-
European Journal of Dermatology : EJD Oct 2016Taxanes (docetaxel and paclitaxel) are among the most commonly prescribed anticancer drugs approved for the treatment of metastatic or locally advanced breast, non-small... (Review)
Review
Taxanes (docetaxel and paclitaxel) are among the most commonly prescribed anticancer drugs approved for the treatment of metastatic or locally advanced breast, non-small cell lung, prostate, gastric, head and neck, and ovarian cancers, as well as in the adjuvant setting for operable node-positive breast cancers. Although the true incidence of dermatological adverse events (AEs) in patients receiving taxanes is not known, and has never been prospectively analysed, they clearly represent one of the major AEs associated with these agents. With an increase in the occurrence of cutaneous AEs during treatment with novel targeted and immunological therapies when used in combination with taxanes, a thorough understanding of reactions attributable to this class is imperative. Moreover, identification and management of dermatological AEs is critical for maintaining the quality of life in cancer patients and for minimizing dose modifications of their antineoplastic regimen. This analysis represents a systematic review of the dermatological conditions reported with the use of these drugs, complemented by experience at comprehensive cancer centres. The conditions reported herein include skin, hair, and nail toxicities. Lastly, we describe the dermatological data available for the new, recently FDA-and EMA- approved, solvent-free nab-paclitaxel.
Topics: Alopecia; Antineoplastic Agents; Docetaxel; Drug Eruptions; Edema; Humans; Lupus Erythematosus, Cutaneous; Nail Diseases; Paclitaxel; Pigmentation Disorders; Radiodermatitis; Taxoids
PubMed: 27550571
DOI: 10.1684/ejd.2016.2833 -
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... Mar 2023It is unclear how the efficacy of tezepelumab, approved for the treatment of type 2 high and low asthma, compares to the efficacy of other biologics for type 2-high... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
It is unclear how the efficacy of tezepelumab, approved for the treatment of type 2 high and low asthma, compares to the efficacy of other biologics for type 2-high asthma.
OBJECTIVES
We sought to conduct an indirect comparison of tezepelumab to dupilumab, benralizumab, and mepolizumab in the treatment of eosinophilic asthma.
METHODS
The investigators conducted a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analyses. They identified randomized controlled trials indexed in PubMed, Embase, or Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) between January 1, 2000, and August 12, 2022. Outcomes included exacerbation rates, prebronchodilator FEV, and the Asthma Control Questionnaire.
RESULTS
Ten randomized controlled trials (n = 9201) met eligibility. Tezepelumab (relative risk: 0.63; 95% credible interval [CI]: 0.46-0.86) was associated with significantly lower exacerbation rates than benralizumab and larger improvements in FEV compared to mepolizumab (mean difference [MD]: 66; 95% CI: -33 to 170) and benralizumab (MD: 62; 95% CI: -22 to 150), though the 95% CI crossed the null value of 0. Mepolizumab improved the Asthma Control Questionnaire score the most, but this improvement was not significantly different from that of tezepelumab (tezepelumab vs mepolizumab; MD: 0.14; 95% CI: -0.10 to 0.38). For efficacy by clinically important thresholds, tezepelumab, mepolizumab, and dupilumab achieved a >99% probability of reducing exacerbation rates by ≥50% compared to placebo, but benralizumab had only a 66% probability of doing so. Tezepelumab and dupilumab had a probability of 1.00 of improving prebronchodilator FEV by ≥100 mL above placebo. Compared to mepolizumab, dupilumab had >90% chance for improving FEV by ≥50 mL, but none of the differences between biologics exceeded 100 mL.
CONCLUSIONS
In individuals with eosinophilic asthma, tezepelumab and dupilumab were associated with greater improvements (although below clinical thresholds) in exacerbation rates and lung function than benralizumab or mepolizumab.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Network Meta-Analysis; Bayes Theorem; Asthma; Pulmonary Eosinophilia; Biological Products
PubMed: 36538979
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2022.11.021 -
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... Jan 2023Atopic dermatitis (AD, eczema) is driven by a combination of skin barrier defects, immune dysregulation, and extrinsic stimuli such as allergens, irritants, and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Atopic dermatitis (AD, eczema) is driven by a combination of skin barrier defects, immune dysregulation, and extrinsic stimuli such as allergens, irritants, and microbes. The role of environmental allergens (aeroallergens) in triggering AD remains unclear.
