-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2018Acne vulgaris, a chronic inflammatory disease of the pilosebaceous unit associated with socialisation and mental health problems, may affect more than 80% of teenagers.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Acne vulgaris, a chronic inflammatory disease of the pilosebaceous unit associated with socialisation and mental health problems, may affect more than 80% of teenagers. Isotretinoin is the only drug that targets all primary causal factors of acne; however, it may cause adverse effects.
OBJECTIVES
To assess efficacy and safety of oral isotretinoin for acne vulgaris.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to July 2017: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and LILACS. We updated this search in March 2018, but these results have not yet been incorporated in the review. We also searched five trial registries, checked the reference lists of retrieved studies for further references to relevant trials, and handsearched dermatology conference proceedings. A separate search for adverse effects of oral isotretinoin was undertaken in MEDLINE and Embase up to September 2013.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) of oral isotretinoin in participants with clinically diagnosed acne compared against placebo, any other systemic or topical active therapy, and itself in different formulation, doses, regimens, or course duration.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 31 RCTs, involving 3836 participants (12 to 55 years) with mild to severe acne. There were twice as many male participants as females.Most studies were undertaken in Asia, Europe, and North America. Outcomes were generally measured between eight to 32 weeks (mean 19.7 weeks) of therapy.Assessed comparisons included oral isotretinoin versus placebo or other treatments such as antibiotics. In addition, different doses, regimens, or formulations of oral isotretinoin were assessed, as well as oral isotretinoin with the addition of topical agents.Pharmaceutical companies funded 12 included trials. All, except three studies, had high risk of bias in at least one domain.Oral isotretinoin compared with oral antibiotics plus topical agentsThese studies included participants with moderate or severe acne and assessed outcomes immediately after 20 to 24 weeks of treatment (short-term). Three studies (400 participants) showed isotretinoin makes no difference in terms of decreasing trial investigator-assessed inflammatory lesion count (RR 1.01 95% CI 0.96 to 1.06), with only one serious adverse effect found, which was Stevens-Johnson syndrome in the isotretinoin group (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 72.98). However, we are uncertain about these results as they were based on very low-quality evidence.Isotretinoin may slightly improve (by 15%) acne severity, assessed by physician's global evaluation (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.32; 351 participants; 2 studies), but resulted in more less serious adverse effects (67% higher risk) (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.42 to 1.98; 351 participants; 2 studies), such as dry lips/skin, cheilitis, vomiting, nausea (both outcomes, low-quality evidence).Different doses/therapeutic regimens of oral isotretinoinFor our primary efficacy outcome, we found three RCTs, but heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. One study (154 participants) reported 79%, 80% and 84% decrease in total inflammatory lesion count after 20 weeks of 0.05, 0.1, or 0.2 mg/kg/d of oral isotretinoin for severe acne (low-quality evidence). Another trial (150 participants, severe acne) compared 0.1, 0.5, and 1 mg/kg/d oral isotretinoin for 20 weeks and, respectively, 58%, 80% and 90% of participants achieved 95% decrease in total inflammatory lesion count. One RCT, of participants with moderate acne, compared isotretinoin for 24 weeks at (a) continuous low dose (0.25 to 0.4 mg/kg/day), (b) continuous conventional dose (0.5 to 0.7 mg/kg/day), and (c) intermittent regimen (0.5 to 0.7 mg/kg/day, for one week in a month). Continuous low dose (MD 3.72 lesions; 95% CI 2.13 to 5.31; 40 participants; one study) and conventional dose (MD 3.87 lesions; 95% CI 2.31 to 5.43; 40 participants; one study) had a greater decrease in inflammatory lesion counts compared to intermittent treatment (all outcomes, low-quality evidence).Fourteen RCTs (906 participants, severe and moderate acne) reported that no serious adverse events were observed when comparing different doses/therapeutic regimens of oral isotretinoin during treatment (from 12 to 32 weeks) or follow-up after end of treatment (up to 48 weeks). Thirteen RCTs (858 participants) analysed frequency of less serious adverse effects, which included skin dryness, hair loss, and itching, but heterogeneity regarding the assessment of the outcome precluded data pooling; hence, there is uncertainty about the results (low- to very-low quality evidence, where assessed).Improvement in acne severity, assessed by physician's global evaluation, was not measured for this comparison.None of the included RCTs reported birth defects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Evidence was low-quality for most assessed outcomes.We are unsure if isotretinoin improves acne severity compared with standard oral antibiotic and topical