-
BMJ Clinical Evidence May 2015Seborrhoeic dermatitis affects a variable proportion of the general population, ranging from 3% to 10%. Malassezia yeast species (previously referred to as Pityrosporum)... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Seborrhoeic dermatitis affects a variable proportion of the general population, ranging from 3% to 10%. Malassezia yeast species (previously referred to as Pityrosporum) are thought to be the responsible organisms, and cause inflammation by still poorly defined mechanisms. Seborrhoeic dermatitis tends to relapse after treatment.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of topical treatments for seborrhoeic dermatitis of the scalp in adults? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to November 2013 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 14 studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: bifonazole, ciclopirox, ketoconazole, pyrithione zinc, selenium sulfide, tar shampoo, terbinafine, and topical corticosteroids (betamethasone valerate, clobetasol propionate, clobetasone butyrate, hydrocortisone, mometasone furoate).
Topics: Administration, Topical; Dermatitis, Seborrheic; Humans
PubMed: 26016669
DOI: No ID Found -
The Journal of Clinical and Aesthetic... Aug 2020Central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA), a scarring alopecia that commonly affects women of African descent, can be challenging to manage, and there are limited... (Review)
Review
Central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA), a scarring alopecia that commonly affects women of African descent, can be challenging to manage, and there are limited treatment modalities available. The use of natural ingredients for nonscarring hair loss has gained popularity among patients, but has not been previously studied for CCCA. We sought to review clinical studies evaluating the use of natural ingredients in the treatment of CCCA. Systematic searches of the PubMed and SCOPUS databases were performed in March 2018 using various ingredient names and the terms , and . Specific ingredients included azelaic acid, peppermint oil, pumpkin seed oil, garlic supplements/shampoo, Black castor oil, jojoba oil, argan oil, olive oil, horsetail plant oil, lavender oil, coconut oil, chamomile oil, thyme oil, tea tree oil, sulfur oil, menthol, and rosemary oil. Two reviewers independently screened titles, leading to the selection of eight clinical studies. A review of the literature revealed no clinical trials that evaluated the treatment of CCCA with natural ingredients. Despite limited evidence-based research for CCCA, several natural ingredients showed efficacy in alopecia areata, androgenetic alopecia, and psoriatic alopecia. Upon review of the literature, there were no randomized, controlled studies evaluating the use of natural ingredients or aromatherapy in the management of CCCA. Despite this, several botanical and natural ingredients do show promise in treating androgenetic alopecia and alopecia areata. More clinical studies need to be performed to evaluate treatment options as a whole, including natural modalities, to better serve these patients.
PubMed: 33178378
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Dec 2010Seborrhoeic dermatitis affects at least 10% of the population. Malassezia (Pityrosporum) ovale is thought to be the causative organism, and causes inflammation by still... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Seborrhoeic dermatitis affects at least 10% of the population. Malassezia (Pityrosporum) ovale is thought to be the causative organism, and causes inflammation by still poorly defined mechanisms. Seborrhoeic dermatitis tends to relapse after treatment.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of topical treatments for seborrhoeic dermatitis of the scalp in adults? What are the effects of topical treatments for seborrhoeic dermatitis of the face and body in adults? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to April 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 12 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: bifonazole, emollients, ketoconazole, lithium succinate, selenium sulphide, tar shampoo, terbinafine, and topical corticosteroids (betamethasone valerate, clobetasol propionate, clobetasone butyrate, hydrocortisone, mometasone furoate).
Topics: Antifungal Agents; Betamethasone Valerate; Dermatitis, Seborrheic; Emollients; Hair Preparations; Humans; Hydrocortisone; Severity of Illness Index; United States Food and Drug Administration
PubMed: 21418692
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jul 2007Seborrhoeic dermatitis affects at least 1-3% of the population. Malassezia (Pityrosporum) ovale is thought to be the causative organism, and causes inflammation... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Seborrhoeic dermatitis affects at least 1-3% of the population. Malassezia (Pityrosporum) ovale is thought to be the causative organism, and causes inflammation involving T cells and complement. Seborrhoeic dermatitis tends to relapse after treatment.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of topical treatments for seborrhoeic dermatitis of the scalp in adults? What are the effects of topical treatments for seborrhoeic dermatitis of the face and body in adults? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to February 2006 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found nine systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: bifonazole, emollients, ketoconazole, lithium succinate, selenium sulphide, tar shampoo, terbinafine, and topical steroids (betamethasone valerate, clobetasol propionate, clobetasone butyrate, hydrocortisone, mometasone furate).