OBJECTIVE
We systematically synthesized evidence regarding the benefits and harms of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) for AD.
METHODS
As part of the 2022 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology/American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters AD Guideline update, we searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, LILACS, Global Resource for Eczema Trials, and Web of Science databases from inception to December 2021 for randomized controlled trials comparing subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT), sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), and/or no AIT (placebo or standard care) for guideline panel-defined patient-important outcomes: AD severity, itch, AD-related quality of life (QoL), flares, and adverse events. Raters independently screened, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. We synthesized intervention effects using frequentist and Bayesian random-effects models. The GRADE approach determined the quality of evidence.
RESULTS
Twenty-three randomized controlled trials including 1957 adult and pediatric patients sensitized primarily to house dust mite showed that add-on SCIT and SLIT have similar relative and absolute effects and likely result in important improvements in AD severity, defined as a 50% reduction in SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (risk ratio [95% confidence interval] 1.53 [1.31-1.78]; 26% vs 40%, absolute difference 14%) and QoL, defined as an improvement in Dermatology Life Quality Index by 4 points or more (risk ratio [95% confidence interval] 1.44 [1.03-2.01]; 39% vs 56%, absolute difference 17%; both outcomes moderate certainty). Both routes of AIT increased adverse events (risk ratio [95% confidence interval] 1.61 [1.44-1.79]; 66% with SCIT vs 41% with placebo; 13% with SLIT vs 8% with placebo; high certainty). AIT's effect on sleep disturbance and eczema flares was very uncertain. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were consistent with the main findings.
CONCLUSIONS
SCIT and SLIT to aeroallergens, particularly house dust mite, can similarly and importantly improve AD severity and QoL. SCIT increases adverse effects more than SLIT. These findings support a multidisciplinary and shared decision-making approach to optimally managing AD.
Topics: Adult; Animals; Humans; Child; Dermatitis, Atopic; Quality of Life; Bayes Theorem; Desensitization, Immunologic; Pyroglyphidae; Hypersensitivity; Asthma; Allergens; Sublingual Immunotherapy; Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus; Eczema
PubMed: 36191689
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2022.09.020 -
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... Dec 2023Atopic dermatitis (AD) is an inflammatory skin condition with multiple systemic treatments and uncertainty regarding their comparative impact on AD outcomes. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Atopic dermatitis (AD) is an inflammatory skin condition with multiple systemic treatments and uncertainty regarding their comparative impact on AD outcomes.
OBJECTIVE
We sought to systematically synthesize the benefits and harms of AD systemic treatments.
METHODS
For the 2023 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology and American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters AD guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and GREAT databases from inception to November 29, 2022, for randomized trials addressing systemic treatments and phototherapy for AD. Paired reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects network meta-analyses addressed AD severity, itch, sleep, AD-related quality of life, flares, and harms. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach informed certainty of evidence ratings. This review is registered in the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/e5sna).
RESULTS
The 149 included trials (28,686 patients with moderate-to-severe AD) evaluated 75 interventions. With high-certainty evidence, high-dose upadacitinib was among the most effective for 5 of 6 patient-important outcomes; high-dose abrocitinib and low-dose upadacitinib were among the most effective for 2 outcomes. These Janus kinase inhibitors were among the most harmful in increasing adverse events. With high-certainty evidence, dupilumab, lebrikizumab, and tralokinumab were of intermediate effectiveness and among the safest, modestly increasing conjunctivitis. Low-dose baricitinib was among the least effective. Efficacy and safety of azathioprine, oral corticosteroids, cyclosporine, methotrexate, mycophenolate, phototherapy, and many novel agents are less certain.
