OBJECTIVE: To estimate the economic impact of feeding high-risk, not exclusively breastfed, urban Malaysian infants with partiallyhydrolyzed whey-based formula (PHF-W) instead of CMF for the first 17 weeks of life as an AD risk reduction strategy.
METHODS: A cohort Markov model simulated the AD incidence and burden from birth to age 6 years in the target population fed with PHF-W vs. CMF. The model integrated published clinical and epidemiologic data, local cost data, and expert opinion. Modeled outcomes included AD-risk reduction, time spent post AD diagnosis, days without AD flare, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs (direct and indirect). Outcomes were discounted at 3% per year. Costs are expressed in Malaysian Ringgit (MYR; MYR 1,000 = United States dollar [US $]316.50).
RESULTS: Feeding a high-risk infant PHF-W vs. CMF resulted in a 14% point reduction in AD risk (95% confidence interval [CI], 3%-23%), a 0.69-year (95% CI, 0.25-1.10) reduction in time spent post-AD diagnosis, additional 38 (95% CI, 2-94) days without AD flare, and an undiscounted gain of 0.041 (95% CI, 0.007-0.103) QALYs. The discounted AD-related 6-year cost estimates when feeding a high-risk infant with PHF-W were MYR 1,758 (US $556) (95% CI, MYR 917-3,033) and with CMF MYR 2,871 (US $909) (95% CI, MYR 1,697-4,278), resulting in a per-child net saving of MYR 1,113 (US $352) (95% CI, MYR 317-1,884) favoring PHF-W.
CONCLUSION: Using PHF-W instead of CMF in this population is expected to result in AD-related costs savings.
OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to investigate the prevalence of AD in Malaysian children and to understand the pattern of drug therapy. Such information could be useful to establish the relationship between ethnicity and family history of atopy and the development of associated signs and symptoms.
METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among children attending kindergartens and nurseries. Standardized questionnaires were filled out by parents.
RESULTS: Overall prevalence of AD was 13.4%. Of 384 participants recruited, the highest prevalence was observed in males, Malays, participants younger than 2 years, and those with atopic background such as asthma, hay fever, and family history of atopic diseases. Calamine and white soft paraffin were the preferred choice of nonprescription drugs, whereas topical hydrocortisone seemed to be the preferred choice of prescription drug in the management of AD.
CONCLUSIONS: The overall prevalence is comparable to that reported in the International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood Phase One. There is an association between ethnicity and AD prevalence. Topical corticosteroids and emollients are the mainstay of AD management among Malaysians.
METHODS: Nine AD experts from South and East Asia and one from Europe developed the algorithm based upon treatment guidelines, relevant literature and local treatment practices. The algorithm outlines current best practice for the use of emollients, topical corticosteroids (TCS) and topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCI), with the intention of simplifying the treatment regimen of mild-to-moderate AD in South and East Asia.
RESULTS: Patients with AD should bathe and cleanse affected skin to remove crusts and scales daily. Emollients should also be applied daily as a maintenance treatment. When selecting appropriate topical anti-inflammatory treatment for AD flares, several factors should be taken into consideration, including the patient's age, attitude to treatment options and site of AD lesions. Given the concerns regarding the risk of skin atrophy with use of TCS, a TCI should be used to treat AD lesions in sensitive skin areas: pimecrolimus is recommended for mild-to-moderate AD in these locations, while tacrolimus should be considered for moderate and severe cases. Either pimecrolimus or tacrolimus is recommended for flares in other, non-sensitive body locations. A proactive or intermittent maintenance treatment strategy involving regular emollient use and twice-weekly application of a TCI to previously affected areas is encouraged to reduce the risk of flares.
CONCLUSIONS: The algorithm proposed here is intended to simplify the topical treatment of mild-to-moderate AD in daily practice in South and East Asian countries.
AIM: To investigate the utility of a Traffic Light Control (TLC) system as a measurement/assessment of self-perceived eczema control.
METHODS: This is a prospectively study of all Chinese children (aged 6 to 18 years old) with eczema attending the paediatric dermatology clinic of a tertiary hospital from Jan to June 2020. Eczema control, eczema severity, quality of life and biophysical skin condition of consecutive patients at the paediatric dermatology clinic of a teaching hospital were evaluated with the validated Chinese versions of Depressive, Anxiety, Stress Scales (DASS-21), Patient Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), transepidermal water loss (TEWL), and stratum corneum skin hydration (SH), respectively. With a visual TLC analogy, patients were asked if their eczema is under control (green light), worsening (yellow) or in flare-up (red light).
RESULTS: Among AE patients (n = 36), self-perceived TLC as green (under control), amber (worsening) and red (flare up) reflected acute and chronic severity (SCORAD, NESS, POEM) and quality of life (CDLQI) (p< 0.0001), but not SH, TEWL or Depression, anxiety and stress.
CONCLUSIONS: Eczema control can be semi-quantified with a child-friendly TLC self-assessment system. AE patients reporting worse eczema control have worse acute and chronic eczema severity, more impairment of quality of life; but not the psychologic symptoms of depression, anxiety and stress or skin hydration or transepidermal water loss. TLC can be linked to an eczema action plan to guide patient management.
