Abstract
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.
Original language | English (US) |
---|---|
Article number | CD013534 |
Journal | Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews |
Volume | 2022 |
Issue number | 11 |
DOIs | |
State | Published - Nov 14 2022 |
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Pharmacology (medical)
Access to Document
Other files and links
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Skin care interventions in infants for preventing eczema and food allergy'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Standard
- Harvard
- Vancouver
- Author
- BIBTEX
- RIS
Skin care interventions in infants for preventing eczema and food allergy. / Kelleher, Maeve M.; Phillips, Rachel; Brown, Sara J. et al.
In: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Vol. 2022, No. 11, CD013534, 14.11.2022.Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › peer-review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Skin care interventions in infants for preventing eczema and food allergy
AU - Kelleher, Maeve M.
AU - Phillips, Rachel
AU - Brown, Sara J.
AU - Cro, Suzie
AU - Cornelius, Victoria
AU - Carlsen, Karin C.Lødrup
AU - Skjerven, Håvard O.
AU - Rehbinder, Eva M.
AU - Lowe, Adrian J.
AU - Dissanayake, Eishika
AU - Shimojo, Naoki
AU - Yonezawa, Kaori
AU - Ohya, Yukihiro
AU - Yamamoto-Hanada, Kiwako
AU - Morita, Kumiko
AU - Axon, Emma
AU - Cork, Michael
AU - Cooke, Alison
AU - Van Vogt, Eleanor
AU - Schmitt, Jochen
AU - Weidinger, Stephan
AU - McClanahan, Danielle
AU - Simpson, Eric
AU - Duley, Lelia
AU - Askie, Lisa M.
AU - Williams, Hywel C.
AU - Boyle, Robert J.
N1 - Funding Information: Adrian Lowe: other intellectual property - lead investigator on intervention trials using skin barrier repair creams; publications relating to the feasibility of this form of intervention; involved in Phase II PEBBLES trial, listed as Lowe et al. (2018). Funded by the Financial Markets Foundation for Children (FMFC), Asthma Foundation of Victoria, National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) (Project funding: FMFC, Asthma Foundation of Victoria. Project equipment: NHMRC). Funding Information: Sponsorship source: this study was funded by Johnson & Johnson International Pte Ltd (Singapore) Funding Information: Alison Cooke: no relevant interests; Chief investigator of the OBSeRvE (Oil in Baby SkincaRE) study included in this review (funded by National Institute for Health Research Doctoral Research Fellowship), University of Manchester, pilot randomised controlled trial; has had several publications and given several conference presentations in the area of neonatal skin care; Assistant Director of Nursing Research and Innovation at University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS Trust. Funding Information: Sponsorship source: Lida Massoudy’s work was supported by an unrestricted medical grant from Johnson & Johnson GmbH. We thank Dr Gaelle Bellemere (Johnson & Johnson, Research and Development, France) for support in the IL-1a analysis and in the D-Squame technique of blinded samples. Funding Information: Of the 11 trials contributing data to one or more meta-analyses, two trials did not specify funding (McClanahan 2019; Migacheva 2018); the other nine contributing trials were funded through higher-level institutions. Of the six trials contributing aggregate data that were considered not relevant for inclusion in one or more meta-analyses, three studies did not specify funding; two were supported by local hospitals; and one was commercially sponsored. Of the 16 trials that did not contribute any data on outcomes, two trials did not report on funding; two were sponsored by local hospitals; one was sponsored by a local hospital and the Gates Foundation; and 11 were commercially sponsored. We are grateful to Emma Thomas, Boaz Gaventas, Alexa Baracaia, and the Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology patient panel for feedback on prioritisation of outcomes and outcome measures for this systematic review. The draft search strategy for the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform was developed with advice from Douglas Grindlay, Information Specialist at the Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK. We are extremely grateful to Liz Doney, Business Manager and Information Specialist at Nottingham University, who ran the search of the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase in October 2019 and for updates through to August 2021. We gratefully acknowledge all members of the wider Skin Care intervention for Prevention of Atopic Disease (SCiPAD) group, especially those who contributed to discussion and input at the annual meetings in Munich 2018 and Lisbon 2019, or at the online results meeting in 2020, including Daniel Munblit, Carsten Flohr, Elisabeth Harberl, Jonathan Hourihane, and Michael Perkin. We acknowledge the work of Lien Tran in co-ordination of the initial review, and the work of Christian Surber for advice on classification of emollients for the initial review. This systematic review is supported by an award of an National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Transitional Research Fellowship to MK hosted by Imperial College London, and an award of an NIHR