treatment when assessed by a decrease in total inflammatory lesion count, but it may slightly improve physician-assessed acne severity. Only one serious adverse event was reported in the isotretinoin group, which means we are uncertain of the risk of serious adverse effects; however, isotretinoin may result in more minor adverse effects.Heterogeneity in the studies comparing different regimens, doses, or formulations of oral isotretinoin meant we were unable to undertake meta-analysis. Daily treatment may be more effective than treatment for one week each month. None of the studies in this comparison reported serious adverse effects, or measured improvement in acne severity assessed by physician's global evaluation. We are uncertain if there is a difference in number of minor adverse effects, such as skin dryness, between doses/regimens.Evidence quality was lessened due to imprecision and attrition bias. Further studies should ensure clearly reported long- and short-term standardised assessment of improvement in total inflammatory lesion counts, participant-reported outcomes, and full safety accounts. Oral isotretinoin for acne that has not responded to oral antibiotics plus topical agents needs further assessment, as well as different dose/regimens of oral isotretinoin in acne of all severities.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Adolescent; Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Child; Dermatologic Agents; Female; Humans; Isotretinoin; Male; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Young Adult
PubMed: 30484286
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009435.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2020Ageing has a degenerative effect on the skin, leaving it more vulnerable to damage. Hygiene and emollient interventions may help maintain skin integrity in older people... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Ageing has a degenerative effect on the skin, leaving it more vulnerable to damage. Hygiene and emollient interventions may help maintain skin integrity in older people in hospital and residential care settings; however, at present, most care is based on "tried and tested" practice, rather than on evidence.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of hygiene and emollient interventions for maintaining skin integrity in older people in hospital and residential care settings.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL, up to January 2019. We also searched five trials registers.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing hygiene and emollient interventions versus placebo, no intervention, or standard practices for older people aged ≥ 60 years in hospital or residential care settings.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane. Primary outcomes were frequency of skin damage, for example, complete loss of integrity (tears or ulceration) or partial loss of integrity (fissuring), and side effects. Secondary outcomes included transepidermal water loss (TEWL), stratum corneum hydration (SCH), erythema, and clinical scores of dryness or itch. We used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included six trials involving 1598 residential care home residents; no included trial had a hospital setting. Most participants had a mean age of 80+ years; when specified, more women were recruited than men. Two studies included only people with diagnosed dry skin. Studies were conducted in Asia, Australasia, Europe, and North America. A range of hygiene and emollient interventions were assessed: a moisturising soap bar; combinations of water soak, oil soak, and lotion; regular application of a commercially available moisturiser; use of two different standardised skin care regimens comprising a body wash and leave-on body lotion; bed bath with "wash gloves" containing numerous ingredients; and application of a hot towel after usual care bed bath. In five studies, treatment duration ranged from five days to six months; only one study had post-treatment follow-up (one to eight days from end of treatment). Outcomes in the hot towel study were measured 15 minutes after the skin was wiped with a dry towel. Three studies each had high risk of attrition, detection, and performance bias. Only one trial (n = 984) assessed frequency of skin damage via average monthly incidence of skin tears during six months of treatment. The emollient group (usual care plus twice-daily application of moisturiser) had 5.76 tears per month per 1000 occupied bed-days compared with 10.57 tears in the usual care only group (ad hoc or no standardised skin-moisturising regimen) (P = 0.004), but this is based on very low-quality evidence, so we are uncertain of this result. Only one trial (n = 133) reported measuring side effects. At 56 ± 4 days from baseline, there were three undesirable effects (itch (mild), redness (mild/moderate), and irritation (severe)) in intervention group 1 (regimen consisting of a moisturising body wash and a moisturising leave-on lotion) and one event (mild skin dryness) in intervention group 2 (regimen consisting of body wash and a water-in-oil emulsion containing emollients and 4% urea). In both groups, the body wash was used daily and the emollient twice daily for eight weeks. There were zero adverse events in the usual care group. This result is based on very low-quality evidence. This same