Objective: The Asian Academy of Dermatology and Venereology Expert Panel on Atopic Dermatitis developed this reference guide to provide a holistic and evidence-based approach in managing AD among Asians.
Methods: Electronic searches were performed to retrieve relevant systematic reviews and guidelines on AD. Recommendations were appraised for level of evidence and strength of recommendation based on the U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network guidelines. These practice points were based on the consensus recommendations discussed during the Asia Pacific Meeting of Experts in Dermatology held in Bali, Indonesia in October 2016 and April 2017.
Results: The Expert Panel recommends an approach to treatment based on disease severity. The use of moisturizers is recommended across all levels of AD severity, while topical steroids are recommended only for flares not controlled by conventional skin care and moisturizers. Causes of waning efficacy must be explored before using topical corticosteroids of higher potency. Topical calcineurin inhibitors are recommended for patients who have become recalcitrant to steroid, in chronic uninterrupted use, and when there is steroid atrophy, or when there is a need to treat sensitive areas and pediatric patients. Systemic steroids have a limited role in AD treatment and should be avoided if possible. Educational programs that allow a patient-centered approach in AD management are recommended as an adjunct to conventional therapies. Recommendations on the use of phototherapy, systemic drugs, and emerging treatments are also included.
Conclusion: The management of AD among Asians requires a holistic approach, integrating evidence-based treatments while considering accessibility and cultural acceptability.
OBJECTIVES: We assessed the effectiveness and safety of antimicrobial (antiseptic or antibiotic) dressings in reducing CVC-related infections in newborn infants. Had there been relevant data, we would have evaluated the effects of antimicrobial dressings in different subgroups, including infants who received different types of CVCs, infants who required CVC for different durations, infants with CVCs with and without other antimicrobial modifications, and infants who received an antimicrobial dressing with and without a clearly defined co-intervention.
SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group (CNRG). We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 9), MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE (EBCHOST), CINAHL and references cited in our short-listed articles using keywords and MeSH headings, up to September 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared an antimicrobial CVC dressing against no dressing or another dressing in newborn infants.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data using the standard methods of the CNRG. Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility and risk of bias of the retrieved records. We expressed our results using risk difference (RD) and risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
MAIN RESULTS: Out of 173 articles screened, three studies were included. There were two comparisons: chlorhexidine dressing following alcohol cleansing versus polyurethane dressing following povidone-iodine cleansing (one study); and silver-alginate patch versus control (two studies). A total of 855 infants from level III neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) were evaluated, 705 of whom were from a single study. All studies were at high risk of bias for blinding of care personnel or unclear risk of bias for blinding of outcome assessors. There was moderate-quality evidence for all major outcomes.The single study comparing chlorhexidine dressing/alcohol cleansing against polyurethane dressing/povidone-iodine cleansing showed no significant difference in the risk of CRBSI (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.65; RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.03; 655 infants, moderate-quality evidence) and sepsis without a source (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.52; RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.06; 705 infants, moderate-quality evidence). There was a significant reduction in the risk of catheter colonisation favouring chlorhexidine dressing/alcohol cleansing group (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.86; RD -0.09, 95% CI -0.15 to -0.03; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 11, 95% CI 7 to 33; 655 infants, moderate-quality evidence). However, infants in the chlorhexidine dressing/alcohol cleansing group were significantly more likely to develop contact dermatitis, with 19 infants in the chlorhexidine dressing/alcohol cleansing group having developed contact dermatitis compared to none in the polyurethane dressing/povidone-iodine cleansing group (RR 43.06, 95% CI 2.61 to 710.44; RD 0.06, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.08; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 17, 95% CI 13 to 33; 705 infants, moderate-quality evidence). The roles of chlorhexidine dressing in the outcomes reported were unclear, as the two assigned groups received different co-interventions in the form of different skin cleansing agents prior to catheter insertion and during each dressing change.In the other comparison, silver-alginate patch versus control, the data for CRBSI were analysed separately in two subgroups as the two included studies reported the outcome using different denominators: one using infants and another using catheters. There were no significant differences between infants who received silver-alginate patch against infants who received standard line dressing in CRBSI, whether expressed as the number of infants (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.78; RD -0.12, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.09; 1 study, 50 participants, moderate-quality evidence) or as the number of catheters (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.89; RD -0.05, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.10; 1 study, 118 participants, moderate-quality evidence). There was also no significant difference between the two groups in mortality (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.05; RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.05; two studies, 150 infants, I² = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). No adverse skin reaction was recorded in either group.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on moderate-quality evidence, chlorhexidine dressing/alcohol skin cleansing reduced catheter colonisation, but made no significant difference in major outcomes like sepsis and CRBSI compared to polyurethane dressing/povidone-iodine cleansing. Chlorhexidine dressing/alcohol cleansing posed a substantial risk of contact dermatitis in preterm infants, although it was unclear whether this was contributed mainly by the dressing material or the cleansing agent. While silver-alginate patch appeared safe, evidence is still insufficient for a recommendation in practice. Future research that evaluates antimicrobial dressing should ensure blinding of caregivers and outcome assessors and ensure that all participants receive the same co-interventions, such as the skin cleansing agent. Major outcomes like sepsis, CRBSI and mortality should be assessed in infants of different gestation and birth weight.