Research for Patient Benefit grant to Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust. Cochrane Skin supported the authors in the development of this update. Robert Boyle and Emma Axon are members of Cochrane Skin, but were not involved in the editorial/decision-making process for this update. The following people conducted the editorial process for this update. Sign-off Editor (final editorial decision): Michael Brown, Cochrane Editorial Board Managing Editor (selected peer reviewers, collated peer-reviewer comments, provided editorial guidance to authors, edited the article): Joey Kwong, Cochrane Evidence Production & Methods Directorate Editorial Assistant (conducted editorial policy checks and supported editorial team): Leticia Rodrigues, Cochrane Evidence Production & Methods Directorate Copy Editor (copy-editing and production): Lisa Winer, c/o Cochrane Copy Edit Support Peer reviewers (provided comments and recommended an editorial decision): Motohiro Ebisawa, Clinical Research Center for Allergy and Rheumatology, NHO Sagamihara National Hospital (clinical review); Sigrun Schmidt, Departments of Clinical Epidemiology and Dermatology, Aarhus University Hospital (clinical review); Sayantani B Sindher, Department of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary, Allergy and Critical Care, Department of Pediatrics, Division of Allergy, Immunology and Rheumatology, Sean N. Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research, Stanford University School of Medicine (clinical review); Sandra Lawton, Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust (clinical review); NML Zeeuw van der Laan (consumer review); Jennifer Hilgart, Cochrane Evidence Production & Methods Directorate (methods review); Kerry Dwan, Cochrane Evidence Production & Methods Directorate (statistical review); Robin Featherstone, Cochrane Evidence Production & Methods Directorate (search review) Sign-off Editor (final editorial decision): Michael Brown, Cochrane Editorial Board Managing Editor (selected peer reviewers, collated peer-reviewer comments, provided editorial guidance to authors, edited the article): Joey Kwong, Cochrane Evidence Production & Methods Directorate Editorial Assistant (conducted editorial policy checks and supported editorial team): Leticia Rodrigues, Cochrane Evidence Production & Methods Directorate Copy Editor (copy-editing and production): Lisa Winer, c/o Cochrane Copy Edit Support Peer reviewers (provided comments and recommended an editorial decision): Motohiro Ebisawa, Clinical Research Center for Allergy and Rheumatology, NHO Sagamihara National Hospital (clinical review); Sigrun Schmidt, Departments of Clinical Epidemiology and Dermatology, Aarhus University Hospital (clinical review); Sayantani B Sindher, Department of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary, Allergy and Critical Care, Department of Pediatrics, Division of Allergy, Immunology and Rheumatology, Sean N. Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research, Stanford University School of Medicine (clinical review); Sandra Lawton, Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust (clinical review); NML Zeeuw van der Laan (consumer review); Jennifer Hilgart, Cochrane Evidence Production & Methods Directorate (methods review); Kerry Dwan, Cochrane Evidence Production & Methods Directorate (statistical review); Robin Featherstone, Cochrane Evidence Production & Methods Directorate (search review) We are also indebted to all participants of the individual studies whose contributions have furthered our knowledge on skin care in infants. Funding Information: Maeve Kelleher: no relevant interests; has written a review on the topic 'Prevention of food allergy – skin barrier interventions' (doi.org/10.1016/j.alit.2019.10.005); Consultant in Paediatric Allergy at Children's Health Ireland; Honorary Clinical Senior Lecturer at Imperial College London; assisted in the food allergy diagnostic work for the BEEP study, which is included in this review - funded by a personal research fellowship from National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR), UK; the BEEP study was sponsored by the University of Nottingham, co-ordinated by the Nottingham Clinical Trials Unit (CTU), and funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme. Supplementary funding was obtained for the inclusion of food allergy outcomes and skin prick tests subsequent to study initiation, which was provided by Goldman Sachs Gives and Sheffield Children's Hospital Charity. Funding Information: Sponsorship source: supported in part by Health and Labour Sciences Research Grants for Research on Allergic Diseases and Immunology from the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan (H22-Men'eki-Ippan-002 to HS; H25-Nanchito-Ippan-001 to MA and HS as principal investigators) and grants from the National Center for Child Health and Development (20S-1 to YO and 23S-3 to HS) Funding Information: Sponsorship source: this study was supported by the Environmental Restoration and Conservation Agency of Japan in fiscal years 2014 to 2016 and by grants from the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (AMED-CREST) (15652274) Funding Information: Sponsorship source: the clinical study was sponsored by Bübchen Deutschland