The association between Staphylococcus aureus colonization on cheek skin at 2†months and subsequent atopic dermatitis in a prospective birth cohort.

BACKGROUND: Staphylococcus aureus may worsen already established atopic dermatitis (AD), but its primary role in the aetiopathogenesis and severity of AD is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To compare the prevalence of S. aureus colonization in early infancy in children who developed AD during the first 2 years of life with children who did not. METHODS: In this prospective birth cohort study, which included 450 infants, we analysed bacterial swabs collected from cheek skin at 0 and 2 months of age. The development of AD, and its severity, was diagnosed by a physician and monitored prospectively for 2 years. Information on parental atopy, filaggrin gene mutation status and use of antibiotics and emollients was included in the analyses. RESULTS: At birth, the occurrence of S. aureus colonization was similar in infants who developed subsequent AD and those who did not. At 2 months of age, S. aureus colonization was more common in children who later developed AD (adjusted hazard ratio 1.97, 95% confidence interval 1.21-3.19; P = 0.006). No association was found between S. aureus colonization and AD severity or age at onset. CONCLUSIONS: It remains unknown whether colonization with S. aureus may directly increase the risk of AD, or whether it should be considered as secondary to skin barrier impairment or a skewed immune activity, but according to our findings, S. aureus colonization is more commonly increased at 2 months of age in children who later developed AD.

Reduced Skin Microbiome Diversity in Infancy Is Associated with Increased Risk of Atopic Dermatitis in High-Risk Children.

It is currently unknown whether alterations in the skin microbiome exist before development of atopic dermatitis (AD). In this prospective Danish birth cohort of 300 children, we examined whether skin microbiome alterations during the first 2 months of life were associated with an increased risk of AD in the first 2 years and its severity after adjustment for environmental factors and selected skin chemokine and natural moisturizing factor levels. We found no overall association between the skin microbiome at birth and age 2 months and AD during the first 2 years of life. However, when restricting the analysis to children with at least one parent with atopy, a lower alpha diversity at age 2 months was associated with an increased risk of AD (adjusted hazard ratio = 1.7, 95% confidence interval = 1.1-2.6). We observed a stronger association in children where both parents had atopy (adjusted hazard ratio = 4.4, 95% confidence interval = 1.1-18.2). The putative pathogenic role of changes in the skin microbiome on AD risk remains uncertain but may play a role in those with an atopic predisposition.

Skin TARC/CCL17 increase precedes the development of childhood atopic dermatitis.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether skin biomarkers collected in infancy can predict the onset of atopic dermatitis (AD) and be used in future prevention trials to identify children at risk. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to examine whether skin biomarkers can predict AD during the first 2 years of life. METHODS: This study enrolled 300 term and 150 preterm children at birth and followed for AD until the age of 2 years. Skin tape strips were collected at 0 to 3 days and 2 months of age and analyzed for selected immune and barrier biomarkers. Hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using Cox regression was calculated for the risk of AD. RESULTS: The 2-year prevalence of AD was 34.6% (99 of 286) and 21.2% (25 of 118) among term and preterm children, respectively. Skin biomarkers collected at birth did not predict AD. Elevated thymus- and activation-regulated chemokine/C-C motif chemokine ligand 17 -levels collected at 2 months of age increased the overall risk of AD (HR: 2.11; 95% CI: 1.36-3.26; P = .0008) and moderate-to-severe AD (HR: 4.97; 95% CI: 2.09-11.80; P = .0003). IL-8 and IL-18 predicted moderate-to-severe AD. Low filaggrin degradation product levels increased the risk of AD (HR: 2.04; 95% CI: 1.32-3.15; P = .001). Elevated biomarker levels at 2 months predicted AD at other skin sites and many months after collection. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that noninvasively collected skin biomarkers of barrier and immune pathways can precede the onset of AD.

Skin biomarkers predict development of atopic dermatitis in infancy.

