-
The American Journal of Clinical... Mar 2019During the Pregnancy and Birth to 24 Months Project, the USDA and Department of Health and Human Services initiated a review of evidence on diet and health in these...
BACKGROUND
During the Pregnancy and Birth to 24 Months Project, the USDA and Department of Health and Human Services initiated a review of evidence on diet and health in these populations.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of these systematic reviews was to examine the relation of 1) never versus ever feeding human milk, 2) shorter versus longer durations of any human milk feeding, 3) shorter versus longer durations of exclusive human milk feeding prior to infant formula introduction, 4) feeding a lower versus higher intensity of human milk to mixed-fed infants, and 5) feeding a higher intensity of human milk by bottle versus breast with food allergies, allergic rhinitis, atopic dermatitis, and asthma.
METHODS
The Nutrition Evidence Systematic Review team conducted systematic reviews with external experts. We searched CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, and PubMed for articles published between January 1980 and March 2016, dual-screened the results according to predetermined criteria, extracted data from and assessed the risk of bias for each included study, qualitatively synthesized the evidence, developed conclusion statements, and graded the strength of the evidence.
RESULTS
The systematic reviews numbered 1-5 above included 44, 35, 1, 0, and 0 articles, respectively. Moderate, mostly observational, evidence suggests that 1) never versus ever being fed human milk is associated with higher risk of childhood asthma, and 2) among children and adolescents who were fed human milk as infants, shorter versus longer durations of any human milk feeding are associated with higher risk of asthma. Limited evidence does not suggest associations between 1) never versus ever being fed human milk and atopic dermatitis in childhood or 2) the duration of any human milk feeding and allergic rhinitis and atopic dermatitis in childhood.
CONCLUSIONS
Moderate evidence suggests that feeding human milk for short durations or not at all is associated with higher childhood asthma risk. Evidence on food allergies, allergic rhinitis, and atopic dermatitis is limited.
Topics: Adolescent; Asthma; Breast Feeding; Child; Dermatitis, Atopic; Diet; Feeding Behavior; Food Hypersensitivity; Humans; Infant; Infant Formula; Infant Nutritional Physiological Phenomena; Infant, Newborn; Milk, Human; Rhinitis, Allergic
PubMed: 30982870
DOI: 10.1093/ajcn/nqy283 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2022Eczema 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... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
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.
Topics: Female; Animals; Cattle; Emollients; Eczema; Food Hypersensitivity; Milk Hypersensitivity; Allergens
PubMed: 36373988
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013534.pub3 -
Nutrients Aug 2019Research has investigated 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) levels in the Atopic Dermatitis (AD) population, as well as changes in AD severity after vitamin D (VitD)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Vitamin D Deficiency and Effects of Vitamin D Supplementation on Disease Severity in Patients with Atopic Dermatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis in Adults and Children.
Research has investigated 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) levels in the Atopic Dermatitis (AD) population, as well as changes in AD severity after vitamin D (VitD) supplementation. We performed an up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis of these findings. Electronic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE and COCHRANE up to February 2018 were performed. Observational studies comparing 25(OH)D between AD patients and controls, as well as trials documenting baseline serum 25(OH)D levels and clinical severity by either SCORAD/EASI scores, were included. Of the 1085 articles retrieved, sixteen were included. A meta-analysis of eleven studies of AD patients vs. healthy controls (HC) found a mean difference of -14 nmol/L (95% CI -25 to -2) for all studies and -16 nmol/L (95% CI -31 to -1) for the paediatric studies alone. A meta-analysis of three VitD supplementation trials found lower SCORAD by -11 points (95% CI -13 to -9, < 0.00001). This surpasses the Minimal Clinical Important Difference for AD of 9.0 points (by 22%). There were greater improvements in trials lasting three months and the mean weighted dose of all trials was 1500-1600 IU/daily. Overall, the AD population, especially the paediatric subset, may be at high-risk for lower serum 25(OH)D. Supplementation with around 1600 IU/daily results in a clinically meaningful AD severity reduction.
