Search

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 We contacted field experts to identify planned trials and to seek information about unpublished or incomplete trials., Selection Criteria: RCTs of skin care interventions that could potentially enhance skin barrier function, reduce dryness, or reduce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., (Copyright © 2021 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Objectives: to identify what skin practices are important for the protection of baby skin in healthy term babies (0-6 months) and generate evidence-based conclusions to inform health professionals and parents., Design: eleven databases were searched for all empirical quantitative and qualitative research published between 2000-2015 which explored baby skin care for bathing and cleansing, nappy care, hair and scalp care, management of dry skin or baby massage, for healthy term babies up to 6 months old. Papers not published in English were excluded. A total of 3062 papers were identified. Pairs of reviewers assessed all citations and extracted data independently. There were 26 included papers: 16 RCTs, 3 non-randomised experimental studies, 1 mixed-methods study and 6 qualitative studies. Primary and secondary outcome measures were analysed using meta-analysis or narrative descriptive statistics. Synthesis of qualitative data was not possible due to disparity of the evidence., Findings: from the small numbers of studies with comparable data, there was no evidence of any significant differences between tested wash products and water or tested baby wipes and water. There was some evidence to suggest that daily use of full-body emollient therapy may help to reduce the risk of atopic eczema in high risk babies with a genetic predisposition to eczema; however, the use of olive oil or sunflower oil for baby dry skin may adversely affect skin barrier function. There was no evidence about hair/scalp care or baby massage. Qualitative research indicates that parents and health professionals believe that water alone is best., Key Conclusions: meta-analysis was restricted due to the lack of consistency of study outcome measures. Although there is considerable RCT evidence comparing the use of specific products against water alone, or another product, for bathing, cleansing and nappy care, the power of this evidence is reduced due to inconsistency of outcome measures in terms of outcome, treatment site or time-point. The development of a core outcome measure set is advocated for trials assessing skin care practices., Implications for Practice: this review offers health professionals best evidence available on which to base their advice. Of those studies with comparative outcomes, the evidence indicates no difference between the specific products tested and water alone; offering parents a choice in their baby skin care regimen. Protocol available: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPEROFILES/28054_PROTOCOL_20151009.pdf., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Parental concern over infant dry skin is a common challenge that midwives and other maternity professionals frequently address in the early postnatal period. Although infant dry skin is a normal process of adaptation to extra-uterine life, parents often wish to treat it, and there is uncertainty among health professionals about what is safe and best practice. For decades, health professionals have recommended the use of topical natural oils to prevent or treat infant dry skin, but more recently, there has been increasing concern that use of these oils on the skin may be a contributory factor in the rising prevalence of childhood atopic eczema. This article will consider how infant skin may be affected by topical products, the role of the health professional giving infant skin care advice and current evidence to support clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Topical oils on baby skin may contribute to development of childhood atopic eczema. A pilot, assessor-blinded, randomized controlled trial assessed feasibility of a definitive trial investigating their impact in neonates. Onehundred and fifteen healthy, full-term neonates were randomly assigned to olive oil, sunflower oil or no oil, twice daily for 4 weeks, stratified by family history of atopic eczema. We measured spectral profile of lipid lamellae, trans-epidermal water loss (TEWL), stratum corneum hydration and pH and recorded clinical observations, at baseline, and 4 weeks post-birth. Recruitment was challenging (recruitment 11.1%; retention 80%), protocol adherence reasonable (79-100%). Both oil groups had significantly improved hydration but significantly less improvement in lipid lamellae structure compared to the no oil group. There were no significant differences in TEWL, pH or erythema/skin scores. The study was not powered for clinical significance, but until further research is conducted, caution should be exercised when recommending oils for neonatal skin. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Parents across the globe have been massaging their babies for centuries. The popularity of infant massage in Western countries is a relatively recent phenomenon; the trend has probably developed due to the perceived health benefits. In some Eastern cultures, the practice of infant massage is passed on from one generation to the next. In Western cultures, it is more likely that new parents will attend a local baby massage class with an instructor. Whichever form the practice takes, it is important to know that there is no potential for harm to the baby. This article will consider the perceived benefits of infant massage, how to massage, the role of the health professional and whether we should be concerned about what products, if any, should be used for infant massage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Olive oil is commonly recommended by health professionals to new parents for use in the prevention and treatment of the term baby's dry skin, and for baby massage. There is no evidence to support this practice. The use of olive oil may be harmful to skin, affecting skin barrier function. This effect may be a contributory factor in the prevalence of childhood conditions such as atopic eczema. This paper discusses a national online audit of UK maternity hospitals (n = 67) and neonatal units (n = 33) performed between November 2010 and January 2011. Our findings confirm that oil use on babies' skin is common practice. As the direct cost to the NHS for treatment of atopic eczema is high, it is imperative that further research in this area is performed, preferably in the form of a randomized controlled trial. Health professionals will then be in a position to provide accurate information to parents with regard to oil in baby skin care regimens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]