Topics: Administration, Oral; Administration, Topical; Dermatitis, Seborrheic; Face; Humans; Ketoconazole; Lithium; Malassezia; Remission Induction; Scalp Dermatoses
PubMed: 19454093
DOI: No ID Found -
Health Science Reports May 2023As the number of demanders who want to easily cover gray hair increases, the demand market is rapidly expanding along with the demand for coloring shampoos that can be...
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
As the number of demanders who want to easily cover gray hair increases, the demand market is rapidly expanding along with the demand for coloring shampoos that can be dyed while shampooing. Among these coloring shampoo ingredients, it is necessary to differentiate products that are safe and harmless to the human body in consideration of hair loss or skin barrier problems caused by trihydroxybenzene (THB) ingredients. The correct selection criteria were presented by examining the problems, effectiveness, and side effects when used in relation to the skin barrier through previous studies by consideration of the ingredients of the coloring shampoo and the skin barrier of the scalp.
METHODS
The analysis of this study looked at previous studies through a systematic literature review through related keywords for coloring shampoo. After reviewing 150-200 related prior papers, a total of 39 review papers were finally selected using the PRISMA flow diagram.
RESULTS
It was confirmed through a literature review that the coloring shampoo containing THB, which is harmful to the human body, has a detrimental effect on the scalp-skin barrier.
CONCLUSION
This study examined the harmfulness of coloring shampoo on the scalp skin barrier. It was confirmed that frequent coloring shampoo procedures can have various harmful effects on the scalp. Therefore, it is important to reduce side effects caused by the use of harmful ingredients and maintain a healthy scalp condition through analysis of sufficient scalp conditions and consultation with experts. In addition, various studies on the standard standards and age for harmful ingredients are suggested.
PubMed: 37216053
DOI: 10.1002/hsr2.1271 -
The Science of the Total Environment Feb 2024Personal care products (PCPs) are organic compounds that are incorporated in several daily life products, such as shampoos, lotions, perfumes, cleaning products, air... (Review)
Review
Personal care products (PCPs) are organic compounds that are incorporated in several daily life products, such as shampoos, lotions, perfumes, cleaning products, air fresheners, etc. Due to their massive and continuous use and because they are not routinely monitored in the environment, these compounds are considered emerging contaminants. In fact, residues of PCPs are being discharged into the sewage system, reaching wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), where most of these compounds are not completely degraded, being partially released into the environment via the final effluents and/or accumulating in the sewage sludges. Environmental sustainability is nowadays one of the main pillars of society and the application of circular economy models, promoting the waste valorisation, is increasingly encouraged. Therefore, irrigation with reclaimed wastewater or soil fertilization with sewage sludge/biosolids are interesting solutions. However, these practices raise concerns due to the potential risks associated to the presence of hazardous compounds, including PCPs. When applied to agricultural soils, PCPs present in these matrices can contaminate the soil or be taken up by crops. Crops can therefore become a route of exposure for humans and pose a risk to public health. However, the extent to which PCPs are taken up and bioaccumulated in crops is highly dependent on the physicochemical properties of the compounds, environmental variables, and the plant species. This issue has attracted the attention of scientists in recent years and the number of publications on this topic has rapidly increased, but a systematic review of these studies is lacking. Therefore, the present paper reviews the uptake, accumulation, and translocation of different classes of PCPs (biocides, parabens, synthetic musks, phthalates, UV-filters) following application of sewage sludge or reclaimed water under field and greenhouse conditions, but also in hydroponic systems. The factors influencing the uptake mechanism in plants were also discussed.
Topics: Humans; Sewage; Soil; Waste Disposal, Fluid; Hydroponics; Cosmetics
PubMed: 38036128
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.168894 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2019Infantile seborrhoeic dermatitis (ISD) is a chronic, inflammatory, scaling skin condition, which causes redness and a greasy scaling rash in infants and young children.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Infantile seborrhoeic dermatitis (ISD) is a chronic, inflammatory, scaling skin condition, which causes redness and a greasy scaling rash in infants and young children. It can last from weeks to months, but rarely years. When it occurs on the scalp, it is referred to as 'cradle cap'. While benign and self-limiting, irrelevant of its location on the body, it can distress parents. The effectiveness of commonly promoted treatments is unclear.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of interventions for infantile seborrhoeic dermatitis in children from birth to 24 months of age.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to 22 May 2018: Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We searched trials registers and checked reference lists of included studies for further references to randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We searched for unpublished RCTs and grey literature via web search engines, and wrote to authors and pharmaceutical companies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs of interventions for ISD in children from birth up to 24 months who were clinically diagnosed by a healthcare practitioner with ISD or cradle cap. We allowed comparison of any treatment to no treatment or placebo, and the comparison of two or more treatments or a combination of treatments.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcome measures were 'Change in severity score from baseline to end of study' and 'Percentage of infants treated who develop adverse effects or intolerance to treatment'. The secondary outcome was 'Improvement in quality of life (QoL) as reported by parents'.
