Evaluation of a new moisturizer (Exomega milk®) in children with atopic dermatitis

Giordano‐Labadie, F.; Cambazard, F.; Guillet, G.; Combemale, P.; Mengeaud, V.

doi:10.1080/09546630600552216

Cited by 43 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The smaller trial by Giordano-Labadie and colleagues 192 found no significant difference between the groups in the severity of eczema measured using SCORAD scores after 28 or 56 days of treatment. The authors report a significant reduction in the emollient group and the control group for both xerosis (-35.9% vs. -68.6%; p = 0.01) and pruritus (-41.6% vs. -65.7%; p = 0.01) after 2 months of treatment, although these were not prespecified outcomes.…”

Section: Benefitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most of the 15 new trials 123,126,[190][191][192][193][194][195][196][197][198][199][200][201][202] looking at emollients reported after 2000 compared twice-daily treatment with an emollient (often applied concurrently with topical corticosteroid treatment) with treatment with topical corticosteroids alone, other emollients or, in one case, no treatment. Most trials had a treatment length of around 4-6 weeks and none of the trials gave treatment for > 2 months.…”

Section: Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A smaller trial, 192 also involving the Pierre Fabre Laboratories, included 76 infants and children aged from 6 months to 2 years with mild to moderate eczema. Participants were randomised to use either Exomega milk or a cleaning bar (A-Derma ® ) all over the body, twice a day, for 2 months.…”

Section: Exomega Milkmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Scoping systematic review of treatments for eczema

Nankervis

Kim

Delamere

et al. 2016

Programme Grants Appl Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundEczema is a very common chronic inflammatory skin condition.ObjectivesTo update the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) systematic review of treatments for atopic eczema, published in 2000, and to inform health-care professionals, commissioners and patients about key treatment developments and research gaps.Data sourcesElectronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) were searched from the end of 2000 to 31 August 2013. Retrieved articles were used to identify further randomised controlled trials (RCTs).Review methodsStudies were filtered according to inclusion criteria and agreed by consensus in cases of uncertainty. Abstracts were excluded and non-English-language papers were screened by international colleagues and data were extracted. Only RCTs of treatments for eczema were included, as other forms of evidence are associated with higher risks of bias. Inclusion criteria for studies included availability of data relevant to the therapeutic management of eczema; mention of randomisation; comparison of two or more treatments; and prospective data collection. Participants of all ages were included. Eczema diagnosis was determined by a clinician or according to published diagnostic criteria. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk-of-bias tool. We used a standardised approach to summarising the data and the assessment of risk of bias and we made a clear distinction between what the studies found and our own interpretation of study findings.ResultsOf 7198 references screened, 287 new trials were identified spanning 92 treatments. Trial reporting was generally poor (randomisation method: 2% high, 36% low, 62% unclear risk of bias; allocation concealment: 3% high, 15% low, 82% unclear risk of bias; blinding of the intervention: 15% high, 28% low, 57% unclear risk of bias). Only 22 (8%) trials were considered to be at low risk of bias for all three criteria. There was reasonable evidence of benefit for the topical medications tacrolimus, pimecrolimus and various corticosteroids (with tacrolimus superior to pimecrolimus and corticosteroids) for both treatment and flare prevention; oral ciclosporin; oral azathioprine; narrow band ultraviolet B (UVB) light; Atopiclair™ and education. There was reasonable evidence to suggest no clinically useful benefit for twice-daily compared with once-daily topical corticosteroids; corticosteroids containing antibiotics for non-infected eczema; probiotics; evening primrose and borage oil; ion-exchange water softeners; protease inhibitor SRD441 (Serentis Ltd); furfuryl palmitate in emollient; cipamfylline cream; andMycobacterium vaccaevaccine. Additional research evidence is needed for emollients, bath additives, antibacterials, specialist clothing and complementary and alternative therapies. There was no RCT evidence for topical corticosteroid dilution, impregnated bandages, soap avoidance, bathing frequency or allergy testing.LimitationsThe large scope of the review coupled with the heterogeneity of outcomes precluded formal meta-analyses. Our conclusions are still limited by a profusion of small, poorly reported studies.ConclusionsAlthough the evidence base of RCTs has increased considerably since the last NIHR HTA systematic review, the field is still severely hampered by poor design and reporting problems including failure to register trials and declare primary outcomes, small sample size, short follow-up duration and poor reporting of risk of bias. Key areas for further research identified by the review include the optimum use of emollients, bathing frequency, wash products, allergy testing and antiseptic treatments. Perhaps the greatest benefit identified is the use of twice weekly anti-inflammatory treatment to maintain disease remission. More studies need to be conducted in a primary care setting where most people with eczema are seen in the UK. Future studies need to use the same core set of outcomes that capture patient symptoms, clinical signs, quality of life and the chronic nature of the disease.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme.

show abstract

Section: Benefitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Scoping systematic review of treatments for eczema

Nankervis

Kim

Delamere

et al. 2016

Programme Grants Appl Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The remaining 67 articles satisfied our criteria [7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73]. Sixteen concerned atopic dermatitis [7, 13, 14, 18,20,21,22, 26, 29, 31, 42, 46, 56, 66, 67, 70], 1 chronic eczema of the hands [9], 25 psoriasis [10, 17, 27, 30, 33,35,36,37,38,39,...…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Poor Reporting of Quality of Life Outcomes in Dermatology Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Because many dermatological diseases are chronic but not life-threatening, consideration of their impact on health-related quality of life (QOL) seems essential. Objective: To analyze the use of QOL as an evaluation endpoint in randomized clinical trials concerning skin diseases. Methods: Studies identified by computerized search of 3 bibliographical databases were selected, and their data on QOL as an evaluation endpoint were collected and analyzed. Results: Among the 67 studies retained, 87% did not adequately describe the questionnaires; 75% did not address handling of missing data; 95% did not calculate the number of subjects needed to obtain the desired statistical power; 95% did not disclose before-and-after results as means of overall scores and each dimension. Conclusion: Our analysis highlighted methodological weaknesses in the use of QOL questionnaire and poor reporting of QOL outcomes in randomized clinical trials.

show abstract

“…[4,5] A study examining the role of ceramide-containing emollients showed some improvements; however, the results were not properly evaluated. The latest addition to these products contain, in addition to ceramides, filaggrin breakdown products to replace the 'missing' molecules in the atopic skin.…”

Section: Emollientsmentioning

confidence: 99%