User login
In a trial of 482 children with atopic dermatitis who were randomized to either use of prescribed emollient bath additives regularly for 12 months or no additives, in addition to usual care, there was no significant difference between the two groups in the patient-oriented eczema measure (POEM) – a score of symptoms in the previous week – for the first 16 weeks of treatment, reported Miriam Santer, MD, of the University of Southampton, England, and her coauthors. The mean POEM score was 7.5 in the bath additives group and 8.4 in the no bath additives group.
There also was no significant effect of emollient bath additives on the secondary outcomes, which included POEM over 52 weeks, dermatitis family impact, generic quality of life, number of eczema exacerbations, or topical corticosteroid or topical calcineurin inhibitor use.
The authors noted that there was the suggestion of benefit in children who bathed five or more times a week, and in children aged under 5 years, but in both cases, the numbers were small.
“Although there is evidence for the need for leave-on emollients and widespread clinical consensus around soap substitutes, there is less agreement about the potential additional benefits of bath additives and a dearth of evidence on their effectiveness,” wrote Dr. Santer and her associates. “Bath additives are, however, widely prescribed at a cost of more than 23 million pounds ($33 million US; 26 million euros) annually to the National Health Service in England.”
The bath emollients used in the study included Aveeno bath oil, and Oilatum bath additive and Balneum bath oil – products available largely in the United Kingdom – along with others. Adherence was reasonable, with 93% of participants in the emollient group using bath additives more than half or all the time, and 92% of those in the no bath additives group using them less than half the time or never.
The authors stressed that there was strong evidence that supported regular use of leave-on emollients, and clinical consensus around the use of emollients as soap substitutes. “These findings are timely for clinicians and prescribing advisers, as prescribing guidelines vary widely in their advice on the use of bath additives, and pressure on budgets has led to formularies becoming increasingly restrictive.”
The study was supported by the National Institute for Health Research. No conflicts of interest were declared.
SOURCE: Santer M et al. BMJ 2018 May 2. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k1332
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in the United Kingdom currently recommends regular use of “emollient wash products” for children with eczema, despite the fact that little good evidence of their benefit exists. It is therefore heartening that this study has largely addressed that evidence gap: There was no statistically significant difference between those children prescribed one of three bath additives in addition to standard care and those who received standard care alone.
However, there is still the question of whether younger children – particularly those who are bathed daily – might still benefit from bath emollients. Likewise, children who experience recurrent skin infections may derive some additional benefit from emollient bath additives with antiseptic properties.
Carsten Flohr, MD, is with the St. John’s Institute of Dermatology at Kings College London, and Amina Ahmed is a patient panel member at the Centre of Evidence-Based Dermatology in Nottingham, England. These comments are taken from an editorial accompanying the article by Santer et al. (BMJ. 2018 May 2. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k1791.) No conflicts of interest were declared.
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in the United Kingdom currently recommends regular use of “emollient wash products” for children with eczema, despite the fact that little good evidence of their benefit exists. It is therefore heartening that this study has largely addressed that evidence gap: There was no statistically significant difference between those children prescribed one of three bath additives in addition to standard care and those who received standard care alone.
However, there is still the question of whether younger children – particularly those who are bathed daily – might still benefit from bath emollients. Likewise, children who experience recurrent skin infections may derive some additional benefit from emollient bath additives with antiseptic properties.
Carsten Flohr, MD, is with the St. John’s Institute of Dermatology at Kings College London, and Amina Ahmed is a patient panel member at the Centre of Evidence-Based Dermatology in Nottingham, England. These comments are taken from an editorial accompanying the article by Santer et al. (BMJ. 2018 May 2. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k1791.) No conflicts of interest were declared.
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in the United Kingdom currently recommends regular use of “emollient wash products” for children with eczema, despite the fact that little good evidence of their benefit exists. It is therefore heartening that this study has largely addressed that evidence gap: There was no statistically significant difference between those children prescribed one of three bath additives in addition to standard care and those who received standard care alone.
However, there is still the question of whether younger children – particularly those who are bathed daily – might still benefit from bath emollients. Likewise, children who experience recurrent skin infections may derive some additional benefit from emollient bath additives with antiseptic properties.
Carsten Flohr, MD, is with the St. John’s Institute of Dermatology at Kings College London, and Amina Ahmed is a patient panel member at the Centre of Evidence-Based Dermatology in Nottingham, England. These comments are taken from an editorial accompanying the article by Santer et al. (BMJ. 2018 May 2. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k1791.) No conflicts of interest were declared.