MAIN RESULTS
We included six RCTs (one with a cross-over design) randomising 310 children and reporting outcomes for 297 children. Most participants were aged under seven months with only two participants aged over one year (seven and 12 years old); where specified, 60% were boys. In two studies, condition severity was mild to moderate; one study included two participants with severe ISD; the other studies did not describe baseline severity or described it as body surface area affected.The study setting was not always clear but likely a paediatric outpatient clinic in the following countries: Thailand, Israel, USA, France, and Australia.Two studies compared oral biotin (a B group vitamin) against placebo, two studies compared proprietary products against placebo cream or a control shampoo, and two studies compared topical corticosteroids against other products. The studies were generally short-term, between 10 and 42 days' duration; only one study followed the participants until resolution of the rash or eight months of age.We assessed the risk of bias as unclear for most aspects due to lack of reporting, but two of the studies were at high risk of performance and detection bias due to the appearance of the intervention, the trial design (open-label), or use of overlabelled tubes. Two trials had a high risk of attrition bias.All the results given below were based on very low-quality evidence. Treatment duration ranged from one week to three weeks.For the two trials comparing biotin versus placebo (n = 35), one did not report a measure of change in severity (only change in duration of rash) while the other did not report raw data (only 'no statistically significant difference'), measured at three weeks. Neither trial reported on adverse events.Two trials compared proprietary products against placebo (n = 160). One trial assessed change in severity via percentage success (96% of participants in non-steroidal cream Promiseb versus 92% in placebo), and reported no adverse events (both assessed at day 14). The other trial assessed change in severity via reduction in lesional score (surface area covered), finding better results for lactamide MEA gel (a moisturising agent) plus shampoo (81.4%) compared with shampoo only (70.2%; P = 0.0092). No adverse events were described, but signs of discomfort were similar in both groups (both assessed at day 21).In the comparison of topical steroids versus another product, change in severity was measured through evaluation of cure and body surface (n = 102).In one trial comparing hydrocortisone 1% lotion with licochalcone 0.025% lotion, there was no significant difference in participants cured (95.8% with hydrocortisone compared to 97.1% with licochalcone). One person in the licochalcone group developed more erythema, but there were no other adverse events (both outcomes assessed at day 14). In the trial comparing flumethasone pivalate 0.02% ointment versus eosin 2% aqueous solution, a reduction in body surface area affected was seen in both groups at day 10 (9% with corticosteroid versus 7% with aqueous solution), with all infants showing less than 10% involvement. There were no adverse events (both outcomes assessed at day 10).No studies measured QoL.We found no trials testing commonly used treatments such as mineral oils, salicylic acid, or antifungals.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Our review identified only a limited number of studies investigating the effects of interventions for ISD in infants and young children. Unlike the reviews investigating the effects of treatments in adults, our results showed that there is uncertainty regarding the effectiveness and safety of studied treatments due to the very low-certainty evidence for all comparisons and outcomes.We assessed most bias domains as at unclear risk, but there was a high risk of bias for (mainly) performance, attrition, and detection bias. Evidence was limited further by imprecision (small studies, low number of events), indirectness (mainly with the outcomes assessed), and poor trial reporting. In most studies, the prognosis for the condition was favourable regardless of intervention but interpretation is limited by the very low-certainty evidence.Further research is needed with large, well-conducted, and well-reported intervention trials, particularly of interventions commonly recommended or used, such as emollients or shampoos and brushing, antifungals, or steroids. All studies should report standardised and validated relevant outcome measures, including adverse events, severity, and QoL, and they should be conducted in primary care settings where the majority of ISD is managed. Future trials should compare against placebo, no treatment, or standard care.
Topics: Amides; Biotin; Child; Dermatitis, Seborrheic; Emollients; Female; Hair Preparations; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Male; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Scalp Dermatoses; Vitamin B Complex
PubMed: 30828791
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011380.pub2 -
International Journal of Environmental... Jun 2020Recently, biological markers of maternal prenatal stress, hair cortisol, along with saliva, blood, and urine cortisol, have received attention. However, it is necessary...
