BackgroundAtopic dermatitis (atopic eczema) is a chronic inflammatory skin disease that has reached epidemic proportions in children worldwide and is increasing in prevalence. Because of the significant socioeconomic effect of atopic dermatitis and its effect on the quality of life of children and families, there have been decades of research focused on disease prevention, with limited success. Recent advances in cutaneous biology suggest skin barrier defects might be key initiators of atopic dermatitis and possibly allergic sensitization.ObjectiveOur objective was to test whether skin barrier enhancement from birth represents a feasible strategy for reducing the incidence of atopic dermatitis in high-risk neonates.MethodsWe performed a randomized controlled trial in the United States and United Kingdom of 124 neonates at high risk for atopic dermatitis. Parents in the intervention arm were instructed to apply full-body emollient therapy at least once per day starting within 3 weeks of birth. Parents in the control arm were asked to use no emollients. The primary feasibility outcome was the percentage of families willing to be randomized. The primary clinical outcome was the cumulative incidence of atopic dermatitis at 6 months, as assessed by a trained investigator.ResultsForty-two percent of eligible families agreed to be randomized into the trial. All participating families in the intervention arm found the intervention acceptable. A statistically significant protective effect was found with the use of daily emollient on the cumulative incidence of atopic dermatitis with a relative risk reduction of 50% (relative risk, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.28-0.9; P = .017). There were no emollient-related adverse events and no differences in adverse events between groups.ConclusionThe results of this trial demonstrate that emollient therapy from birth represents a feasible, safe, and effective approach for atopic dermatitis prevention. If confirmed in larger trials, emollient therapy from birth would be a simple and low-cost intervention that could reduce the global burden of allergic diseases.

Background and Purpose Comparative studies of exercise interventions for people with Parkinson Disease (PD) rarely considered how one should deliver the intervention. The objective of this study was to compare the success of exercise when administered by 1) home exercise program, 2) individualized physical therapy, or 3) a group class. We examined if common comorbidities associated with PD impacted success of each intervention. Methods Fifty-eight people (age 63.9 ± 8) with PD participated. People were randomized into: 1) home exercise program 2) individual physical therapy or 3) group class intervention. All arms were standardized and based on the Agility Boot Camp exercise program for PD, 3 times per week for 4 weeks. The primary outcome measure was the 7-item Physical Performance Test (PPT). Other measures of balance, gait, mobility, quality of life, balance confidence, depressions, apathy, self-efficacy and UPDRS motor and ADL scores were included. Results Only the individual group significantly improved in PPT. The individual exercise showed the most improvements in functional and balance measures, while the group class showed the most improvements in gait. The home exercise program improved the least across all outcomes. Several factors effected success, particularly for the home group. Discussion and Conclusions An unsupervised, home exercise program is the least effective way to deliver exercise to people with PD and individual and group exercises have differing benefits. Furthermore, people with PD who also have other comorbidities did better in a program directly supervised by a physical therapist. Video Abstract available for additional insights from the authors (See Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/JNPT/A112).

These studies demonstrate that durable levels of protective antitoxin immunity exist in the majority of vaccinated individuals. Together, this suggests that it may no longer be necessary to administer booster vaccinations every 10 years and that the current adult vaccination schedule for tetanus and diphtheria should be revisited.