Structure and function of the human skin microbiome

Schommer, Nina N.; Gallo, Richard L.

doi:10.1016/j.tim.2013.10.001

Cited by 362 publications

(333 citation statements)

References 92 publications

(108 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

291

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…S. aureus may also show enhanced adherence properties to skin cells, which has been shown when comparing atopic eczema sufferers with normal control subjects. 240,241 Other studies reviewed elsewhere 242,243 have suggested that the balance of pathogenic and synbiotic bacterial species on the skin is altered in atopic eczema, resulting in an agitated skin microbiome.…”

Section: Rationalementioning

confidence: 99%

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: Rationalementioning

confidence: 99%

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

“…Several reviews have described the role and impact of skin microbiome on disease 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22. However, to date, no structured review has been conducted to evaluate the feasibility, suitability and potential use of the skin microbiome as biomarker for early phase clinical drug development.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic literature review of the human skin microbiome as biomarker for dermatological drug development

Kolk

Wall

Balmforth

et al. 2018

Brit J Clinical Pharma

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AimsTo explore the potential of the skin microbiome as biomarker in six dermatological conditions: atopic dermatitis (AD), acne vulgaris (AV), psoriasis vulgaris (PV), hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), seborrhoeic dermatitis/pityriasis capitis (SD/PC) and ulcus cruris (UC).MethodsA systematic literature review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. Two investigators independently reviewed the included studies and ranked the suitability microbiome implementation for early phase clinical studies in an adapted GRADE method.ResultsIn total, 841 papers were identified and after screening of titles and abstracts for eligibility we identified 42 manuscripts that could be included in the review. Eleven studies were included for AD, five for AV, 10 for PV, two for HS, four for SD and 10 for UC. For AD and AV, multiple studies report the relationship between the skin microbiome, disease severity and clinical response to treatment. This is currently lacking for the remaining conditions.ConclusionFor two indications – AD and AV – there is preliminary evidence to support implementation of the skin microbiome as biomarkers in early phase clinical trials. For PV, UC, SD and HS there is insufficient evidence from the literature. More microbiome‐directed prospective studies studying the effect of current treatments on the microbiome with special attention for patient meta‐data, sampling methods and analysis methods are needed to draw more substantial conclusions.

show abstract

“…It was demonstrated that skin microbiome changes in response to various stimuli such as food, drugs, age, gender, physiological status etc., implying changes of the AMP cocktail [178]. These changes can be examined by the sensitive quantitative proteomics techniques, which are well suited to monitor AMP levels at various sites of the body in different physiological or pathological conditions [179].…”

Section: Accepted M Manuscriptmentioning

confidence: 99%