Cited by 160Dermatology and Skin DiseasesNeonatal skin health careContact Dermatitis and Allergies

A randomized trial of a barrier lipid replacement strategy for the prevention of atopic dermatitis and allergic sensitization: the PEBBLES pilot study

Lowe, A.J., Su, J.C., Allen, K.J., Abramson, M.J., Cranswick, N., Robertson, C.F., Forster, D., Varigos, G. +5 more·2018·British Journal of Dermatology

Abstract

Dear Editor, It is hypothesized that the impaired skin barrier in atopic dermatitis (AD) allows the immune system to be exposed to environmental allergens, resulting in sensitization and allergic disease.1 Two small trials recently found that routine use of emollients reduced the incidence of AD during the active treatment period by approximately half.2,3 It remains unknown whether prophylactic use of emollients can prevent the development of AD beyond the treatment period (as opposed simply to delaying its onset) or whether this reduction in AD leads to a reduced risk of allergic sensitization. The previous trials in this area have used standard emollients.2,3 In this trial, we chose a ceramide‐dominant emollient (EpiCeram™; PuraCap Pharmaceutical LLC, South Plainfield, NJ, U.S.A.), as it may provide greater preventive effects.4 Skin affected by AD is deficient in ceramides.5 EpiCeram has been formulated to contain physiological ratios of ceramides, cholesterol and free fatty acids, and has a slightly acidic pH (5·0), which aids the production and secretion of ceramides by the skin.6 Acidic emollients have been shown to help prevent AD and airway inflammation in a murine model.7 We have previously demonstrated parent compliance, and initial evidence of safety, for use of EpiCeram for AD prevention in neonates.8 We conducted a pilot randomized, parallel, single‐blind (outcome assessor), controlled trial of the effect of twice‐daily application of EpiCeram for the first 6 months of life on the incidence of AD and skin barrier function in high‐risk infants up to 12 months of age. Term infants with a family history of allergic disease were recruited from maternity wards (Appendix S1; see Supporting Information). At enrolment, parents of infants in the intervention group were shown how to apply approximately 6 g of EpiCeram to the full skin surface of their child twice per day. Treatment was to commence within the first 3 weeks. No other skincare instructions were provided to either group. Clinical follow‐up of infants by a blinded assessor (C.A.) occurred at 6 weeks, 6 months and 12 months of age. Transepidermal water loss (TEWL), skin pH, hydration and ‘oiliness' (sebum) were assessed using standardized protocols (Courage & Khazaka, Cologne, Germany). At 6 and 12 months, skin prick tests were performed to six common allergens along with saline and histamine controls (Stallergenes lancets: Stallergenes, Antony, France; HollisterStier aero‐allergen extracts: HollisterStier, Spokane, WA, U.S.A.; ALK food allergen extracts: ALK, Inc., Round Rock, TX, U.S.A.). A total of 1306 infants were screened and 80 were recruited. The groups were well balanced on a range of baseline factors. There was minimal loss to follow‐up at each time point (Appendix S1). There were no adverse reactions to the study cream. Adherence to the intervention was high (76% applied the cream for ≥ 5 days per week). Use of other emollients (not study treatment) for on average ≥ 3 days per week during the intervention period occurred in 39% of the control group and 18% of the intervention group. Intention‐to‐treat analysis showed no significant effect of routine barrier lipid replacement in early life on AD or sensitization outcomes. However, there was a trend towards reduced risks of AD and food sensitization in the intervention group at 6 and 12 months of age (Table 1 and Appendix S1). Adjustment for slight baseline imbalances between groups (presence of siblings, forehead TEWL) did not materially alter the results (data not shown). Per protocol analyses (only including infants who received ≥ 5 days per week of study treatment) revealed a significant reduction in food sensitization at 12 months in the treatment group (0%, 0 of 21 vs. 19%, seven of 36, P = 0·04). There were no differences between groups for biophysical properties of the skin. Among the intervention group, children who developed food sensitization had a later initiation of treatment (Appendix S1). Effect of intervention on atopic dermatitis (AD) at 6 weeks, 6 months and 12 months CI, confidence interval. aEstimated using Fisher's exact test. bCombines responses from prior clinical assessments. cFood allergens: egg white, cow's milk and peanut. dInhalant allergens: dust mite, cat dander and rye grass. Effect of intervention on atopic dermatitis (AD) at 6 weeks, 6 months and 12 months CI, confidence interval. aEstimated using Fisher's exact test. bCombines responses from prior clinical assessments. cFood allergens: egg white, cow's milk and peanut. dInhalant allergens: dust mite, cat dander and rye grass. We found that twice‐daily prophylactic use of a ceramide‐dominant emollient, from the neonatal period to 6 months of age, was associated with a trend towards reduced incidence of AD and food sensitization at age 12 months, suggesting that the beneficial effects persisted for ≥ 6 months after stopping treatment. While these results require confirmation, they support a role for skin

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/bjd.15747

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Maintaining normal skin barrier function is critical for the prevention and control of allergic diseases such as AD and food allergy.

    “It has been suggested that maintaining normal skin barrier function is critical for the prevention and control of allergic diseases such as AD and food allergy (14, 16, 60–62).”

    From Particulate matter causes skin barrier dysfunction. (2021) · cites this paper as [62]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lowe, A. J., Su, J. C., Allen, K. J., Abramson, M. J., Cranswick, N., Robertson, C. F., Forster, D., Varigos, G., Hamilton, S., Kennedy, R., Axelrad, C., Tang, M. L. K., & Dharmage, S. C.
Affiliations
  • Royal Children's Hospital (AU)
  • Monash University (AU)
  • Royal Women's Hospital (AU)
Venue
British Journal of Dermatology
Published
2017-12
Volume
178
Issue
1
Pages
e19-e21
ISSN
  • 0007-0963 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2133
OpenAlex
W2643531449
Cited by
160
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 2
FWCI
21.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • British Journal of Dermatology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Financial Markets Foundation for Children
  • Asthma Foundation of Victoria
  • National Health and Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Dermatology › Dermatology and Skin Diseases
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › Neonatal skin health care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Dermatology › Contact Dermatitis and Allergies
Keywords
atopic dermatitis prevention, skin barrier function, allergen sensitization, transepidermal water loss, skin pH, sebum, skin hydration, family history of allergic disease
MeSH terms
Administration, Cutaneous, Allergens, Ceramides, Cholesterol, Dermatitis, Atopic, Drug Administration Schedule, Drug Combinations, Emollients, Fatty Acids, Food Hypersensitivity, Humans, Infant, Infant, Newborn, Pilot Projects, Single-Blind Method, Treatment Outcome

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review