BACKGROUND: There is currently no insight into biomarkers that can predict the onset of pediatric atopic dermatitis (AD). METHODS: Nested in a prospective birth cohort study that examined the occurrence of physician-diagnosed AD in 300 children, 44 random children with onset of AD in the first year of life were matched on sex and season of birth with 44 children who did not develop AD. Natural moisturizing factor (NMF), corneocyte surface protrusions, cytokines, free sphingoid bases (SBs) of different chain lengths and their ceramides were analyzed from tape strips collected at 2 months of age before onset of AD using liquid chromatography, atomic force microscopy, multiplex immunoassay, and liquid chromatography mass spectrometry, respectively. RESULTS: Significant alterations were observed for four lipid markers, with phytosphingosine ([P]) levels being significantly lower in children who developed AD compared with children who did not (median 240 pmol/mg vs. 540 pmol/mg, p < 0.001). The two groups of children differed in the relative amounts of SB of different chain lengths (C17, C18 and C20). Thymus- and activation-regulated chemokine (TARC/CCL17) was slightly higher in children who developed AD, whereas NMF and corneocyte surface texture were similar. AD severity assessed by the eczema area and severity index (EASI) at disease onset was 4.2 (2.0;7.2). [P] had the highest prediction accuracy among the biomarkers (75.6%), whereas the combination of 5 lipid ratios gave an accuracy of 89.4%. CONCLUSION: This study showed that levels and SB chain length were altered in infants who later developed AD, and that TARC/CCL17 levels were higher.

Differences in Occurrence, Risk Factors and Severity of Early-onset Atopic Dermatitis among Preterm and Term Children.

This prospective birth cohort followed 150 preterm and 300 term newborns during the first year of life to assess possible differences in risk factors, age at onset, anatomical location, and severity of atopic dermatitis. Atopic dermatitis was diagnosed clinically, and severity was assessed using Eczema Area Severity Index (EASI). DNA was analysed for filaggrin gene mutations. Parents were asked about environmental exposures and emollient use. Atopic dermatitis during the first year of life was observed in 21.2% of children and was more common in term children compared with preterm children (26.7% vs 11.7%, p < 0.001), with lower age of onset (4 vs 6 months, p < 0.05) and more severe disease at onset (EASI: 4.8 vs 0.4, p < 0.0005). Environmental risk factors for atopic dermatitis were essentially similar for preterm and term born children, apart from winter and autumn births. Filaggrin gene mutations were less common in preterm than term children (4.1% vs 9.2%, p = 0.06).

Healthcare utilization in Danish children with atopic dermatitis and parental topical corticosteroid phobia.

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a prevalent relapsing inflammatory skin disease. There is currently little knowledge about healthcare utilization and medication use along with parental corticosteroid phobia in relation to severity of pediatric AD. OBJECTIVES: To study the association between parental-reported healthcare utilization, medication use, and topical corticosteroid phobia and pediatric AD severity. METHODS: The study population included all children in Denmark with a diagnostic code of AD (ICD-10 code, group L20) given at a hospital department of dermatology between 2014 and 2018. A questionnaire containing 158 response items was sent to the legal parents. We surveyed disease severity, AD treatment, corticosteroid phobia, and healthcare use along with other variables. Disease severity was assessed using the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure tool, and corticosteroid phobia was assessed using the Topical Corticosteroid Phobia (TOPICOP) score. RESULTS: In total, 1343 (39%) parents completed the questionnaire and 95.3% were completed by the biological mother. Children's mean age was 8.9 ± 4.5 years, and 52.8% were boys. Severe AD was associated with a higher number of healthcare visits to GPs, private dermatologists, and hospital departments. Mean global TOPICOP score was 38.27 ± 19.9%. There was a significant inverse linear trend between global TOPICOP score and parental educational level (Ptrend  < .0005). CONCLUSIONS: The significant association between high global TOPICOP score and low parental educational level, resulting in delayed treatment of AD flares, indicates that improved family education ultimately may reduce healthcare expenses and burden of disease.

'Barrier dysfunction in Atopic newBorns studY' (BABY): protocol of a Danish prospective birth cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Skin barrier development and dysfunction in premature and mature newborns is important for the risk of atopic dermatitis (AD). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Barrier dysfunction in Atopic newBorns studY (BABY) Cohort is a prospective birth cohort study of 150 preterm children (gestational age (GA) below 37+0) and 300 term children (GA 37+0 to 41+6). Skin barrier is assessed through transepidermal water loss, tape stripping, Raman-spectroscopy and microbiome sampling. Clinical examinations are done and DNA from buccal swabs is collected for genetic analyses. Thymus size is assessed by ultrasound examination. Information on pregnancy, delivery, parental exposures and diseases are collected, and structured telephone interviews are conducted at 18 and 24 months to assess exogenous exposures in the child and onset of AD. Hanifin and Rajka criteria as well as The UK Working Party's Diagnostic Criteria for Atopic Dermatitis are used to diagnose AD. Severity of AD is assessed using the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) and Patient Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study is approved by the scientific Ethical Committee of the Capital Region (H-16042289 and H-16042294).Outcomes will be presented at national and international conferences and in peer-reviewed publications.