Topics: Adolescent; Biomarkers; Child; Child, Preschool; Dermatitis, Atopic; Dietary Supplements; Female; Humans; Incidence; Infant; Male; Risk Factors; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome; Vitamin D; Vitamin D Deficiency
PubMed: 31405041
DOI: 10.3390/nu11081854 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2018Eczema is a common chronic skin condition. Probiotics have been proposed as an effective treatment for eczema; their use is increasing, as numerous clinical trials are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Eczema is a common chronic skin condition. Probiotics have been proposed as an effective treatment for eczema; their use is increasing, as numerous clinical trials are under way. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2008, which suggested that probiotics may not be an effective treatment for eczema but identified areas in which evidence was lacking.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of probiotics for treating patients of all ages with eczema.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated our searches of the following databases to January 2017: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library, the Global Resource of Eczema Trials (GREAT) database, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), and Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS). We searched five trials registers and checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We also handsearched a number of conference proceedings. We updated the searches of the main databases in January 2018 and of trials registries in March 2018, but we have not yet incorporated these results into the review.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of probiotics (live orally ingested micro-organisms) compared with no treatment, placebo, or other active intervention with no probiotics for the treatment of eczema diagnosed by a doctor.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane. We recorded adverse events from the included studies and from a separate adverse events search conducted for the first review. We formally assessed reporting bias by preparing funnel plots, and we performed trial sequential analysis for the first primary outcome - eczema symptoms at the end of active treatment.We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome (in italic font).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 39 randomised controlled trials involving 2599 randomised participants. We included participants of either gender, aged from the first year of life through to 55 years (only six studies assessed adults), who had mild to severe eczema. Trials were undertaken in primary and secondary healthcare settings, mainly in Europe or Asia. Duration of treatment ranged from four weeks to six months, and duration of follow-up after end of treatment ranged from zero to 36 months. We selected no standard dose: researchers used a variety of doses and concentrations of probiotics. The probiotics used were bacteria of the Lactobacillus and Bifidobacteria species, which were taken alone or combined with other probiotics, and were given with or without prebiotics. Comparators were no treatment, placebo, and other treatments with no probiotics.For all results described in this abstract, the comparator was no probiotics. Active treatment ranged from six weeks to three months for all of the following results, apart from the investigator-rated eczema severity outcome, for which the upper limit of active treatment was 16 weeks. With regard to score, the higher the score, the more severe were the symptoms. All key results reported in this abstract were measured at the end of active treatment, except for adverse events, which were measured during the active treatment period.Probiotics probably make little or no difference in participant- or parent-rated symptoms of eczema (13 trials; 754 participants): symptom severity on a scale from 0 to 20 was 0.44 points lower after probiotic treatment (95% confidence interval (CI) -1.22 to 0.33; moderate-quality evidence). Trial sequential analysis shows that target sample sizes of 258 and 456, which are necessary to demonstrate a minimum mean difference of -2 and -1.5, respectively, with 90% power, have been exceeded, suggesting that further trials with similar probiotic strains for this outcome at the end of active treatment may be futile.We found no evidence suggesting that probiotics make a difference in QoL for patients with eczema (six studies; 552 participants; standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.03, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.42; low-quality evidence) when measured by the participant or the parent using validated disease-specific QoL instruments.Probiotics may slightly reduce investigator-rated eczema severity scores (24 trials; 1596 participants). On a scale of 0 to 103 for total Severity Scoring of Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD), a score combining investigator-rated eczema severity score and participant scoring for eczema symptoms of itch and sleep loss was 3.91 points lower after probiotic treatment than after no probiotic treatment (95% CI -5.86 to -1.96; low-quality evidence). The minimum clinically important difference for SCORAD has been estimated to be 8.7 points.We noted significant to extreme levels of unexplainable heterogeneity between the results of individual studies. We judged most studies to be at unclear risk of bias; six studies had high attrition bias, and nine were at low risk of bias overall.We found no evidence to show that probiotics make a difference in the risk of adverse events during active treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.54, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.63; seven trials; 402 participants; low-quality evidence). Studies in our review that reported adverse effects described gastrointestinal symptoms.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Evidence suggests that, compared with no probiotic, currently available probiotic strains probably make little or no difference in improving patient-rated eczema symptoms. Probiotics may make little or no difference in QoL for people with eczema nor in investigator-rated eczema severity score (combined with participant scoring for eczema symptoms of itch and sleep loss); for the latter, the observed effect was small and of uncertain clinical significance. Therefore, use of probiotics for the treatment of eczema is currently not evidence-based. This update found no evidence of increased adverse effects with probiotic use during studies, but a separate adverse events search from the first review revealed that probiotic treatment carries a small risk of adverse events.Results show significant, unexplainable heterogeneity between individual trial results. Only a small number of studies measured some outcomes.Future studies should better measure QoL scores and adverse events, and should report on new probiotics. Researchers should also consider studying subgroups of patients (e.g. patients with atopy or food allergies, adults) and standardising doses/concentrations of probiotics given.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Child; Child, Preschool; Eczema; Female; Humans; Infant; Male; Middle Aged; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Symptom Assessment; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 30480774
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006135.pub3 -
Pediatric Allergy and Immunology :... Nov 2020Allergic diseases are an increasing public health concern, and early life environment is critical to immune development. Maternal diet during pregnancy has been linked... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
RATIONALE
Allergic diseases are an increasing public health concern, and early life environment is critical to immune development. Maternal diet during pregnancy has been linked to offspring allergy risk. In turn, maternal diet is a potentially modifiable factor, which could be targeted as an allergy prevention strategy. In this systematic review, we focused on non-allergen-specific modifying factors of the maternal diet in pregnancy on allergy outcomes in their offspring.
