What's new in atopic eczema? An analysis of systematic reviews published in 2019. Part 1: Risk factors and prevention.

This review is part of an annual evidence update on atopic eczema (AE), providing a summary of key findings from 18 systematic reviews published in 2019 on AE risk factors and prevention. Parental atopy, particularly AE, is a risk factor for offspring AE, and this risk is augmented both by the number of parental atopic diseases present and the number of affected parents. Low-quality evidence suggests that autumn or winter birth increases childhood AE risk compared with birth in spring. There is some evidence to support filaggrin gene-environment interactions; however, this is limited by small underpowered studies. There is no evidence to suggest that polymorphisms in the -1082, -592 and -819 loci of the interleukin-10 gene increase susceptibility to AE. There is no robust evidence to support a relationship between childhood AE development and either yoghurt consumption in the first year of life, gut microbiota variants, prenatal or infantile paracetamol exposure, maternal antibiotic exposure or air pollution. Three systematic reviews investigated the effect of probiotics given during pregnancy or infancy; although low-quality evidence suggests benefits of combined probiotics, these studies were limited by significant heterogeneity. No relationship between the age at which complementary food and beverages are introduced and the risk of developing AE in infancy was identified. Consistent evidence showed no relationship between human milk feeding and infant AE development, aside from limited evidence suggesting a protective role in those with atopic heredity. This summary of recent evidence related to AE risk factors and prevention highlights the complex aetiology of AE.

Who writes dermatology randomized controlled trials? The need to specify the role of medical writers.

Medical writers may make major contributions to the preparation of a manuscript, but are not listed as authors. We assessed the prevalence, affiliation and role of medical writers in dermatology randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in 2019 in the top 7 medical and top 10 dermatology journals. Medical writers were identified in 39/83 trials (47%), all of which were exclusively industry-funded trials (39/47, prevalence 83%). Most studies stated their role as 'medical writing support' and/or 'editorial assistance' (35/39, 90%), but when more information was provided, four studies specified first draft preparation (50% of RCTs in general medical and 1.3% of RCTs in dermatology journals). Medical writers are common in dermatology trials but their role is often vaguely stated. In April 2020 the British Journal or Dermatology and Clinical and Experimental Dermatology adopted CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy), which describes contributions of authors and may help clarify who writes trial manuscripts.

How prevalent are financial conflicts of interest in dermatology randomized controlled trials? A cross-sectional study.

Since the last assessment of conflicts of interest (COIs) in dermatology randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in 2004, several countries have introduced transparency databases. We assessed the prevalence of financial COIs in dermatology RCTs and quantified payments from study sponsors to academic/clinical authors using transparency databases, which are available in the USA, France, Australia, Belgium and the Netherlands, while the UK has a noncompulsory transparency database. We included RCTs from the top 10 dermatology journals and the top 7 general medical journals published in 2019. The study assessed 83 RCTs, and COIs were identified in 69%. The highest prevalence was in exclusively industry-funded trials (46/47, 98%), which consisted of personal payments to an academic/clinical author (96% of trials) and having authors who were employees/stockholders (96%). Payments were identified for 31/56 (55%) academic/clinical first/final authors (median payment US$28 746, maximum US$597 299, interquartile range US$17 061-146 253), and 24/31 payments (77%) payments were each > US$10 000.