Funding Information: Sponsorship source: this study was sponsored by the University of Nottingham, co-ordinated by the Nottingham Clinical Trials Unit (CTU), and funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment Programme The main funder (NIHR Health Technology Assessment) was involved in refining the trial design through the funding peer-review process, but had no role in data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report. Funders of the food allergy outcomes and skin prick tests (Goldman Funding Information: Sponsorship source: this study was funded by Johnson & Johnson; however, the study was investigator led. TL, CB, and MC previously acted as temporary advisors to J&J. Funding Information: Karin C Lodrup Carlsen: no relevant interests; involved in the PreventADALL study - received funding from many sources, all of which are appropriately declared in all papers relaying the results. The funders had no role in design, analyses, or dissemination of the study results. A number of sponsors: the Regional Health Board South East, The Norwegian Research Council, Oslo University Hospital, The University of Oslo, Health and Rehabilitation Norway, The Foundation for Healthcare and Allergy Research in Sweden – VårdalstiIelsen, The Swedish Asthma-and Allergy Association’s Research Foundation, The Swedish Research Council – the Initiative for Clinical Therapy Research, The Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation, SFO-V Karolinska Institutet, Østfold Hospital Trust, The European Union (MeDALL project), by unrestricted grants from the Norwegian Association of Asthma and Allergy, The Kloster Foundation, Thermo-Fisher, Uppsala, Sweden (through supplying allergen reagents) and Fürst Medical Laboratory, Oslo, Norway (through performing immunoglobulin E (IgE) analyses), Norwegian Society of Dermatology and Venerology, Arne Ingel’s legat, Region Stockholm (ALF-project and individual grants), Forte, Swedish Order of Freemasons Foundation Barnhuset, The Sven Jerring Foundation, The Hesselman Foundation, The Magnus Bergwall Foundation, The Konsul Th C Bergh’s Foundation, The Swedish Society of Medicine, The King Gustaf V 80th Birthday Foundation, KI grants, The Cancer and Allergy Foundation, The Pediatric Research Foundation at Astrid Lindgren Children’s Hospital, The Samaritan Foundation for Pediatric Research. Funding Information: Sponsorship Source: this study was supported by a grant from Johnson & Johnson Consumer Co Inc and by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, through UCSF-CTSI Grant Number UL1 TR000004 This study was supported by a grant from Johnson & Johnson Consumer Co Inc and by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, through UCSF-CTSI Grant Number UL1 TR000004. Funding Information: This systematic review is supported by an award of an National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Transitional Research Fellowship to MK hosted by Imperial College London, and an award of an NIHR Research for Patient Benefit grant to Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust. Funding Information: Sponsorship source: this study was conducted by the Department of International Health, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University (Baltimore, MD, USA), under grants HD 44004 and HD 38753 from the National Institutes of Health (Bethesda, MD, USA); grant 810−2054 from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (Seattle, WA, USA); and Cooperative Agreements HRN-A-00−97−00015−00 and GHS-A-00−03−000019−00 between Johns Hopkins University and the Office of Health and Nutrition, US Agency for International Development (Washington, DC, USA). Commodity support was provided by Procter and Gamble Co (Cincinnati, OH, USA). Funding Information: Setting: Royal Women's Hospital and Frances Perry House (recruitment); Murdoch Children's Research Institute (assessment and storage of biological samples); University of Melbourne (data storage) Sponsorship source: this trial was supported by the Financial Markets Foundation for Children and the Asthma Foundation of Victoria. Additional support was obtained via an NHMRC equipment grant to purchase instruments used to measure biophysical aspects of skin. PuraCap, then manufacturer of EpiCeram, provided the interventional product free of charge. Funding Information: Sponsorship source: the trial was sponsored by Johnson & Johnson Consumer EMEA. The sponsor had input into the study design and blinded analysis of interleukin. The sponsor had no influence on conduct of the trial, collection of data, or statistical evaluations. Funding Information: stitute (OCTRI) and by grant number 5 KL2 RR024141-04 from the National Center for Research Resources (NCRR; 5 KL2 RR024141-04), a component of the NIH, and NIH Roadmap for Medical Research. Research in the McLean Laboratory is funded by the Wellcome Trust (Programme Grant 092530/Z/10/ Z and Strategic Award 098439/Z/12/Z). SJB holds a Wellcome Trust Intermediate Clinical Fellowship: WT086398MA. Funding Information: This study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (RPPG-0407-10177). MJ Cork has received compensation from Almirall Pharmaceuticals for membership on its advisory board; has received or has grants pending from Almirall