Maeve M Kelleher1, Suzie Cro2, Victoria Cornelius2, Karin C Lodrup Carlsen3,4, Håvard O Skjerven3, Eva M Rehbinder4,5, Adrian J Lowe6, Eishika Dissanayake7, Naoki Shimojo8, Kaori Yonezawa9, Yukihiro Ohya10, Kiwako Yamamoto-Hanada10, Kumiko Morita11, Emma Axon12, Christian Surber13,14, Michael Cork15, Alison Cooke16, Lien Tran2, Eleanor Van Vogt2, Jochen Schmitt17, Stephan Weidinger18, Danielle McClanahan19, Eric Simpson19, Lelia Duley20, Lisa M Askie21, Joanne R Chalmers12, Hywel C Williams12, Robert J Boyle1,12. 1. National Heart & Lung Institute, Section of Inflammation and Repair, Imperial College London, London, UK. 2. Imperial Clinical Trials Unit, Imperial College London, London, UK. 3. Division of Paediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway. 4. Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. 5. Department of Dermatology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway. 6. Allergy and Lung Health Unit, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. 7. Department of Pediatrics, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. 8. Center for Preventive Medical Sciences, Chiba University, Chiba, Japan. 9. Department of Midwifery and Women's Health, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan. 10. Allergy Center, National Center for Child Health and Development, Tokyo, Japan. 11. Department of Pediatrics, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan. 12. Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK. 13. Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 14. Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland. 15. Sheffield Dermatology Research, Department of Infection, Immunity & Cardiovascular Disease, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK. 16. Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, School of Health Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. 17. Center for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Faculty of Medicine Carl Gustav Carus, Technischen Universität (TU) Dresden, Dresden, Germany. 18. Department of Dermatology and Allergy, University Hospital Scheswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany. 19. Department of Dermatology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA. 20. Nottingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK. 21. NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Eczema and food allergy are common health conditions that usually begin in early childhood and often occur together in the same people. They can be associated with an impaired skin barrier in early infancy. It is unclear whether trying to prevent or reverse an impaired skin barrier soon after birth is effective in preventing eczema or food allergy. OBJECTIVES: Primary objective To assess effects of skin care interventions, such as emollients, for primary prevention of eczema and food allergy in infants Secondary objective To identify features of study populations such as age, hereditary risk, and adherence to interventions that are associated with the greatest treatment benefit or harm for both eczema and food allergy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to July 2020: Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. We searched two trials registers and checked reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We contacted field experts to identify planned trials and to seek information about unpublished or incomplete trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs of skin care interventions that could potentially enhance skin barrier function, reduce dryness, or reduce subclinical inflammation in healthy term (> 37 weeks) infants (0 to 12 months) without pre-existing diagnosis of eczema, food allergy, or other skin condition were included. Comparison was standard care in the locality or no treatment. Types of skin care interventions included moisturisers/emollients; bathing products; advice regarding reducing soap exposure and bathing frequency; and use of water softeners. No minimum follow-up was required. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: This is a prospective individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures, and primary analyses used the IPD dataset. Primary outcomes were cumulative incidence of eczema and cumulative incidence of immunoglobulin (Ig)E-mediated food allergy by one to three years, both measured by the closest available time point to two years. Secondary outcomes included adverse events during the intervention period; eczema severity (clinician-assessed); parent report of eczema severity; time to onset of eczema; parent report of immediate food allergy; and allergic sensitisation to food or inhalant allergen. MAIN RESULTS: This review identified 33 RCTs, comprising 25,827 participants. A total of 17 studies, randomising 5823 participants, reported information on one or more outcomes specified in this review. Eleven studies randomising 5217 participants, with 10 of these studies providing IPD, were included in one or more meta-analysis (range 2 to 9 studies per individual meta-analysis). Most studies were conducted at children's hospitals. All interventions were compared against no skin care intervention or local standard care. Of the 17 studies that reported our outcomes, 13 assessed emollients. Twenty-five studies, including all those contributing data to meta-analyses, randomised newborns up to age three weeks