Recently, biological markers of maternal prenatal stress, hair cortisol, along with saliva, blood, and urine cortisol, have received attention. However, it is necessary to validate measuring hair cortisol concentrations (HCC) as a biomarker of perceived stress among healthy and high-risk pregnant women. This study aimed to confirm the correlation between HCC and the perceived stress of pregnant women over 18 years of age. In this systematic review, we used various search engines to extract relevant articles using specific keywords related to pregnancy, hair cortisol, and psychological stress. Four out of 3639 studies met the inclusion criteria. We conducted a quality assessment with the help of three independent reviewers using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement. The correlation between HCC and perceived stress was confirmed in one study. There was only one study on hair washing, shampoo, conditioner, and hair structure that could affect hair samples. In four studies, hair samples differed in length, methods of storage, and laboratory analysis. The review was limited to confirming the relationship between HCC and perceived stress in pregnant women based on the current evidence. Studies on hair cortisol need regulated and standardized methods for collection, storage, and analysis of hair samples.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Biomarkers; Child; Cross-Sectional Studies; Female; Hair; Humans; Hydrocortisone; Infant, Newborn; Pilot Projects; Pregnancy; Prospective Studies; Stress, Psychological
PubMed: 32512943
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17114002 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2020COVID-19 infection poses a serious risk to patients and - due to its contagious nature - to those healthcare workers (HCWs) treating them. If the mouth and nose of...
Antimicrobial mouthwashes (gargling) and nasal sprays administered to patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection to improve patient outcomes and to protect healthcare workers treating them.
BACKGROUND
COVID-19 infection poses a serious risk to patients and - due to its contagious nature - to those healthcare workers (HCWs) treating them. If the mouth and nose of patients with infection are irrigated with antimicrobial solutions, this may help the patients by killing any coronavirus present at those sites. It may also reduce the risk of the active infection being passed to HCWs through droplet transmission or direct contact. However, the use of such antimicrobial solutions may be associated with harms related to the toxicity of the solutions themselves or alterations in the natural microbial flora of the mouth or nose.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of antimicrobial mouthwashes and nasal sprays administered to patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection to both the patients and the HCWs caring for them.
SEARCH METHODS
Information Specialists from Cochrane ENT and Cochrane Oral Health searched the Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2020, Issue 6); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 1 June 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: This is a question that urgently requires evidence, however at the present time we did not anticipate finding many completed RCTs. We therefore planned to include the following types of studies: randomised controlled trials (RCTs); quasi-RCTs; non-randomised controlled trials; prospective cohort studies; retrospective cohort studies; cross-sectional studies; controlled before-and-after studies. We set no minimum duration for the studies. We sought studies comparing antimicrobial mouthwash and/or nasal spray (alone or in combination) at any concentration, delivered with any frequency or dosage to suspected/confirmed COVID-19 patients.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were: 1) RECOVERY* (www.recoverytrial.net) outcomes in patients (mortality; hospitalisation status; use of ventilation; use of renal dialysis or haemofiltration); 2) incidence of symptomatic or test-positive COVID-19 infection in HCWs; 3) significant adverse event: anosmia (or disturbance in sense of smell). Our secondary outcomes were: 4) change in COVID-19 viral load in patients; 5) COVID-19 viral content of aerosol (when present); 6) other adverse events: changes in microbiome in oral cavity, nasal cavity, oro- or nasopharynx; 7) other adverse events: allergy, irritation/burning of nasal, oral or oropharyngeal mucosa (e.g. erosions, ulcers, bleeding), long-term staining of mucous membranes or teeth, accidental ingestion. We planned to use GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We found no completed studies to include in this review. We identified 16 ongoing studies (including 14 RCTs), which aim to enrol nearly 1250 participants. The interventions included in these trials are ArtemiC (artemisinin, curcumin, frankincense and vitamin C), Citrox (a bioflavonoid), cetylpyridinium chloride, chlorhexidine, chlorine dioxide, essential oils, hydrogen peroxide, hypertonic saline, Kerecis spray (omega 3 viruxide - containing neem oil and St John's wort), neem extract, nitric oxide releasing solution, povidone iodine and saline with baby shampoo. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We identified no studies for inclusion in this review. This is not surprising given the relatively recent emergence of COVID-19 infection. It is promising that the question posed in this review is being addressed by a number of RCTs and other studies. We are concerned that few of the ongoing studies specifically state that they will evaluate adverse events such as changes in the sense of smell or to the oral and nasal microbiota, and any consequences thereof. Very few interventions have large and dramatic effect sizes. If a positive treatment effect is demonstrated when studies are available for inclusion in this review, it may not be large. In these circumstances in particular it may be a challenge to weigh up the benefits against the harms if the latter are of uncertain frequency and severity.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents; Betacoronavirus; COVID-19; Coronavirus Infections; Health Personnel; Humans; Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional; Mouth; Mouthwashes; Nasal Sprays; Nose; Occupational Diseases; Pandemics; Pneumonia, Viral; SARS-CoV-2; Therapeutic Irrigation
PubMed: 32936948
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013627.pub2