Methodological advantages and disadvantages of parallel and crossover randomised clinical trials on methylphenidate for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a systematic review and meta-analyses.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the methodological advantages and disadvantages of parallel and crossover designs in randomised clinical trials on methylphenidate for children and adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). DESIGN: Secondary analyses of a Cochrane systematic review. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We searched relevant databases up to March 2015 and included data from parallel and crossover randomised trials assessing children and adolescents up to 18 years with ADHD. INTERVENTIONS: Methylphenidate compared with placebo or no-treatment interventions. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: The primary outcomes were teacher-rated ADHD symptoms and serious adverse events. The secondary outcomes were non-serious adverse events. RESULTS: We included 38 parallel trials (n=5111) and 147 crossover trials (n=7134). When comparing methylphenidate with placebo or no-treatment on ADHD symptoms, we found no differences between the end of parallel trials and the first-period from crossover trials (Χ²=1.06, df=1, p=0.30, I²=5.5%). We also found no differences when combining the end of first-period crossover trials with the end of parallel trials and comparing them to the end of last-period crossover trials (Χ²=3.25, df=1, p=0.07, I²=69.2%). We found no differences in serious and non-serious adverse events, and no risk of period and carryover effects. However, only two trials contributed data to the latter analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Both parallel and crossover trials seem suitable for investigating methylphenidate in children and adolescents with ADHD, with comparable estimates on ADHD symptom severity and adverse events. However, parallel trials might still offer ethical and statistical advantages over crossover trials.

Methylphenidate for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents - assessment of adverse events in non-randomised studies.

BACKGROUND: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common neurodevelopmental disorder in childhood. The psychostimulant methylphenidate is the most frequently used medication to treat it. Several studies have investigated the benefits of methylphenidate, showing possible favourable effects on ADHD symptoms, but the true magnitude of the effect is unknown. Concerning adverse events associated with the treatment, our systematic review of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) demonstrated no increase in serious adverse events, but a high proportion of participants suffered a range of non-serious adverse events. OBJECTIVES: To assess the adverse events associated with methylphenidate treatment for children and adolescents with ADHD in non-randomised studies. SEARCH METHODS: In January 2016, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, 12 other databases and two trials registers. We also checked reference lists and contacted authors and pharmaceutical companies to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included non-randomised study designs. These comprised comparative and non-comparative cohort studies, patient-control studies, patient reports/series and cross-sectional studies of methylphenidate administered at any dosage or formulation. We also included methylphenidate groups from RCTs assessing methylphenidate versus other interventions for ADHD as well as data from follow-up periods in RCTs. Participants had to have an ADHD diagnosis (from the 3rd to the 5th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or the 9th or 10th edition of theInternational Classification of Diseases, with or without comorbid diagnoses. We required that at least 75% of participants had a normal intellectual capacity (intelligence quotient of more than 70 points) and were aged below 20 years. We excluded studies that used another ADHD drug as a co-intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Fourteen review authors selected studies independently. Two review authors assessed risk of bias independently using the ROBINS-I tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. All review authors extracted data. We defined serious adverse events according to the International Committee of Harmonization as any lethal, life-threatening or life-changing event. We considered all other adverse events to be non-serious adverse events and conducted meta-analyses of data from comparative studies. We calculated meta-analytic estimates of prevalence from non-comparative cohorts studies and synthesised data from patient reports/series qualitatively. We investigated heterogeneity by conducting subgroup analyses, and we also conducted sensitivity analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 260 studies: 7 comparative cohort studies, 6 of which compared 968 patients who were exposed to methylphenidate to 166 controls, and 1 which assessed 1224 patients that were exposed or not exposed to methylphenidate during different time periods; 4 patient-control studies (53,192 exposed to methylphenidate and 19,906 controls); 177 non-comparative cohort studies (2,207,751 participants); 2 cross-sectional studies (96 participants) and 70 patient reports/series (206 participants). Participants' ages ranged from 3 years to 20 years. Risk of bias in the included comparative studies ranged from moderate to critical, with most studies showing critical risk of bias. We evaluated all non-comparative studies at critical risk of bias. The GRADE quality rating of the evidence was very low.Primary outcomesIn the comparative studies, methylphenidate increased the risk ratio (RR) of serious adverse events (RR 1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17 to 1.57; 2 studies, 72,005 participants); any psychotic disorder (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.57; 1 study, 71,771 participants); and arrhythmia (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.48 to 1.74; 1 study, 1224 participants) compared to no intervention.In the non-comparative cohort studies, the proportion of participants on methylphenidate experiencing any serious adverse event was 1.20% (95% CI 0.70% to 2.00%; 50 studies, 162,422 participants). Withdrawal from methylphenidate due to any serious adverse events occurred in 1.20% (95% CI 0.60% to 2.30%; 7 studies, 1173 participants) and adverse events of unknown severity led to withdrawal in 7.30% of participants (95% CI 5.30% to 10.0%; 22 studies, 3708 participants).Secondary outcomesIn the comparative studies, methylphenidate, compared to no intervention, increased the RR of insomnia and sleep problems (RR 2.58, 95% CI 1.24 to 5.34; 3 studies, 425 participants) and decreased appetite (RR 15.06, 95% CI 2.12 to 106.83; 1 study, 335 participants).With non-comparative cohort studies, the proportion of participants on methylphenidate with any non-serious adverse events was 51.2% (95% CI 41.2% to 61.1%; 49 studies, 13,978 participants). These included difficulty falling asleep, 17.9% (95% CI 14.7% to 21.6%; 82 studies, 11,507 participants); headache, 14.4% (95% CI 11.3% to 18.3%; 90 studies, 13,469 participants); abdominal pain, 10.7% (95% CI 8.60% to 13.3%; 79 studies, 11,750 participants); and decreased appetite, 31.1% (95% CI 26.5% to 36.2%; 84 studies, 11,594 participants). Withdrawal of methylphenidate due to non-serious adverse events occurred in 6.20% (95% CI 4.80% to 7.90%; 37 studies, 7142 participants), and 16.2% were withdrawn for unknown reasons (95% CI 13.0% to 19.9%; 57 studies, 8340 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that methylphenidate may be associated with a number of serious adverse events as well as a large number of non-serious adverse events in children and adolescents, which often lead to withdrawal of methylphenidate. Our certainty in the evidence is very low, and accordingly, it is not possible to accurately estimate the actual risk of adverse events. It might be higher than reported here.Given the possible association between methylphenidate and the adverse events identified, it may be important to identify people who are most susceptible to adverse events. To do this we must undertake large-scale, high-quality RCTs, along with studies aimed at identifying responders and non-responders.

