Emollients and moisturisers for eczema.

BACKGROUND: Eczema is a chronic skin disease characterised by dry skin, intense itching, inflammatory skin lesions, and a considerable impact on quality of life. Moisturisation is an integral part of treatment, but it is unclear if moisturisers are effective. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of moisturisers for eczema. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases to December 2015: Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, the GREAT database. We searched five trials registers and checked references of included and excluded studies for further relevant trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials in people with eczema. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. MAIN RESULTS: We included 77 studies (6603 participants, mean age: 18.6 years, mean duration: 6.7 weeks). We assessed 36 studies as at a high risk of bias, 34 at unclear risk, and seven at low risk. Twenty-four studies assessed our primary outcome 'participant-assessed disease severity', 13 assessed 'satisfaction', and 41 assessed 'adverse events'. Secondary outcomes included investigator-assessed disease severity (addressed in 65 studies), skin barrier function (29), flare prevention (16), quality of life (10), and corticosteroid use (eight). Adverse events reporting was limited (smarting, stinging, pruritus, erythema, folliculitis).Six studies evaluated moisturiser versus no moisturiser. 'Participant-assessed disease severity' and 'satisfaction' were not assessed. Moisturiser use yielded lower SCORAD than no moisturiser (three studies, 276 participants, mean difference (MD) -2.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.55 to -0.28), but the minimal important difference (MID) (8.7) was unmet. There were fewer flares with moisturisers (two studies, 87 participants, RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.70), time to flare was prolonged (median: 180 versus 30 days), and less topical corticosteroids were needed (two studies, 222 participants, MD -9.30 g, 95% CI -15.3 to -3.27). There was no statistically significant difference in adverse events (one study, 173 participants, risk ratio (RR) 15.34, 95% CI 0.90 to 261.64). Evidence for these outcomes was low quality.With Atopiclair (three studies), 174/232 participants experienced improvement in participant-assessed disease severity versus 27/158 allocated to vehicle (RR 4.51, 95% CI 2.19 to 9.29). Atopiclair decreased itching (four studies, 396 participants, MD -2.65, 95% CI -4.21 to -1.09) and achieved more frequent satisfaction (two studies, 248 participants, RR 2.14, 95% CI 1.58 to 2.89), fewer flares (three studies, 397 participants, RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.31), and lower EASI (four studies, 426 participants, MD -4.0, 95% CI -5.42 to -2.57), but MID (6.6) was unmet. The number of participants reporting adverse events was not statistically different (four studies, 430 participants, RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.33). Evidence for these outcomes was moderate quality.Participants reported skin improvement more frequently with urea-containing cream than placebo (one study, 129 participants, RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.53; low-quality evidence), with equal satisfaction between the two groups (one study, 38 participants, low-quality evidence). Urea-containing cream improved dryness (investigator-assessed) more frequently (one study, 128 participants, RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.71; moderate-quality evidence) with fewer flares (one study, 44 participants, RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.92; low-quality evidence), but more participants in this group reported adverse events (one study, 129 participants, RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.34; moderate-quality evidence).Three studies assessed glycerol-containing moisturiser versus vehicle or placebo. More participants in the glycerol group noticed skin improvement (one study, 134 participants, RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.48; moderate-quality evidence), and this group saw improved investigator-assessed SCORAD (one study, 249 participants, MD -2.20, 95% CI -3.44 to -0.96; high-quality evidence), but MID was unmet. Participant satisfaction was not addressed. The number of participants reporting adverse events was not statistically significant (two studies, 385 participants, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.19; moderate-quality evidence).Four studies investigated oat-containing moisturisers versus no treatment or vehicle. No significant differences between groups were reported for participant-assessed disease severity (one study, 50 participants, RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.46; low-quality evidence), satisfaction (one study, 50 participants, RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.52; very low-quality evidence), and investigator-assessed disease severity (three studies, 272 participants, standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.23, 95% CI -0.66 to 0.21; low-quality evidence). In the oat group, there were fewer flares (one study, 43 participants, RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.7; low-quality evidence) and less topical corticosteroids needed (two studies, 222 participants, MD -9.30g, 95% CI 15.3 to -3.27; low-quality evidence), but more adverse events were reported (one study, 173 participants; Peto odds ratio (OR) 7.26, 95% CI 1.76 to 29.92; low-quality evidence).All moisturisers above were compared to placebo, vehicle, or no moisturiser. Participants considered moisturisers more effective in reducing eczema (five studies, 572 participants, RR 2.46, 95% CI 1.16 to 5.23; low-quality evidence) and itch (seven studies, 749 participants, SMD -1.10, 95% CI -1.83 to -0.38) than control. Participants in both treatment arms reported comparable satisfaction (three studies, 296 participants, RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.26; low-quality evidence). Moisturisers led to lower investigator-assessed disease severity (12 studies, 1281 participants, SMD -1.04, 95% CI -1.57 to -0.51; high-quality evidence) and fewer flares (six studies, 607 participants, RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.62; moderate-quality evidence), but there was no difference in adverse events (10 studies, 1275 participants, RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.30; moderate-quality evidence).Topical active treatment combined with moisturiser was more effective than active treatment alone in reducing investigator-assessed disease severity (three studies, 192 participants, SMD -0.87, 95% CI -1.17 to -0.57; moderate-quality evidence) and flares (one study, 105 participants, RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.93), and was preferred by participants (both low-quality evidence). There was no statistically significant difference in number of adverse events (one study, 125 participants, RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.19; very low-quality evidence). Participant-assessed disease severity was not addressed. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Most moisturisers showed some beneficial effects, producing better results when used with active treatment, prolonging time to flare, and reducing the number of flares and amount of topical corticosteroids needed to achieve similar reductions in eczema severity. We did not find reliable evidence that one moisturiser is better than another.

