Fluocinolone acetonide 0.01% in peanut oil: Therapy for childhood atopic dermatitis, even in patients who are peanut sensitive

Paller, Amy S.; Nimmagadda, Sai; Schachner, Lawrence A.; Mallory, Susan B.; Kahn, Teri A.; Willis, Isaac; Eichenfield, Lawrence F.

doi:10.1067/mjd.2003.174

Cited by 32 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Fluticasone was compared against placebo in four of the trials 98,[106][107][108] and hydrocortisone butyrate was compared against placebo in two of the trials. 101,103 Placebo-controlled trials were reported for fluocinonide, 104,110 fluocinolone acetonide, 97 triamcinolone acetonide, 100 desonide, 99 methylprednisolone aceponate, 105 clobetasol propionate 109 and betamethasone 17-valerate in combination with fusidic acid. 102 …”

Section: (See Appendix 3)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There was enough detail about the method of randomisation to allow assessment of the risk of bias in only six 97,102,103,107,108,110 out of 14 trials and all were assessed as being at low risk. There was enough detail about the method used to generate the allocation sequence to allow assessment of the risk of bias in only one 97 out of the 14 trials and this was assessed as low risk.…”

Section: Assessment Of Risk Of Bias For the New Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There was enough detail about the method used to generate the allocation sequence to allow assessment of the risk of bias in only one 97 out of the 14 trials and this was assessed as low risk. There was enough detail about blinding to allow assessment of the risk of bias in five 97,103,105,106,109 of the 14 trials and all five were assessed as being at low risk.…”

Section: Assessment Of Risk Of Bias For the New Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fourteen new trials [97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107][108][109][110] have been reported since 2000. Fluticasone was compared against placebo in four of the trials 98,[106][107][108] and hydrocortisone butyrate was compared against placebo in two of the trials.…”

Section: (See Appendix 3)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104]109,110 Proactive treatment regimens A proactive treatment regimen was used in four of trials, [105][106][107][108] which involved an initial period (4 weeks) of more intensive treatment to stabilise or clear the eczema followed by 16 weeks of treatment for only 2 consecutive or evenly spread days a week.…”

Section: Reactive Treatment Regimensmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 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