National Heart & Lung Institute, Section of Inflammation and Repair, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Imperial Clinical Trials Unit, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Nov 14;11(11):CD013534. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013534.pub3.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
湿疹和食物过敏是常见的健康问题,通常在幼儿早期开始,并经常在同一人群中发生。它们可能与婴儿早期皮肤屏障受损有关。目前尚不清楚在出生后不久尝试预防或逆转受损的皮肤屏障是否能有效预防湿疹或食物过敏。
主要目的是评估护肤干预措施(如保湿剂)对预防婴儿湿疹和食物过敏的效果。次要目的是确定研究人群的特征,如年龄、遗传风险和对干预措施的依从性,这些特征与湿疹和食物过敏的最大治疗益处或危害相关。
我们于 2021 年 9 月对 Cochrane 皮肤专论注册库、CENTRAL、MEDLINE 和 Embase 进行了更新检索。我们于 2021 年 7 月对两项试验登记册进行了检索。我们检查了纳入研究和相关系统评价的参考文献列表,并扫描了会议记录,以确定与随机对照试验(RCT)相关的进一步参考文献。
我们纳入了可能增强皮肤屏障功能、减少干燥或减少健康足月(>37 周)婴儿(≤12 个月)亚临床炎症的皮肤护理干预措施的 RCT,这些婴儿无预先存在的湿疹、食物过敏或其他皮肤状况。合格的比较是当地的标准护理或无治疗。可包括的皮肤护理干预措施类型有保湿剂/润肤剂;沐浴产品;减少肥皂暴露和沐浴频率的建议;以及使用水软化剂。不要求最低随访时间。
这是一项前瞻性个体参与者数据(IPD)荟萃分析。我们使用了标准的 Cochrane 方法学程序,主要分析使用了 IPD 数据集。主要结局是在随访的最近可用时间点(2 年),评估婴儿湿疹和 IgE 介导的食物过敏的累积发病率,两者均在 1 至 3 年内测量。次要结局包括干预期间的不良事件;湿疹严重程度(临床医生评估);家长报告的湿疹严重程度;湿疹发作时间;家长报告的即时食物过敏;以及食物或吸入性过敏原过敏。
我们确定了 33 项 RCT,共纳入 25827 名参与者。其中,17 项研究(涉及 5823 名参与者)报告了本综述中规定的一项或多项结局的信息。我们纳入了 11 项研究(涉及 5217 名参与者)进行了一项或多项荟萃分析(每个单独的荟萃分析范围为 2 至 9 项研究),其中 10 项研究提供了 IPD;其余 6 项研究仅在叙述性结果中纳入。大多数研究在儿童医院进行。25 项研究(包括所有提供数据进行荟萃分析的研究)将新生儿随机分配至 3 周龄以下,以接受皮肤护理干预或标准婴儿皮肤护理。11 项参与荟萃分析的研究中有 8 项招募了湿疹或食物过敏风险较高的婴儿,尽管高风险的定义在研究之间有所不同。干预和随访的持续时间从 24 小时到 3 年不等。所有干预措施均与无皮肤护理或当地标准护理进行比较。在报告我们预先指定的结局的 17 项研究中,有 13 项评估了保湿剂。我们对本综述中的大多数证据评估为低确定性,并对偏倚风险存在一些担忧。一些关注的评级通常是由于结局评估者缺乏盲法或存在大量缺失数据,这可能会影响结局测量,但被判断不太可能这样做。由于仅纳入了一项试验,我们对主要食物过敏结局的证据评估为高偏倚风险,该试验的发现基于对缺失数据的不同假设而有所不同。婴儿期的皮肤护理干预措施可能不会改变湿疹的风险(RR 1.03,95%CI 0.81 至 1.31;风险差异每 1000 名婴儿增加 5 例,95%CI 28 例至 47 例;中等确定性证据;3075 名参与者,7 项试验)或湿疹发作时间(HR 0.86,95%CI 0.65 至 1.14;中等确定性证据;3349 名参与者,9 项试验)。婴儿期的皮肤护理干预措施可能会增加 1 至 3 岁时 IgE 介导的食物过敏的风险(RR 2.53,95%CI 0.99 至 6.49;低确定性证据;976 名参与者,1 项试验),但可能不会改变 1 至 3 岁时对食物过敏原过敏的风险(RR 1.05,95%CI 0.64 至 1.71;低确定性证据;1794 名参与者,3 项试验)。婴儿期的皮肤护理干预措施可能会略微增加两岁时对常见食物过敏原的即时反应的家长报告率(RR 1.27,95%CI 1.00 至 1.61;低确定性证据;1171 名参与者,1 项试验);然而,这仅见于牛奶,由于婴儿期牛奶过敏的报告过多,可能不可靠。婴儿期的皮肤护理干预措施可能会增加干预期间皮肤感染的风险(RR 1.33,95%CI 1.01 至 1.75;风险差异每 1000 名婴儿增加 17 例,95%CI 1 例至 38 例;中等确定性证据;2728 名参与者,6 项试验),并可能增加干预期间婴儿滑脱(RR 1.42,95%CI 0.67 至 2.99;低确定性证据;2538 名参与者,4 项试验)和润肤剂引起的刺痛/过敏反应(RR 2.24,95%CI 0.67 至 7.43;低确定性证据;343 名参与者,4 项试验)的风险,尽管滑脱和刺痛/过敏反应的 CI 较宽,包括无影响或风险降低的可能性。预先计划的亚组分析表明,干预措施的效果不受年龄、干预持续时间、遗传风险、丝聚蛋白(FLG)突变、染色体 11 内含子变体 rs2212434 或干预类型分类的影响。我们无法评估这些对食物过敏风险的影响。证据不足以表明干预措施的依从性是否会影响皮肤护理干预与湿疹或食物过敏发展之间的关系。
基于低至中等确定性证据,健康婴儿在生命的第一年使用保湿剂等皮肤护理干预措施可能无法预防湿疹;可能增加食物过敏的风险;并可能增加皮肤感染的风险。需要进一步的研究来了解不同的婴儿皮肤护理方法是否可以预防湿疹或食物过敏。