study also measured TEWL at 56 ± 4 days in the mid-volar forearm (n = 106) and the lower leg (n = 105). Compared to usual care, there may be no difference in TEWL between intervention groups, but evidence quality is low. One study, which compared application of a hot towel for 10 seconds after a usual care bed bath versus usual care bed bath only, also measured TEWL at 15 minutes after the skin was wiped with a dry towel for one second. The mean TEWL was 8.6 g/m²/h (standard deviation (SD) 3.2) in the hot towel group compared with 8.9 g/m²/h (SD 4.1) in the usual care group (low-quality evidence; n = 42), showing there may be little or no difference between groups. A lower score is more favourable. Three studies (266 participants) measured SCH, but all evidence is of very low quality; we did not combine these studies due to differences in treatments (different skin care regimens for eight weeks; wash gloves for 12 weeks; and single application of hot towel to the skin) and differences in outcome reporting. All three studies showed no clear difference in SCH at follow-up (ranging from 15 minutes after the intervention to 12 weeks from baseline), when compared with usual care. A clinical score of dryness was measured by three studies (including 245 participants); pooling was not appropriate. The treatment groups (different skin care regimens for eight weeks; a moisturising soap bar used for five days; and combinations of water soak, oil soak, and lotion for 12 days) may reduce dryness compared to standard care or no intervention (results measured at 5, 8, and 56 ± 4 days after treatment was initiated). However, the quality of evidence for this outcome is low. Outcomes of erythema and clinical score of itch were not assessed in any included studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Current evidence about the effects of hygiene and emollients in maintaining skin integrity in older people in residential and hospital settings is inadequate. We cannot draw conclusions regarding frequency of skin damage or side effects due to very low-quality evidence. Low-quality evidence suggests that in residential care settings for older people, certain types of hygiene and emollient interventions (two different standardised skin care regimens; moisturising soap bar; combinations of water soak, oil soak, and lotion) may be more effective in terms of clinical score of dryness when compared with no intervention or standard care. Studies were small and generally lacked methodological rigour, and information on effect sizes and precision was absent. More clinical trials are needed to guide practice; future studies should use a standard approach to measuring treatment effects and should include patient-reported outcomes, such as comfort and acceptability.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Emollients; Female; Humans; Hygiene; Male; Patient Satisfaction; Pruritus; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Skin Care; Soaps; Wounds and Injuries
PubMed: 32006460
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011377.pub2 -
Dermatology (Basel, Switzerland) 2022Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory skin disease with potential systemic involvement. Some evidence suggests an increased risk of dry eye in patients with psoriasis.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory skin disease with potential systemic involvement. Some evidence suggests an increased risk of dry eye in patients with psoriasis. However, the relationship between these two conditions remains unclear. The aim of our study is to investigate the association between psoriasis and dry eye disease.
METHODS
This meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020199445) and adhered to MOOSE checklist and PRISMA guidance for all processes. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies examining the association between psoriasis and dry eye disease from inception to December 13, 2020. The primary outcome was the prevalence of dry eye disease in patients with psoriasis relative to controls. The secondary outcomes were the Schirmer I test score, tear film breakup time (TBUT), and ocular surface disease index (OSDI). The risk of bias of the selected studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.
RESULTS
The meta-analysis showed a significant association between dry eye disease and psoriasis (OR, 8.49; 95% CI, 3.34-21.58). Moreover, patients with psoriasis had a significantly lower Schirmer I test score (MD, -2.80; 95% CI, -4.07 to -1.52), shorter TBUT (MD, -4.12; 95% CI, -5.22 to -3.02), and higher OSDI (MD, 20.15; 95% CI, 6.24-34.05; p < 0.01), compared to controls.
CONCLUSIONS
The current evidence supports an association between dry eye disease and psoriasis. These results suggest ophthalmologic assessment for the early recognition and management of dry eye in patients with psoriasis.
Topics: Dry Eye Syndromes; Humans; Psoriasis
PubMed: 35299172
DOI: 10.1159/000522167 -
International Wound Journal Dec 2016Advances in preoperative care, surgical techniques and technologies have enabled surgeons to achieve primary closure in a high percentage of surgical procedures.... (Review)
Review
Improving wound healing and preventing surgical site complications of closed surgical incisions: a possible role of Incisional Negative Pressure Wound Therapy. A systematic review of the literature.