CONCLUSIONS
Among individuals with moderate-to-severe AD, high-certainty evidence demonstrates that high-dose upadacitinib is among the most effective in addressing multiple patient-important outcomes, but also is among the most harmful. High-dose abrocitinib and low-dose upadacitinib are effective, but also among the most harmful. Dupilumab, lebrikizumab, and tralokinumab are of intermediate effectiveness and have favorable safety.
Topics: Humans; Dermatitis, Atopic; Network Meta-Analysis; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Eczema; Asthma; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37678577
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2023.08.029 -
World Journal of Gastroenterology Sep 2017Autoimmune hepatitis is a rare chronic inflammatory liver disease, affecting all ages, characterised by elevated transaminase and immunoglobulin G levels, positive... (Review)
Review
Autoimmune hepatitis is a rare chronic inflammatory liver disease, affecting all ages, characterised by elevated transaminase and immunoglobulin G levels, positive autoantibodies, interface hepatitis at liver histology and good response to immunosuppressive treatment. If untreated, it has a poor prognosis. The aim of this review is to summarize the evidence for standard treatment and to provide a systematic review on alternative treatments for adults and children. Standard treatment is based on steroids and azathioprine, and leads to disease remission in 80%-90% of patients. Alternative first line treatment has been attempted with budesonide or cyclosporine, but their superiority compared to standard treatment remains to be demonstrated. Second-line treatments are needed for patients not responding or intolerant to standard treatment. No randomized controlled trials have been performed for second-line options. Mycophenolate mofetil is the most widely used second-line drug, and has good efficacy particularly for patients intolerant to azathioprine, but has the major disadvantage of being teratogenic. Only few and heterogeneous data on cyclosporine, tacrolimus, everolimus and sirolimus are available. More recently, experience with the anti-tumour necrosis factor-alpha infliximab and the anti-CD20 rituximab has been published, with ambivalent results; these agents may have severe side-effects and their use should be restricted to specialized centres. Clinical trials with new therapeutic options are ongoing.
Topics: Adult; Age Factors; Azathioprine; Child; Complementary Therapies; Drug Hypersensitivity; Glucocorticoids; Hepatitis, Autoimmune; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Liver; Treatment Outcome; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha
PubMed: 28970719
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v23.i33.6030 -
JAMA Jun 2021The benefits and harms of adding long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs) for moderate to severe... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
The benefits and harms of adding long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs) for moderate to severe asthma remain unclear.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically synthesize the outcomes and adverse events associated with triple therapy (ICS, LABA, and LAMA) vs dual therapy (ICS plus LABA) in children and adults with persistent uncontrolled asthma.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, ICTRP, FDA, and EMA databases from November 2017, to December 8, 2020, without language restriction.
STUDY SELECTION
Two investigators independently selected randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing triple vs dual therapy in patients with moderate to severe asthma.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects meta-analyses, including individual patient-level exacerbation data, were used. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was used to assess certainty (quality) of the evidence.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Severe exacerbations, asthma control (measured using the Asthma Control Questionnaire [ACQ-7], a 7-item list with each item ranging from 0 [totally controlled] to 6 [severely uncontrolled]; minimal important difference, 0.5), quality of life (measured using the Asthma-related Quality of Life [AQLQ] tool; score range, 1 [severely impaired] to 7 [no impairment]; minimal important difference, 0.5), mortality, and adverse events.