[Atopic dermatitis].

Atopic dermatitis is a chronic and relapsing inflammatory skin disease. The clinical features vary among different age and ethnic groups, but pruritus is a hallmark. The treatment of atopic dermatitis includes skin barrier restoration with daily application of moisturizers. Topical corticosteroids and calcineurin inhibitors are first-line treatment for acute flares. In severe cases, immunosuppressive drugs are indicated. Targeted biological drugs are being tested in clinical trials.

Hallucinations and other psychotic symptoms in response to methylphenidate in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a Cochrane systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is little evidence in the literature on the association between methylphenidate treatment and psychotic symptoms in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). OBJECTIVE: We examine the occurrence of psychotic symptoms during methylphenidate treatment of children and adolescents with ADHD. The data arise from our two Cochrane systematic reviews on methylphenidate, reported elsewhere. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched up to January 2016 (for observational studies) and March 2017 (for randomized trials). We summarized data as risk ratios and pooled prevalences. Trial Sequential Analysis was used to control for random errors. We assessed the risk of bias and the quality of evidence according to Cochrane guidelines. RESULTS: Ten randomized trials (1103 participants), 17 non-randomized studies (76,237 participants) and 12 patient reports or series (18 patients) were identified. In the randomized trials, there was no significant difference in the risk of developing psychotic symptoms [10 of 654 (pooled prevalence, 2.5%) methylphenidate versus 1 of 508 (pooled prevalence, 1.7%) placebo patients; risk ratio, 2.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.58 to 7.35]. Nine of 10 trials had a high risk of bias, and according to the Trial Sequential Analysis, the required information size was not achieved, that is, the meta-analysis was considerably underpowered. There were 873 instances of psychotic symptoms in the non-randomized studies among 55,603 participants (pooled prevalence, 1.2%; 95% confidence interval, 0.7 to 2.4). In the comparative cohort study, methylphenidate significantly increased the risk for any psychotic disorder by 36% (risk ratio, 1.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.17 to 1.57). The overall risk of bias was rated as critical for this study. CONCLUSIONS: Because of sparse data and low quality of evidence, we cannot confirm or refute whether methylphenidate increases the risk of psychotic symptoms in children and adolescents with ADHD. This possible adverse event may affect 1.1% to 2.5%, and physicians, patients and caregivers should be aware of this to ensure proper treatment in case of occurrence during methylphenidate treatment.