Advances in preoperative care, surgical techniques and technologies have enabled surgeons to achieve primary closure in a high percentage of surgical procedures. However, often, underlying patient comorbidities in addition to surgical-related factors make the management of surgical wounds primary closure challenging because of the higher risk of developing complications. To date, extensive evidence exists, which demonstrate the benefits of negative pressure dressing in the treatment of open wounds; recently, Incisional Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (INPWT) technology as delivered by Prevena™ (KCI USA, Inc., San Antonio, TX) and Pico (Smith & Nephew Inc, Andover, MA) systems has been the focus of a new investigation on possible prophylactic measures to prevent complications via application immediately after surgery in high-risk, clean, closed surgical incisions. A systematic review was performed to evaluate INPWT's effect on surgical sites healing by primary intention. The primary outcomes of interest are an understanding of INPWT functioning and mechanisms of action, extrapolated from animal and biomedical engineering studies and incidence of complications (infection, dehiscence, seroma, hematoma, skin and fat necrosis, skin and fascial dehiscence or blistering) and other variables influenced by applying INPWT (re-operation and re-hospitalization rates, time to dry wound, cost saving) extrapolated from human studies. A search was conducted for published articles in various databases including PubMed, Google Scholar and Scopus Database from 2006 to March 2014. Supplemental searches were performed using reference lists and conference proceedings. Studies selection was based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria and data extraction regarding study quality, model investigated, epidemiological and clinical characteristics and type of surgery, and the outcomes were applied to all the articles included. 1 biomedical engineering study, 2 animal studies, 15 human studies for a total of 6 randomized controlled trials, 5 prospective cohort studies, 7 retrospective analyses, were included. Human studies investigated the outcomes of 1042 incisions on 1003 patients. The literature shows a decrease in the incidence of infection, sero-haematoma formation and on the re-operation rates when using INPWT. Lower level of evidence was found on dehiscence, decreased in some studies, and was inconsistent to make a conclusion. Because of limited studies, it is difficult to make any assertions on the other variables, suggesting a requirement for further studies for proper recommendations on INPWT.
Topics: Animals; Female; Humans; Male; Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy; Prognosis; Quality Improvement; Risk Assessment; Surgical Wound; Surgical Wound Infection; Wound Healing
PubMed: 26424609
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.12492 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2022Eczema is a common skin condition. Although topical corticosteroids have been a first-line treatment for eczema for decades, there are uncertainties over their optimal... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Eczema is a common skin condition. Although topical corticosteroids have been a first-line treatment for eczema for decades, there are uncertainties over their optimal use.
OBJECTIVES
To establish the effectiveness and safety of different ways of using topical corticosteroids for treating eczema.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched databases to January 2021 (Cochrane Skin Specialised Register; CENTRAL; MEDLINE; Embase; GREAT) and five clinical trials registers. We checked bibliographies from included trials to identify further trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials in adults and children with eczema that compared at least two strategies of topical corticosteroid use. We excluded placebo comparisons, other than for trials that evaluated proactive versus reactive treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods, with GRADE certainty of evidence for key findings. Primary outcomes were changes in clinician-reported signs and relevant local adverse events. Secondary outcomes were patient-reported symptoms and relevant systemic adverse events. For local adverse events, we prioritised abnormal skin thinning as a key area of concern for healthcare professionals and patients.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 104 trials (8443 participants). Most trials were conducted in high-income countries (81/104), most likely in outpatient or other hospital settings. We judged only one trial to be low risk of bias across all domains. Fifty-five trials had high risk of bias in at least one domain, mostly due to lack of blinding or missing outcome data. Stronger-potency versus weaker-potency topical corticosteroids Sixty-three trials compared different potencies of topical corticosteroids: 12 moderate versus mild, 22 potent versus mild, 25 potent versus moderate, and 6 very potent versus potent. Trials were usually in children with moderate or severe eczema, where specified, lasting one to five weeks. The most reported outcome was Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) of clinician-reported signs of eczema. We pooled four trials that compared moderate- versus mild-potency topical corticosteroids (420 participants). Moderate-potency topical corticosteroids probably result in more participants achieving treatment success, defined as cleared or marked improvement on IGA (52% versus 34%; odds ratio (OR) 2.