RESULTS
Twenty RCTs using 3 LAMA types that enrolled 11 894 children and adults (mean age, 52 years [range, 9-71 years]; 57.7% female) were included. High-certainty evidence showed that triple therapy vs dual therapy was significantly associated with a reduction in severe exacerbation risk (9 trials [9932 patients]; 22.7% vs 27.4%; risk ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.77 to 0.90]) and an improvement in asthma control (14 trials [11 230 patients]; standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.06 [95% CI, -0.10 to -0.02]; mean difference in ACQ-7 scale, -0.04 [95% CI, -0.07 to -0.01]). There were no significant differences in asthma-related quality of life (7 trials [5247 patients]; SMD, 0.05 [95% CI, -0.03 to 0.13]; mean difference in AQLQ score, 0.05 [95% CI, -0.03 to 0.13]; moderate-certainty evidence) or mortality (17 trials [11 595 patients]; 0.12% vs 0.12%; risk ratio, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.33 to 2.75]; high-certainty evidence) between dual and triple therapy. Triple therapy was significantly associated with increased dry mouth and dysphonia (10 trials [7395 patients]; 3.0% vs 1.8%; risk ratio, 1.65 [95% CI, 1.14 to 2.38]; high-certainty evidence), but treatment-related and serious adverse events were not significantly different between groups (moderate-certainty evidence).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Among children (aged 6 to 18 years) and adults with moderate to severe asthma, triple therapy, compared with dual therapy, was significantly associated with fewer severe asthma exacerbations and modest improvements in asthma control without significant differences in quality of life or mortality.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Agonists; Adult; Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Asthma; Child; Drug Therapy, Combination; Forced Expiratory Volume; Humans; Muscarinic Antagonists; Nebulizers and Vaporizers; Quality of Life; Severity of Illness Index; Symptom Flare Up; Xerostomia
PubMed: 34009257
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2021.7872 -
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... Dec 2023Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common skin condition with multiple topical treatment options, but uncertain comparative effects. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common skin condition with multiple topical treatment options, but uncertain comparative effects.
OBJECTIVE
We sought to systematically synthesize the benefits and harms of AD prescription topical treatments.
METHODS
For the 2023 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology and American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters AD guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, LILACS, ICTRP, and GREAT databases to September 5, 2022, for randomized trials addressing AD topical treatments. Paired reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects network meta-analyses addressed AD severity, itch, sleep, AD-related quality of life, flares, and harms. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach informed certainty of evidence ratings. We classified topical corticosteroids (TCS) using 7 groups-group 1 being most potent. This review is registered in the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/q5m6s).
RESULTS
The 219 included trials (43,123 patients) evaluated 68 interventions. With high-certainty evidence, pimecrolimus improved 6 of 7 outcomes-among the best for 2; high-dose tacrolimus (0.1%) improved 5-among the best for 2; low-dose tacrolimus (0.03%) improved 5-among the best for 1. With moderate- to high-certainty evidence, group 5 TCS improved 6-among the best for 3; group 4 TCS and delgocitinib improved 4-among the best for 2; ruxolitinib improved 4-among the best for 1; group 1 TCS improved 3-among the best for 2. These interventions did not increase harm. Crisaborole and difamilast were intermediately effective, but with uncertain harm. Topical antibiotics alone or in combination may be among the least effective. To maintain AD control, group 5 TCS were among the most effective, followed by tacrolimus and pimecrolimus.
CONCLUSIONS
For individuals with AD, pimecrolimus, tacrolimus, and moderate-potency TCS are among the most effective in improving and maintaining multiple AD outcomes. Topical antibiotics may be among the least effective.
Topics: Humans; Dermatitis, Atopic; Tacrolimus; Network Meta-Analysis; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Dermatologic Agents; Asthma; Eczema; Anti-Bacterial Agents
PubMed: 37678572
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2023.08.030 -
JAMA Network Open Oct 2021New therapeutic classes of migraine-specific treatment have been developed, including 5-hydroxytryptamine1F receptor agonists (lasmiditan) and calcitonin gene-related... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
New therapeutic classes of migraine-specific treatment have been developed, including 5-hydroxytryptamine1F receptor agonists (lasmiditan) and calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonists (rimegepant and ubrogepant).
OBJECTIVE
To compare outcomes associated with the use of lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant vs triptans for acute management of migraine headaches.
DATA SOURCES
The Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and PubMed were searched from inception to March 5, 2020.
STUDY SELECTION
Double-blind randomized clinical trials examining current available migraine-specific acute treatments were included.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline was applied to extract the data according to a predetermined list of variables of interest, and all network meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was the odds ratio (OR) for freedom from pain (hereafter referred to as pain freedom) at 2 hours after the dose, and the secondary outcomes were ORs for pain relief at 2 hours after the dose and any adverse events.