METHODS
We undertook a systematic review of studies investigating the association between maternal diet during pregnancy and allergic outcomes (asthma/wheeze, hay fever/allergic rhinitis/seasonal allergies, eczema/atopic dermatitis (AD), food allergies, and allergic sensitization) in offspring. Studies evaluating the effect of food allergen intake were excluded. We searched three bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science) through February 26, 2019. Evidence was critically appraised using modified versions of the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias tool for intervention trials and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence methodological checklist for cohort and case-control studies and meta-analysis performed from RCTs.
RESULTS
We identified 95 papers: 17 RCTs and 78 observational (case-control, cross-sectional, and cohort) studies. Observational studies varied in design and dietary intakes and often had contradictory findings. Based on our meta-analysis, RCTs showed that vitamin D supplementation (OR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.56-0.92) is associated with a reduced risk of wheeze/asthma. A positive trend for omega-3 fatty acids was observed for asthma/wheeze, but this did not reach statistical significance (OR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.45-1.08). Omega-3 supplementation was also associated with a non-significant decreased risk of allergic rhinitis (OR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.56-1.04). Neither vitamin D nor omega-3 fatty acids were associated with an altered risk of AD or food allergy.
CONCLUSIONS
Prenatal supplementation with vitamin D may have beneficial effects for prevention of asthma. Additional nutritional factors seem to be required for modulating the risk of skin and gastrointestinal outcomes. We found no consistent evidence regarding other dietary factors, perhaps due to differences in study design and host features that were not considered. While confirmatory studies are required, there is also a need for performing RCTs beyond single nutrients/foods.
Topics: Asthma; Cross-Sectional Studies; Dermatitis, Atopic; Diet; Female; Food Hypersensitivity; Humans; Pregnancy
PubMed: 32524677
DOI: 10.1111/pai.13303 -
Cells Dec 2023Atopic dermatitis (AD) is the most common chronic inflammatory skin disease and presents a major public health problem worldwide. It is characterized by a recurrent... (Review)
Review
Atopic dermatitis (AD) is the most common chronic inflammatory skin disease and presents a major public health problem worldwide. It is characterized by a recurrent and/or chronic course of inflammatory skin lesions with intense pruritus. Its pathophysiologic features include barrier dysfunction, aberrant immune cell infiltration, and alterations in the microbiome that are associated with genetic and environmental factors. There is a complex crosstalk between these components, which is primarily mediated by cytokines. Epidermal barrier dysfunction is the hallmark of AD and is caused by the disruption of proteins and lipids responsible for establishing the skin barrier. To better define the role of cytokines in stratum corneum lipid abnormalities related to AD, we conducted a systematic review of biomedical literature in PubMed from its inception to 5 September 2023. Consistent with the dominant T2 skewness seen in AD, type 2 cytokines were featured prominently as possessing a central role in epidermal lipid alterations in AD skin. The cytokines associated with T1 and T17 were also identified to affect barrier lipids. Considering the broad cytokine dysregulation observed in AD pathophysiology, understanding the role of each of these in lipid abnormalities and barrier dysfunction will help in developing therapeutics to best achieve barrier homeostasis in AD patients.