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.41 to 3.04; moderate-certainty evidence). We pooled nine trials that compared potent versus mild-potency topical corticosteroids (392 participants). Potent topical corticosteroids probably result in a large increase in number achieving treatment success (70% versus 39%; OR 3.71, 95% CI 2.04 to 6.72; moderate-certainty evidence). We pooled 15 trials that compared potent versus moderate-potency topical corticosteroids (1053 participants). There was insufficient evidence of a benefit of potent topical corticosteroids compared to moderate topical corticosteroids (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.89; moderate-certainty evidence). We pooled three trials that compared very potent versus potent topical corticosteroids (216 participants). The evidence is uncertain with a wide confidence interval (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.09; low-certainty evidence). Twice daily or more versus once daily application We pooled 15 of 25 trials in this comparison (1821 participants, all reported IGA). The trials usually assessed adults and children with moderate or severe eczema, where specified, using potent topical corticosteroids, lasting two to six weeks. Applying potent topical corticosteroids only once a day probably does not decrease the number achieving treatment success compared to twice daily application (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.38; 15 trials, 1821 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Local adverse events Within the trials that tested 'treating eczema flare-up' strategies, we identified only 26 cases of abnormal skin thinning from 2266 participants (1% across 22 trials). Most cases were from the use of higher-potency topical corticosteroids (16 with very potent, 6 with potent, 2 with moderate and 2 with mild). We assessed this evidence as low certainty, except for very potent versus potent topical corticosteroids, which was very low-certainty evidence. Longer versus shorter-term duration of application for induction of remission No trials were identified. Twice weekly application (weekend, or 'proactive therapy') to prevent relapse (flare-ups) versus no topical corticosteroids/reactive application Nine trials assessed this comparison, generally lasting 16 to 20 weeks. We pooled seven trials that compared weekend (proactive) topical corticosteroids therapy versus no topical corticosteroids (1179 participants, children and adults with a range of eczema severities, though mainly moderate or severe). Weekend (proactive) therapy probably results in a large decrease in likelihood of a relapse from 58% to 25% (risk ratio (RR) 0.43, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.57; 7 trials, 1149 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Local adverse events We did not identify any cases of abnormal skin thinning in seven trials that assessed skin thinning (1050 participants) at the end of treatment. We assessed this evidence as low certainty. Other comparisons Other comparisons included newer versus older preparations of topical corticosteroids (15 trials), cream versus ointment (7 trials), topical corticosteroids with wet wrap versus no wet wrap (6 trials), number of days per week applied (4 trials), different concentrations of the same topical corticosteroids (2 trials), time of day applied (2 trials), topical corticosteroids alternating with topical calcineurin inhibitors versus topical corticosteroids alone (1 trial), application to wet versus dry skin (1 trial) and application before versus after emollient (1 trial). No trials compared branded versus generic topical corticosteroids and time between application of emollient and topical corticosteroids.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Potent and moderate topical corticosteroids are probably more effective than mild topical corticosteroids, primarily in moderate or severe eczema; however, there is uncertain evidence to support any advantage of very potent over potent topical corticosteroids. Effectiveness is similar between once daily and twice daily (or more) frequent use of potent topical corticosteroids to treat eczema flare-ups, and topical corticosteroids weekend (proactive) therapy is probably better than no topical corticosteroids/reactive use to prevent eczema relapse (flare-ups). Adverse events were not well reported and came largely from low- or very low-certainty, short-term trials. In trials that reported abnormal skin thinning, frequency was low overall and increased with increasing potency. We found no trials on the optimum duration of treatment of a flare, branded versus generic topical corticosteroids, and time to leave between application of topical corticosteroids and emollient. There is a need for longer-term trials, in people with mild eczema.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Child; Dermatologic Agents; Eczema; Emollients; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Immunoglobulin A; Recurrence
PubMed: 35275399
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013356.pub2 -
International Ophthalmology Jul 2022Psoriasis, which is a chronic, immune-mediated skin disease of unknown etiology, not only affects the skin, but also is linked to many systemic conditions such as... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Psoriasis, which is a chronic, immune-mediated skin disease of unknown etiology, not only affects the skin, but also is linked to many systemic conditions such as arthritis, cardiovascular disease, depression, and malignancy. Although many types of eye involvement are encountered in psoriasis patients, dry eye is the first among them. Uveitis is an entity that can be associated with psoriasis and can cause severe vision loss as a result of late diagnosis, inadequate and inappropriate treatment. In this review, we aimed to shed light on the diagnosis, type, prognosis and treatment of uveitis in psoriasis patients by compiling current datas obtained from published studies and to guide the follow-up and treatment of these patients.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was done on PubMed using key words including "psoriasis", "psoriatic arthritis", "uveitis", "TNF- inhibitors", "HLA B27".
