yukihiro Ohya
- National Center for Child Health and Development; Allergy Center; Tokyo Japan 157-8535
| | | | - Kumiko Morita
- Keio University School of Medicine; Department of Pediatrics; Tokyo Japan
| | - Christian Surber
- University Hospital Zurich; Department of Dermatology; Gloriastrasse 31 Zurich Switzerland 8091
- University Hospital Basel; Department of Dermatology; Petersgraben 4 Basel Switzerland 4031
| | - Michael Cork
- The University of Sheffield; Sheffield Dermatology Research, Department of Infection, Immunity & Cardiovascular Disease; Beech Hill Road Sheffield UK S10 2RX
| | - Alison Cooke
- The University of Manchester; Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, School of Health Sciences; Room 4.338, Jean McFarlane Building, Oxford Road Manchester UK M13 9PL
| | - Lien Tran
- Imperial College London; Imperial Clinical Trials Unit; 1st Floor, Stadium House 68 Wood Lane London UK W12 7RH
| | - Lisa M Askie
- University of Sydney; NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre; Locked Bag 77 Camperdown NSW Australia 2050
| | - Lelia Duley
- Nottingham Health Science Partners; Nottingham Clinical Trials Unit; C Floor, South Block Queen's Medical Centre Nottingham UK NG7 2UH
| | - Joanne R Chalmers
- University of Nottingham; Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology; King's Meadow Campus Nottingham UK NG7 2NR
| | - Hywel C Williams
- University of Nottingham; Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology; King's Meadow Campus Nottingham UK NG7 2NR
| | - Robert J Boyle
- Imperial College London; Department of Medicine, Section of Paediatrics; St Mary's Campus London UK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Diluvio L, Dattola A, Cannizzaro MV, Franceschini C, Bianchi L. Clinical and confocal evaluation of avenanthramides-based daily cleansing and emollient cream in pediatric population affected by atopic dermatitis and xerosis. GIORN ITAL DERMAT V 2019; 154:32-36. [DOI: 10.23736/s0392-0488.18.06002-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
|
6
|
Lünnemann L, Ludriksone L, Schario M, Sawatzky S, Stroux A, Blume-Peytavi U, Garcia Bartels N. Noninvasive monitoring of plant-based formulations on skin barrier properties in infants with dry skin and risk for atopic dermatitis. Int J Womens Dermatol 2018; 4:95-101. [PMID: 29872684 PMCID: PMC5986260 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijwd.2017.10.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/06/2017] [Revised: 10/18/2017] [Accepted: 10/19/2017] [Indexed: 12/01/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Dry skin and the associated impaired epidermal barrier function are postulated to constitute a major element in the development of atopic dermatitis. Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of two plant-based formulations on the epidermal barrier function in a defined cohort of infants with a predisposition for atopic dermatitis. Methods Over a period of 16 weeks, 25 infants who were ages 3 to 12 months and had an atopic predisposition and dry skin received two emollients that contained pressed juice of the ice plant. The infants received both cream and lotion on the forearm, only cream on the face, and only lotion on the leg. Stratum corneum hydration (SCH), transepidermal water loss (TEWL), skin surface pH, and sebum were assessed on the infants’ forehead, leg, and forearm. The Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) index was used for the clinical assessment. Results SCH significantly increased in all body regions that were assessed. The forearm and leg revealed stable levels of pH and TEWL, but a decline in pH (week 16) and TEWL (week 4) was noted on the forehead. At week 16, sebum levels were lower on the forehead compared with those at baseline. SCORAD scores improved significantly during the study. Conclusion A daily application of both emollients was associated with increased SCH levels and a stable course of TEWL, pH, and sebum on the forehead except for the forehead when compared with the forearm and leg. Clinically, improved SCORAD scores were noted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- L Lünnemann
- Dermatologic Practice Mahlow, Berlin, Germany
| | - L Ludriksone
- Clinical Research Center for Hair and Skin Science, Department for Dermatology and Allergy, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - M Schario
- Clinical Research Center for Hair and Skin Science, Department for Dermatology and Allergy, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - S Sawatzky
- Clinical Research Center for Hair and Skin Science, Department for Dermatology and Allergy, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - A Stroux
- Clinical Research Center for Hair and Skin Science, Department for Dermatology and Allergy, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.,Department of Medical Statistics and Clinical Epidemiology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - U Blume-Peytavi
- Clinical Research Center for Hair and Skin Science, Department for Dermatology and Allergy, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - N Garcia Bartels
- Clinical Research Center for Hair and Skin Science, Department for Dermatology and Allergy, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND Infant skin is susceptible to dryness and irritation from external factors, including topical skin care products not formulated for the infant's skin. This may increase the risk of contact dermatitis. Parents frequently express concern regarding potential harm from ingredients in skin care products and seek information. This is complicated by several skin care myths. PURPOSE The purpose of this literature review was to provide evidence-based information to educate parents on the use of products for preterm and term infants. SEARCH STRATEGY Multiple searches using PubMed were conducted including the search terms "infant skin care," "infant products," "infant bath," "emollients," "diaper skin care," and "diaper wipes." Reference lists of comprehensive reviews were also scanned. Google searches were used to assess consumer information, product information, and regulatory guidelines. FINDINGS There is little scientific evidence to support safety of natural/organic products on infant skin. Raw materials originate from different sources, complicating testing and comparisons of ingredients. Research shows that cleansers formulated for infant skin do not weaken the skin barrier the way harsher soaps and detergents can. Oils with the lowest oleic acid content provide a lower risk of irritant contact dermatitis. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE Nurses must be informed about natural and organic products, preservatives, and fragrances and know the definition of commonly used marketing terms. IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH Decisions regarding the use of infant products in preterm and term infants should be evidence based. More research is needed to support claims regarding the safety of products used on infant skin.
Collapse
|
8
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND Bathing the newborn infant is controversial, ranging from how and when to give the newborn their first bath, whether to bathe newborns at all in the initial days of life, and how to approach bathing the hospitalized premature and full-term infant in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). PURPOSE To review relevant literature about bathing newborn infants, as well as examine the controversies about bathing NICU patients including the use of daily chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) baths. FINDINGS Despite studies showing that temperature can be maintained when the first bath was at 1 hour after delivery, there are benefits from delaying the bath including improved breastfeeding. Tub or immersion bathing improves temperature, and is less stressful. It is not necessary to bathe infants every day, and premature infants can be bathed as little as every 4 days without an increase in skin colonization. No differences have been reported in skin parameters such as pH, transepidermal water loss, and stratum corneum hydration whether the first and subsequent baths are given using water alone or water and a mild baby cleanser. Concerns about systemic absorption suggests caution about widespread practice of daily CHG bathing in the NICU until it is known whether CHG crosses the blood-brain barrier, particularly in premature infants. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE AND RESEARCH Research regarding bathing practices for NICU patients should be evidence-based whenever possible, such as the benefits of immersion bathing. More evidence about the risks and benefits of daily CHG bathing is needed before this practice is widely disseminated.
Collapse
|