In a trial of 482 children with atopic dermatitis who were randomized to either use of prescribed emollient bath additives regularly for 12 months or no additives, in addition to usual care, there was no significant difference between the two groups in the patient-oriented eczema measure (POEM) – a score of symptoms in the previous week – for the first 16 weeks of treatment, reported Miriam Santer, MD, of the University of Southampton, England, and her coauthors. The mean POEM score was 7.5 in the bath additives group and 8.4 in the no bath additives group.
There also was no significant effect of emollient bath additives on the secondary outcomes, which included POEM over 52 weeks, dermatitis family impact, generic quality of life, number of eczema exacerbations, or topical corticosteroid or topical calcineurin inhibitor use.
The authors noted that there was the suggestion of benefit in children who bathed five or more times a week, and in children aged under 5 years, but in both cases, the numbers were small.
“Although there is evidence for the need for leave-on emollients and widespread clinical consensus around soap substitutes, there is less agreement about the potential additional benefits of bath additives and a dearth of evidence on their effectiveness,” wrote Dr. Santer and her associates. “Bath additives are, however, widely prescribed at a cost of more than 23 million pounds ($33 million US; 26 million euros) annually to the National Health Service in England.”
The bath emollients used in the study included Aveeno bath oil, and Oilatum bath additive and Balneum bath oil – products available largely in the United Kingdom – along with others. Adherence was reasonable, with 93% of participants in the emollient group using bath additives more than half or all the time, and 92% of those in the no bath additives group using them less than half the time or never.
The authors stressed that there was strong evidence that supported regular use of leave-on emollients, and clinical consensus around the use of emollients as soap substitutes. “These findings are timely for clinicians and prescribing advisers, as prescribing guidelines vary widely in their advice on the use of bath additives, and pressure on budgets has led to formularies becoming increasingly restrictive.”
The study was supported by the National Institute for Health Research. No conflicts of interest were declared.
SOURCE: Santer M et al. BMJ 2018 May 2. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k1332
In a trial of 482 children with atopic dermatitis who were randomized to either use of prescribed emollient bath additives regularly for 12 months or no additives, in addition to usual care, there was no significant difference between the two groups in the patient-oriented eczema measure (POEM) – a score of symptoms in the previous week – for the first 16 weeks of treatment, reported Miriam Santer, MD, of the University of Southampton, England, and her coauthors. The mean POEM score was 7.5 in the bath additives group and 8.4 in the no bath additives group.
There also was no significant effect of emollient bath additives on the secondary outcomes, which included POEM over 52 weeks, dermatitis family impact, generic quality of life, number of eczema exacerbations, or topical corticosteroid or topical calcineurin inhibitor use.
The authors noted that there was the suggestion of benefit in children who bathed five or more times a week, and in children aged under 5 years, but in both cases, the numbers were small.
“Although there is evidence for the need for leave-on emollients and widespread clinical consensus around soap substitutes, there is less agreement about the potential additional benefits of bath additives and a dearth of evidence on their effectiveness,” wrote Dr. Santer and her associates. “Bath additives are, however, widely prescribed at a cost of more than 23 million pounds ($33 million US; 26 million euros) annually to the National Health Service in England.”
The bath emollients used in the study included Aveeno bath oil, and Oilatum bath additive and Balneum bath oil – products available largely in the United Kingdom – along with others. Adherence was reasonable, with 93% of participants in the emollient group using bath additives more than half or all the time, and 92% of those in the no bath additives group using them less than half the time or never.
The authors stressed that there was strong evidence that supported regular use of leave-on emollients, and clinical consensus around the use of emollients as soap substitutes. “These findings are timely for clinicians and prescribing advisers, as prescribing guidelines vary widely in their advice on the use of bath additives, and pressure on budgets has led to formularies becoming increasingly restrictive.”
The study was supported by the National Institute for Health Research. No conflicts of interest were declared.
SOURCE: Santer M et al. BMJ 2018 May 2. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k1332
FROM THE BMJ
Key clinical point: Emollient bath additives do not improve eczema scores in children.
Major finding: There was no significant difference in eczema scores between bath emollients or no bath emollients: the mean POEM score was 7.5 in the bath additives group and 8.4 in the no bath additives group.
Study details: An open-label randomized trial in 482 children with atopic dermatitis.
Disclosures: The study was supported by the National Institute for Health Research. No conflicts of interest were declared.
Source: Santer M et al. BMJ 2018 May 2. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k1332