RESULTS
In the literature, the frequency, type and treatment of uveitis developing in the course of psoriatic arthritis are clearly defined. However, the coexistence of psoriasis and uveitis has not yet been clarified due to few numbers published studies and designs of these studies. Since we examined the existing studies, we determined that the coexistence of psoriasis and uveitis could be acute or insidious, and the probability and severity of uveitis increased as the severity of skin and joint involvement increased. In addition, we found that psoriasis-associated uveitis can be bilateral, chronic, severe progression and with a high recurrence rate.
CONCLUSION
The relations between non-arthritic psoriasis and uveitis have not yet been fully elucidated. Physicians who treat these diseases must be cautious, and refer their patients who have psoriasis to an ophthalmologist for periodic examination, even if they do not have eye symptoms. On the other hand, ophthalmologists must be careful in uveitis patients in terms of skin and joint involvement, and must not overlook the underlying disease.
Topics: HLA-B27 Antigen; Humans; Joints; Psoriasis; Skin; Uveitis
PubMed: 35048244
DOI: 10.1007/s10792-022-02225-5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2021Eczema 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... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
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.
Topics: Bias; Eczema; Emollients; Female; Filaggrin Proteins; Food Hypersensitivity; Humans; Hypersensitivity, Immediate; Immunoglobulin E; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Male; Milk Hypersensitivity; Skin Care; Skin Diseases, Infectious; Soaps
PubMed: 33545739
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013534.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2022Motor neuron disease (MND), also known as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), is a progressive neurodegenerative condition that may cause dysphagia, as well as limb... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Motor neuron disease (MND), also known as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), is a progressive neurodegenerative condition that may cause dysphagia, as well as limb weakness, dysarthria, emotional lability, and respiratory failure. Since normal salivary production is 0.5 L to 1.5 L daily, loss of salivary clearance due to dysphagia leads to salivary pooling and sialorrhea, often resulting in distress and inconvenience to people with MND. This is an update of a review first published in 2011.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of treatments for sialorrhea in MND, including medications, radiotherapy and surgery.
SEARCH METHODS
On 27 August 2021, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP. We checked the bibliographies of the identified randomized trials and contacted trial authors as needed. We contacted known experts in the field to identify further published and unpublished papers.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs, including cross-over trials, on any intervention for sialorrhea and related symptoms, compared with each other, placebo or no intervention, in people with ALS/MND.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified four RCTs involving 110 participants with MND who were described as having intractable sialorrhea or bulbar dysfunction. A well-designed study of botulinum toxin B compared to placebo injected into the parotid and submandibular glands of 20 participants showed that botulinum toxin B may produce participant-reported improvement in sialorrhea, but the confidence interval (CI) was also consistent with no effect. Six of nine participants in the botulinum group and two of nine participants in the placebo group reported improvement (risk ratio (RR) 3.00, 95% CI 0.81 to 11.08; 1 RCT; 18 participants; low-certainty evidence). An objective measure indicated that botulinum toxin B probably reduced saliva production (in mL/5 min) at eight weeks compared to placebo (MD -0.50, 95% CI -1.07 to 0.07; 18 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Botulinum toxin B may have little to no effect on quality of life, measured on the Schedule for Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life direct weighting scale (SEIQoL-DW; 0-100, higher values indicate better quality of life) (MD -2.50, 95% CI -17.34 to 12.34; 1 RCT; 17 participants; low-certainty evidence). The rate of adverse events may be similar with botulinum toxin B and placebo (20 participants; low-certainty evidence). Trialists did not consider any serious events to be related to treatment. A randomized pilot study of botulinum toxin A or radiotherapy in 20 participants, which was at high risk of bias, provided very low-certainty evidence on the primary outcome of the Drool Rating Scale (DRS; range 8 to 39 points, higher scores indicate worse drooling) at 12 weeks (effect size -4.8, 