RESULTS
A total of 64 randomized clinical trials were included (46 442 participants; 74%-87% women; age range, 36-43 years). Most of the included treatments were associated with reduced pain at 2 hours compared with placebo. Most triptans were associated with higher ORs for pain freedom at 2 hours compared with lasmiditan (range: OR, 1.72 [95% CI, 1.06-2.80] to OR, 3.40 [95% CI, 2.12-5.44]), rimegepant (range: OR, 1.58 [95% CI, 1.07-2.33] to OR, 3.13 [95% CI, 2.16-4.52]), and ubrogepant (range: OR, 1.54 [95% CI, 1.00-2.37] to OR, 3.05 [95% CI, 2.02-4.60]). Most triptans were associated with higher ORs for pain relief at 2 hours compared with lasmiditan (range: OR, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.09-1.96] to OR, 3.31 [95% CI, 2.41-4.55]), rimegepant (range: OR, 1.33 [95% CI, 1.01-1.76] to OR, 3.01 [95% CI, 2.33-3.88]), and ubrogepant (range: OR, 1.38 [95% CI, 1.02-1.88] to OR, 3.13 [95% CI, 2.35-4.15]). The comparisons between lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant were not statistically significant for both pain freedom and pain relief at 2 hours. Lasmiditan was associated with the highest risk of any adverse events, and certain triptans (rizatriptan, sumatriptan, and zolmitriptan) were also associated with a higher risk of any adverse events than the calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonists.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
For pain freedom or pain relief at 2 hours after the dose, lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant were associated with higher ORs compared with placebo but lower ORs compared with most triptans. However, the lack of cardiovascular risks for these new classes of migraine-specific treatments may offer an alternative to triptans.
Topics: Adult; Female; Humans; Male; Migraine Disorders; Tryptamines
PubMed: 34633423
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.28544 -
JAMA Dermatology Apr 2023Antibiotics are an important risk for Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis (SJS/TEN), which are the most severe types of drug hypersensitivity... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Antibiotics are an important risk for Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis (SJS/TEN), which are the most severe types of drug hypersensitivity reaction with a mortality rate up to 50%. To our knowledge, no global systematic review has described antibiotic-associated SJS/TEN.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the prevalence of antibiotics associated with SJS/TEN worldwide.
DATA SOURCES
The MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched for experimental and observational studies that described SJS/TEN risks since database inception to February 22, 2022.
STUDY SELECTION
Included studies adequately described SJS/TEN origins and specified the antibiotics associated with SJS/TEN.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two reviewers (E.Y.L. and C.K.) independently selected the studies, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias. A meta-analysis using a random-effects model was performed in the studies that described patient-level associations. Subgroup analyses were performed to explore the heterogeneity. The risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist, and the certainty of evidence was rated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Prevalence of antibiotic-associated SJS/TEN was presented as pooled proportions with 95% CIs.
RESULTS
Among the 64 studies included in the systematic review, there were 38 studies that described patient-level associations; the meta-analysis included these 38 studies with 2917 patients to determine the prevalence of single antibiotics associated with SJS/TEN. The pooled proportion of antibiotics associated with SJS/TEN was 28% (95% CI, 24%-33%), with moderate certainty of evidence. Among antibiotic-associated SJS/TEN, the sulfonamide class was associated with 32% (95% CI, 22%-44%) of cases, followed by penicillins (22%; 95% CI, 17%-28%), cephalosporins (11%; 95% CI, 6%-17%), fluoroquinolones (4%; 95% CI, 1%-7%), and macrolides (2%; 95% CI, 1%-5%). There was a statistically significant heterogeneity in the meta-analysis, which could be partially explained in the subgroup analysis by continents. The overall risk of bias was low using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist for case series.
CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE
In this systematic review and meta-analysis of all case series, antibiotics were associated with more than one-quarter of SJS/TEN cases described worldwide, and sulfonamide antibiotics remained the most important association. These findings highlight the importance of antibiotic stewardship, clinician education and awareness, and weighing the risk-benefit assessment of antibiotic choice and duration.
Topics: Humans; Stevens-Johnson Syndrome; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Prevalence; Sulfanilamide; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 36790777
DOI: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2022.6378 -
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