to receive a skin care intervention or standard infant skin care. Eight of the 11 studies contributing to meta-analyses recruited infants at high risk of developing eczema or food allergy, although definition of high risk varied between studies. Durations of intervention and follow-up ranged from 24 hours to two years. We assessed most of this review's evidence as low certainty or had some concerns of risk of bias. A rating of some concerns was most often due to lack of blinding of outcome assessors or significant missing data, which could have impacted outcome measurement but was judged unlikely to have done so. Evidence for the primary food allergy outcome was rated as high risk of bias due to inclusion of only one trial where findings varied when different assumptions were made about missing data. Skin care interventions during infancy probably do not change risk of eczema by one to two years of age (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.31; moderate-certainty evidence; 3075 participants, 7 trials) nor time to onset of eczema (hazard ratio 0.86, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.14; moderate-certainty evidence; 3349 participants, 9 trials). It is unclear whether skin care interventions during infancy change risk of IgE-mediated food allergy by one to two years of age (RR 2.53, 95% CI 0.99 to 6.47; 996 participants, 1 trial) or allergic sensitisation to a food allergen at age one to two years (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.69; 1055 participants, 2 trials) due to very low-certainty evidence for these outcomes. Skin care interventions during infancy may slightly increase risk of parent report of immediate reaction to a common food allergen at two years (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.61; low-certainty evidence; 1171 participants, 1 trial). However, this was only seen for cow's milk, and may be unreliable due to significant over-reporting of cow's milk allergy in infants. Skin care interventions during infancy probably increase risk of skin infection over the intervention period (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.77; moderate-certainty evidence; 2728 participants, 6 trials) and may increase risk of infant slippage over the intervention period (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.99; low-certainty evidence; 2538 participants, 4 trials) or stinging/allergic reactions to moisturisers (RR 2.24, 95% 0.67 to 7.43; low-certainty evidence; 343 participants, 4 trials), although confidence intervals for slippages and stinging/allergic reactions are wide and include the possibility of no effect or reduced risk. Preplanned subgroup analyses show that effects of interventions were not influenced by age, duration of intervention, hereditary risk, FLG mutation, or classification of intervention type for risk of developing eczema. We could not evaluate these effects on risk of food allergy. Evidence was insufficient to show whether adherence to interventions influenced the relationship between skin care interventions and risk of developing eczema or food allergy. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Skin care interventions such as emollients during the first year of life in healthy infants are probably not effective for preventing eczema, and probably increase risk of skin infection. Effects of skin care interventions on risk of food allergy are uncertain. Further work is needed to understand whether different approaches to infant skin care might promote or prevent eczema and to evaluate effects on food allergy based on robust outcome assessments.
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.
Authors: K Sankaranarayanan; J A Mondkar; M M Chauhan; B M Mascarenhas; A R Mainkar; R Y Salvi Journal: Indian Pediatr Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 1.411
Authors: Joanne R Chalmers; Rachel H Haines; Lucy E Bradshaw; Alan A Montgomery; Kim S Thomas; Sara J Brown; Matthew J Ridd; Sandra Lawton; Eric L Simpson; Michael J Cork; Tracey H Sach; Carsten Flohr; Eleanor J Mitchell; Richard Swinden; Stella Tarr; Susan Davies-Jones; Nicola Jay; Maeve M Kelleher; Michael R Perkin; Robert J Boyle; Hywel C Williams Journal: Lancet Date: 2020-02-19 Impact factor: 202.731
Authors: Maeve M Kelleher; Suzie Cro; Victoria Cornelius; Karin C Lodrup Carlsen; Håvard O Skjerven; Eva M Rehbinder; Adrian J Lowe; Eishika Dissanayake; Naoki Shimojo; Kaori Yonezawa; Yukihiro Ohya; Kiwako Yamamoto-Hanada; Kumiko Morita; Emma Axon; Christian Surber; Michael Cork; Alison Cooke; Lien Tran; Eleanor Van Vogt; Jochen Schmitt; Stephan Weidinger; Danielle McClanahan; Eric Simpson; Lelia Duley; Lisa M Askie; Joanne R Chalmers; Hywel C Williams; Robert J Boyle Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2021-02-05
Authors: Petra Pavel; Stefan Blunder; Verena Moosbrugger-Martinz; Peter M Elias; Sandrine Dubrac Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2022-02-14 Impact factor: 5.923
Authors: Christopher H Arehart; Michelle Daya; Monica Campbell; Meher Preethi Boorgula; Nicholas Rafaels; Sameer Chavan; Gloria David; Jon Hanifin; Mark K Slifka; Richard L Gallo; Tissa Hata; Lynda C Schneider; Amy S Paller; Peck Y Ong; Jonathan M Spergel; Emma Guttman-Yassky; Donald Y M Leung; Lisa A Beck; Christopher R Gignoux; Rasika A Mathias; Kathleen C Barnes Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2021-06-07 Impact factor: 10.793