95% CI -10.59 to 0.92; P = 0.09; 1 RCT; 16 participants). Quality of life was not measured. Evidence for adverse events, measured immediately after treatment (RR 7.00, 95% CI 1.04 to 46.95; 20 participants), and after four weeks (when two people in each group had viscous saliva) was also very uncertain. A phase 2, randomized, placebo-controlled cross-over study of 20 mg dextromethorphan hydrobromide and 10 mg quinidine sulfate (DMQ) found that DMQ may produce a participant-reported improvement in sialorrhea, indicated by a slight improvement (decrease) in mean scores for the primary outcome, the Center for Neurologic Study Bulbar Function Scale (CNS-BFS). Mean total CNS-BFS (range 21 (no symptoms) to 112 (maximum symptoms)) was 53.45 (standard error (SE) 1.07) for the DMQ treatment period and 59.31 (SE 1.10) for the placebo period (mean difference) MD -5.85, 95% CI -8.77 to -2.93) with a slight decrease in the CNS-BFS sialorrhea subscale score (range 7 (no symptoms) to 35 (maximum symptoms)) compared to placebo (MD -1.52, 95% CI -2.52 to -0.52) (1 RCT; 60 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The trial did not report an objective measure of saliva production or measure quality of life. The study was at an unclear risk of bias. Adverse events were similar to other trials of DMQ, and may occur at a similar rate as placebo (moderate-certainty evidence, 60 participants), with the most common side effects being constipation, diarrhea, nausea, and dizziness. Nausea and diarrhea on DMQ treatment resulted in one withdrawal. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled cross-over study of scopolamine (hyoscine), administered using a skin patch, involved 10 randomized participants, of whom eight provided efficacy data. The participants were unrepresentative of clinic cohorts under routine clinical care as they had feeding tubes and tracheostomy ventilation, and the study was at high risk of bias. The trial provided very low-certainty evidence on sialorrhea in the short term (7 days' treatment, measured on the Amyotrophic Lateral Scelerosis Functional Rating Scale-Revised (ALSFRS-R) saliva item (P = 0.572)), and the amount of saliva production in the short term, as indicated by the weight of a cotton roll (P = 0.674), or daily oral suction volume (P = 0.69). Quality of life was not measured. Adverse events evidence was also very uncertain. One person treated with scopolamine had a dry mouth and one died of aspiration pneumonia considered unrelated to treatment.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is some low-certainty or moderate-certainty evidence for the use of botulinum toxin B injections to salivary glands and moderate-certainty evidence for the use of oral dextromethorphan with quinidine (DMQ) for the treatment of sialorrhea in MND. Evidence on radiotherapy versus botulinum toxin A injections, and scopolamine patches is too uncertain for any conclusions to be drawn. Further research is required on treatments for sialorrhea. Data are needed on the problem of sialorrhea in MND and its measurement, both by participant self-report measures and objective tests. These will allow the development of better RCTs.
Topics: Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis; Botulinum Toxins, Type A; Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic; Deglutition Disorders; Diarrhea; Humans; Motor Neuron Disease; Nausea; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Saliva; Scopolamine Derivatives; Sialorrhea
PubMed: 35593746
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006981.pub3 -
Journal of Ethnopharmacology Jun 2020Withania somnifera popularly known as Aswagandha or Indian Ginseng/Poison Gooseberry have thousands years of history of use in Indian traditional medicine. Besides,...
ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE
Withania somnifera popularly known as Aswagandha or Indian Ginseng/Poison Gooseberry have thousands years of history of use in Indian traditional medicine. Besides, finding place root of the plant as Indian Ginseng, Ayurveda also uses root of this plant as general health tonic, adaptogenic, nootropic, immunomodulatory etc. With its widespread and growing use, it becomes prudent to scientifically evaluate and document both the efficacy and safety of this plant in humans.
AIM OF THE STUDY
Aswagnadha root is rapidly gaining popularity abroad for use as medicine. Current article attempts to primarily review the human efficacy and safety of Aswagandha generated through clinical trials.
METHODS
A systematic search both for indexed and non-indexed literature was made for W. somnifera using various search engines and databases and the details of research articles pertaining to all clinical trials/human studies, animal studies addressing safety issues of CNS, CVS, general toxicity, mutagenicity, genotoxicity, reproductive safety and herb-drug interactions were reviewed and compiled comprehensively from full texts.