Pharmaceuticals; and has received payment for delivering lectures, as well as compensation for travel and other meeting-related expenses, from Almirall, Astel-las Pharma, and Steifel (a GlaxoSmithKline company). WHI McLean’s institution has received funding from the Wellcome Trust (WT086398MA), as has that of SJ Brown, who also received an honorarium for speaking at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology Annual Meeting in 2012 and 2013. The remaining study authors declare that they have no relevant conflicts of interest. Funding Information: Sponsorship source: funded by Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc Funding Information: Sponsorship source: this study was supported by the Fundo de Incentivo à Pesquisa (Research Incentive Fund) of Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre (FIPE/HCPA), and Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvi-mento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPQ) Funding Information: Sponsorship source: this study was funded by several public and private funding bodies: Regional Health Board South East, Norwegian Research Council, Health and Rehabilitation Norway, Foundation for Healthcare and Allergy Research in Sweden-Vårdalstiftelsen, Swedish Asthma and Allergy Association’s Research Foundation, Swedish Research Council - Initiative for Clinical Therapy Research, Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation, SFO-V at the Karolinska Institute, Freemason Child House Foundation in Stockholm, Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare - FORTE, Oslo University Hospital, University of Oslo, and Østfold Hospital Trust EMR has received honoraria for presentations from Sanofi Genzyme, Novartis, MEDA, and Omega Pharma. KCLC has received honoraria for presentation from Thermo-Fisher Scientific. All other study authors declare no competing interests. Funding Information: Sponsorship source: National Institute for Health Research under its programme grants for Applied Research Programme (RP-PG-0407-10177). United States–based contributions were made possible with funding from a Mentored Patient-oriented Research Career Development Award from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (5K23AR057486). Support was also obtained from the Oregon Clinical and Translational Research In- Funding Information: Sponsorship source: the work of Franziska Prosch was supported by an unrestricted medical grant from Johnson & Johnson The funders had no input regarding study design or conduct, data analysis or interpretation, manuscript preparation, or the decision to submit the results for publication. Funding Information: Sara Brown: AbbVie - consultant (payment to University employer, no personal financial benefit); British Skin Foundation - grant (for research studentship); British Society for Paediatric Dermatology - honorarium for invited lecture; European Lead Factory - grant (funding and in-kind support for a phenotypic screen in skin cells); Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) - grant (member of the BioMAP network (Biomarkers in Atopic Dermatitis and Psoriasis) and receive funding for research); Sosei Heptares - consultant (payment to University employer, no personal financial gain); Wellcome Trust - employment (chair of expert review group); Wellcome Trust - grant (Wellcome Trust Senior Research Fellowship 2015 to 2020 and renewal 2020 onwards); works in an NHS dermatology department and regularly discusses the use of emollients with patients; involved in BEEP study, published in the The Lancet 2020 (www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/ PIIS0140-6736(19)32984-8/fulltext) (funded by the US National Institutes of Health). Funding Information: Sponsorship source: this study was supported by the Mitsubishi Foundation (Grants for Social Welfare Activities on 2013) and the Mishima Kaiun Memorial Foundation Funding Information: Håvard Ove Skjerven: no relevant interests; works as a health professional at Oslo University Hospital; involved in The PreventADALL study, which has received funding from the following sources: The Regional Health Board South East, The Norwegian Research Council, Oslo University Hospital, The University of Oslo, Health and Rehabilitation Norway, The Foundation for Healthcare and Allergy Research in Sweden – VårdalstiIelsen, The Swedish Asthma and Allergy Association Research Foundation, The Swedish Research Council – the Initiative for Clinical Therapy Research, The Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation, SFO-V Karolinska Institutet, Østfold Hospital Trust, The European Union (MeDALL project), by unrestricted grants from the Norwegian Association of Asthma and Allergy, The Kloster Foundation, Publisher Copyright: Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.
PY - 2022/11/14
Y1 - 2022/11/14
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85141707833&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85141707833&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/14651858.CD013534.pub3
DO - 10.1002/14651858.CD013534.pub3
M3 - Review article
C2 - 36373988
AN - SCOPUS:85141707833
SN - 1465-1858
VL - 2022
JO - The Cochrane database of systematic reviews
JF - The Cochrane database of systematic reviews
IS - 11
M1 - CD013534
ER -