Barriers and Facilitators to eHealth Use in Daily Practice: Perspectives of Patients and Professionals in Dermatology.

BACKGROUND: The number of eHealth interventions in the management of chronic diseases such as atopic dermatitis (AD) is growing. Despite promising results, the implementation and use of these interventions is limited. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess opinions of the most important stakeholders influencing the implementation and use of eHealth services in daily dermatology practice. METHODS: The perspectives of health care professionals and patients towards the implementation and use of eHealth services in daily practice were assessed by using a mixed method design. A cross-sectional survey based on the eHealth implementation toolkit (eHit) was conducted to explore factors influencing the adoption of eHealth interventions offering the possibility of e-consultations, Web-based monitoring, and Web-based self-management training among dermatologists and dermatology nurses. The perspectives of patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) regarding the use of eHealth services were discussed in an online focus group. RESULTS: Health care professionals (n=99) and patients (n=9) acknowledged the value of eHealth services and were willing to use these digital tools in daily dermatology practice. Key identified barriers (statements with <50% of the participants scoring totally agree or agree) in the implementation and adoption of eHealth interventions included concerns about the availability (12/99, 12%) and allocation (14/99, 14%) of resources, financial aspects (26/99, 26%), reliability, security, and confidentially of the intervention itself (29/99, 29%), and the lack of education and training (6/99, 6%). CONCLUSIONS: Health care professionals and patients acknowledge the benefits arising from the implementation and use of eHealth services in daily dermatology practice. However, some important barriers were identified that might be useful in addressing the implementation strategy in order to enhance the implementation success of eHealth interventions in dermatology.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Morbihan's Disease: A Practical Approach based on Review of the Literature.

Background: Morbihan's disease (MD), also known as solid persistent facial edema, solid facial lymphedema or rosacea lymphedema, is a rare condition. Objective: Despite existing case reports and literature reviews, clinical guidance for diagnosis and management is lacking. This review aims to provide comprehensive information on the etiology, differential diagnoses, diagnostics, and management of MD. Methods: PubMed was searched up to April 2023 for relevant studies on MD with no language restriction. Furthermore, references were checked of found reports. Results: A comprehensive overview of the literature and clinical guidance for MD. We found 95 studies involving 166 patients (118 male, 46 female and 2 gender unreported) evaluating management options, categorized into: isotretinoin (16 studies), isotretinoin plus antihistamines (8), isotretinoin plus corticosteroids (8), antibiotics (13), antibiotics plus corticosteroids (7), surgical debulking (10) and miscellaneous/combination treatments (43). Some studies contributed to two categories. Treatment with isotretinoin as monotherapy or combined with antihistamines, doxycycline or minocycline as well as surgical procedures demonstrated mostly satisfactory results, although recurrences were common. Longer treatment duration, of at least 6 to 12 months, is recommended for pharmacological treatments. Adding systemic or intralesional corticosteroids to previous treatments may be beneficial. Manual lymph drainage seems to contribute to satisfying result. Limitations: This is not a systematic review and randomized controlled trials are lacking. Conclusion: Diagnosis of MD is based on specific clinical features and excluding diseases with similar appearance. Prolonged treatment is often necessary to obtain satisfactory results, which might be limited to a partial and/or temporary response.

Development of a Website for a Living Network Meta-analysis of Atopic Dermatitis Treatments Using a User-Centered Design: Multimethod Study.

BACKGROUND: A rapid expansion of systemic immunological treatment options for atopic dermatitis (AD) has created a need for clinically relevant and understandable comparative efficacy and safety information for patients and clinicians. Given the scarcity of head-to-head trials, network meta-analysis (NMA) is an alternative way to enable robust comparisons among treatment options; however, NMA results are often complex and difficult to directly implement in shared decision-making. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to develop a website that effectively presents the results of a living systematic review and NMA on AD treatments to patient and clinician users. METHODS: We conducted a multimethod study using iterative feedback from adults with AD, adult caregivers of children with AD, dermatologists, and allergists within a user-centered design framework. We used questionnaires followed by workshops among patients and clinicians to develop and improve the website interface. Usability testing was done with a caregiver of a patient with eczema. RESULTS: Questionnaires were completed by 31 adults with AD or caregivers and 94 clinicians. Patients and caregivers felt it was very important to know about new treatments (20/31, 65%). Clinicians felt the lack of evidence-based comparisons between treatments was a barrier to care (55/93, 59%). "Avoiding dangerous side effects" was ranked as the most important priority for patients (weighted ranking 5.2/7, with higher ranking being more important), and "improving patients' overall symptoms" was the most important priority for clinicians (weighted ranking 5.0/6). A total of 4 patients and 7 clinicians participated in workshops; they appreciated visualizations of the NMA results and found the website valuable for comparing different treatments. The patients suggested changes to simplify the interface and clarify terminology related to comparative efficacy. The user in the usability testing found the website intuitive to navigate. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a website, "eczematherapies.com," with a user-centered design approach. Visualizations of NMA results enable users to compare treatments as part of their shared decision-making process.