RESULTS
A total of 69 (39 pre-clinical and 30 clinical) studies documenting efficacy and safety aspects were identified and the desired information of these studies is comprehensively presented in this review. Retrieved thirty(30) human studies demonstrated reasonable efficacy of root preparations in subclinical hypothyroidism (1), schizophrenia (3), chronic stress (2), insomnia (2), anxiety (1), memory and cognitive improvement (2), obsessive-compulsive disorder (1), rheumatoid arthritis (2), type-2 diabetes (2), male infertility (6), fertility promotion activity in females (1), adaptogenic (3), growth promoter in children (3) and chemotherapy adjuvant (1). Reasonable safety of root preparations of Aswagandha has been established by these retrieved 30 human trials. No serious adverse events or any changes in haematological, biochemical or vital parameters were reported in these human studies. Only mild and mainly transient type adverse events of somnolence, epigastric pain/discomfort and loose stools were reported as most common (>5%); and giddiness, drowsiness, hallucinogenic, vertigo, nasal congestion (rhinitis), cough, cold, decreased appetite, nausea, constipation, dry mouth, hyperactivity, nocturnal cramps, blurring of vision, hyperacidity, skin rash and weight gain were reported as less common adverse events. Pre-clinical chronic toxicity studies conducted up to 8 months also found root extracts to be safe. No mutagenicity or genotoxicity was reported for the root; only mild CNS depression and increase in thyroxine (T4) levels were reported with rootby some studies. Further, there was no in vitro and in vivo inhibition seen for CYP3A4 and CYP2D6, the two major hepatic drug metabolizing enzymes.
CONCLUSION
Root of the Ayurvedic drug W. somnifera (Aswagandha) appears a promising safe and effective traditional medicine for management of schizophrenia, chronic stress, insomnia, anxiety, memory/cognitive enhancement, obsessive-compulsive disorder, rheumatoid arthritis, type-2 diabetes and male infertility, and bears fertility promotion activity in females adaptogenic, growth promoter activity in children and as adjuvant for reduction of fatigue and improvement in quality of life among cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. Properly designed, randomized-controlled, large-size, prospective trials with standardized preparations are needed to ascertain efficacy of Aswagandha root in previously studied and other new indications.
Topics: Herb-Drug Interactions; Humans; Patient Safety; Plant Extracts; Plant Roots; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Withania
PubMed: 32201301
DOI: 10.1016/j.jep.2020.112768 -
Journal of Tissue Viability Feb 2017Skin conditions and dermatological diseases associated with advanced age (e.g. fungal infection, dry skin and itch) receive increasingly attention in clinical practice... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Skin conditions and dermatological diseases associated with advanced age (e.g. fungal infection, dry skin and itch) receive increasingly attention in clinical practice and research. Cost and economic evaluations are important sources to inform priority setting and ressource allocation decisions in healthcare. The economics of skin conditions in aged populations has not been systematically reviewed so far.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this mapping review was to summarize the economic evidence of selected skin conditions in the aged (65 + years).
METHODS
A mapping literature review and evidence summary was conducted. Searches were conducted in data bases Medline and Embase via OVID. Cinahl was searched using EBSCO. References lists of potential eligible studies, reviews, guidelines or other sources were screened for additional literature. For evaluation of methodological quality of full economic analyses the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) checklist was used.
RESULTS
Database searches resulted in 1388 records. A total of 270 articles were read in full-text. Thirty-five publications were finally included in the data analysis reporting 38 economic analyses. Ten cost of illness analyses and 26 cost-effectiveness analyses reporting about pressure ulcers, skin tears, pressure ulcers, incontinence associated dermatitis and intertrigo/contact dermatitis/candidiasis treatment and prevention and onychomycosis testing were identified. Limited evidence indicated that low air loss beds were more cost effective than standard beds for prevention of pressure ulcers. Standardized skin care regimens seem to lower the incidence of pressure ulcers, skin tears and IAD but a cost saving effect was not always observed.
CONCLUSIONS
Findings of this mapping review indicate that there is a paucity of high quality evidence regarding the economic impact of age-associated skin conditions and diseases. Substantial heterogeneity in terms of study design, evaluation perspective, time period, and way of cost estimation was identified. Because of the overall low methodological quality clear cut conclusions cannot be drawn. Robust and large scales economic evaluations about skin conditions and disease in aged populations are needed in the future.
Topics: Age Factors; Aged; Beds; Cost of Illness; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Dermatitis, Irritant; Humans; Longitudinal Studies; Non-Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Observational Studies as Topic; Pressure Ulcer; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Factors; Skin; Skin Care
PubMed: 27544020
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtv.2016.07.002