Topics: Humans; Dermatitis, Atopic; Cytokines; Epidermis; Skin; Lipids
PubMed: 38132113
DOI: 10.3390/cells12242793 -
Dermatology (Basel, Switzerland) 2021Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a widely acquired, relapsing inflammatory skin disease. Biologics are now widely used in patients with moderate-to-severe AD.
BACKGROUND
Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a widely acquired, relapsing inflammatory skin disease. Biologics are now widely used in patients with moderate-to-severe AD.
OBJECTIVE
This work aims to summarize both label and off-label biologics on AD treatment in phase II and phase III stages, and compile evidence on the efficacy of the most-studied biologics.
METHODS
We conducted a comprehensive literature search through PubMed, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify all documented biological therapies for AD. The criteria were further refined to focus on those treatments with the highest evidence level for AD with at least one randomized clinical trial supporting their use. Only studies or articles published in English were enrolled in this study.
FINDINGS
Primary searches identified 525 relevant articles and 27 trials. Duplicated articles and papers without a full text were excluded. Only completed trials were enrolled. We included 28 randomized controlled trials, 4 unpublished trials, 2 observational studies, and 1 meta-analysis. Eight kinds of biologics, including IL-4/IL-13 inhibitors, JAK inhibitors, anti-IL-13 antibodies, anti-IL-22 antibodies, anti-IL-33 antibodies, thymic stromal lymphopoietin inhibitor (TSLP), OX40 antibodies, and H4R-antagonists were included in this work. Dupliumab, as the most widely used and investigated biologic, was reported in 1 meta-analysis and 4 trials exploring its long-term use and application in both adults and pediatric patients. Besides dupilumab, four other IL-4/IL-13 inhibitors recruited were all randomized, clinical trials at phase 2-3 stage. Six different kinds of JAK inhibitors were summarized with strong evidence revealing their significant therapeutic effects on AD. There were 3 trials for nemolizumab, an anti-IL-13 antibody, all of which were in the phase 2 clinical trial stage. Results showed nemolizumab could be another alternative therapy for moderate-to-severe AD with long-term efficiency and safety.
CONCLUSION
The biological therapies with the most robust evidence on efficacy and long-term safety for AD treatment include dupilumab, barcitinib, abrocitinib, and delgocitinib. Most of the biologics mentioned in this review were still at the exploratory stage. This review will help practitioners advise patients seeking suitable biological therapies and offer experimental study directions for treatment.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Azetidines; Biological Products; Carbamates; Clinical Trials as Topic; Dermatitis, Atopic; Dermatologic Agents; Heterocyclic Compounds, 3-Ring; Humans; Nitriles; Piperidines; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Purines; Pyrazoles; Pyrimidines; Pyrroles; Sulfonamides
PubMed: 33735876
DOI: 10.1159/000514535 -
Cureus Sep 2023Atopic dermatitis is a complex, recurrent, chronic inflammatory skin condition. It frequently begins to manifest in early childhood and may last throughout adulthood.... (Review)
Review
Atopic dermatitis is a complex, recurrent, chronic inflammatory skin condition. It frequently begins to manifest in early childhood and may last throughout adulthood. The need for clinical practice guidelines that are based on evidence is critical for efficient and secure care. Little is known about how primary care providers (PCPs) should handle pediatric and adult atopic dermatitis cases and whether they should follow national recommendations. Our systemic review aimed to examine management strategies for treating adult and pediatric (family) atopic dermatitis, including topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCIs), topical corticosteroids (TCS), skin emollients, oral antihistamines, and diet. Data sources were PubMed (MEDLINE) and Embase. Our review investigated English-language articles from 2014 to 2023 that studied the management of adult and children atopic dermatitis. Overall, there were 15 articles included. Surveys and analyses of national databases were the most widely used methods (n=7). The use of TCS by PCPs was common, but they also overprescribed nonsedating antihistamines, favored low-potency drugs, and avoided TCIs. Most studies relied on healthcare personnel reporting their typical behaviors rather than looking at specific patient encounters and it is considered a limitation. Finally, there are gaps in knowledge and management of critical topics such as prescribing TCIs and understanding the safety profiles of TCS, when it comes to treating adult and pediatric atopic dermatitis. Future research in this area is urgently needed because the current systemic assessment is mostly restricted to small studies that assess prescribing behaviors with scant information describing nonmedication management.
PubMed: 37789992
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.44560 -
Life (Basel, Switzerland) Nov 2021Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the skin whose main symptom is pruritus and may affect all age ranges. Regarding the prevalence, it has been... (Review)
Review
Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the skin whose main symptom is pruritus and may affect all age ranges. Regarding the prevalence, it has been estimated at around 10% of the world population. Many concomitant diseases have been associated with AD, but the causal relationship between AD and psychological impairment has not been clearly established. Scientific literature studying the probable association between male or female sexual dysfunction and dermatological pathology is limited, even more so in AD. This systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines and the Cochrane Collaboration methodology for systematic reviews. All relevant articles in English were identified through a search from inception to 10 December 2020, including the following databases: Medline (via PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, and SciELO. The results of the search were compiled using the COVIDENCE software for systematic reviews. The methodological quality of the included studies was done using the "Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies" and the "Quality Assessment of Case-Control Studies" developed by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health (NIH). Our search yielded potentially relevant studies. Five studies that evaluated the prevalence of sexual dysfunction in atopic dermatitis were retrieved after applying the selection criteria. The present systematic review achieved data from 8088 patients with atopic dermatitis from four articles. Sample sizes for atopic dermatitis patients ranged from 266 to 3997. We identified one cohort study with four years of follow-up, three studies with a cross-sectional design, and one case-control study. Three studies reported data disaggregated by the severity of atopic dermatitis. Two studies included healthy controls with a total sample size of 1,747,755 subjects. Two studies compared data with other dermatological conditions such as psoriasis. In conclusion, we can establish that unlike other psychological comorbidities such as anxiety and depression, sexual dysfunction is a field scarcely explored in the literature. This sexual dysfunction focuses on the male sex in large population studies and in clinical diagnoses without exploring it through specific and validated questionnaires in this regard. Further studies focused on both genders are needed. It is important to correlate this sexual dysfunction with the severity of the disease, previous treatments, and cardiovascular comorbidities.
PubMed: 34947845
DOI: 10.3390/life11121314 -
JMIR Dermatology Nov 2023Atopic dermatitis (AD), also known as eczema, is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that presents with symptoms of intense pruritus, dryness, and erythema.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Atopic dermatitis (AD), also known as eczema, is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that presents with symptoms of intense pruritus, dryness, and erythema. Dissatisfaction with first-line therapies for AD, the desire to avoid steroids, and the extreme cost of effective biologics have created a demand for alternative treatment options such as oral vitamins and nutritional supplements.
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this review was to assess the effectiveness of oral nutritional supplements, pre- and probiotics, and vitamin deficiencies and supplements on AD symptomology and clinical course.
METHODS
We searched Scopus, PubMed, and MEDLINE (Ovid interface) for English-language articles published between 1993 and 2023. The final search was conducted on June 22, 2023. The search terms comprised the following: "(Atopic Dermatitis or Atopic Eczema) AND (supplement OR vitamin OR mineral OR micronutrients OR Fish Oil OR Omega Fatty Acid OR Probiotics OR Prebiotics OR apple cider vinegar OR collagen OR herbal OR fiber)."
RESULTS
A total of 18 studies-3 (17%) evaluating vitamins, 4 (22%) evaluating herbal medicine compounds, 2 (11%) evaluating single-ingredient nutritional supplements, and 9 (50%) evaluating pre- and probiotics-involving 881 patients were included in this review.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, there is weak evidence to support any one nutritional supplement intervention for the alleviation of AD symptoms. Multiple trials (4/18, 22%) showed promise for supplements such as Zemaphyte, kefir, and freeze-dried whey with Cuscuta campestris Yuncker extract. The most evidence was found on the effectiveness of probiotics on the clinical course of AD. Lactiplantibacillus plantarum, Ligilactobacillus salivarius, and Lactobacillus acidophilus specifically showed evidence of efficacy and safety across multiple studies (6/18, 33%). However, larger, more extensive randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the true effectiveness of these supplements on the broader population.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42023470596; https://tinyurl.com/4a9477u7.
PubMed: 38019566
DOI: 10.2196/40857