Archive for April, 2008



The prevailing theory that chronic eczema is primarily an allergic disease has been challenged in recent years.

Genetic studies suggest that a defective, leaky skin barrier is the initial cause in up to half of eczema cases seen by doctors.

Topical drugs that reduce inflammation are still the mainstay of treating rashes, but new genetic findings highlight the importance of keeping the skin barrier intact by frequent use of moisturizers.

For millions of people who suffer from chronic eczema, life can become a hellish existence in which patches of dry skin become red and inflamed and constantly cry out: scratch me!

“It’s like having poison oak or poison ivy 24 hours a day, seven days a week, forever,” said Vicki Kalabokes, chief executive of the nonprofit National Eczema Association in San Rafael, Calif.

The best treatments, like prescription creams and ointments that tamp down inflammation, can provide some relief. Antihistamines may aid nighttime sleep, and a good skin-care routine of slathering on moisturizers and avoiding irritating soaps also helps. But for many patients who still scratch through the night and hide crusted, oozing infections under long sleeves and pants, the medical world has little more to offer.

That could change, thanks to recent research that has led to new thinking about why chronic eczema happens. In a sort of chicken-versus-egg turnabout, researchers have challenged the prevailing dogma that chronic eczema is mainly an allergic disease that leads to skin dryness and rashes. Instead, a growing number of experts believe that a structural defect of the skin is the primary culprit, instigating the immunologic problems seen in patients.

For decades, allergists embraced the idea that eczema arose from an immune overreaction inside the body, leading to inflammation and cracked, itchy skin. Skin cracking, in turn, let in more allergens, irritants and microbes that further fueled the cycle. The theory was supported by the observation that eczema sufferers show high blood levels of an immune defense protein called IgE and often develop immune-related ailments like asthma, food allergies and hay fever.

Many dermatologists, on the other hand, have argued that allergies do not cause chronic eczema. Over the last decade, some proposed that an intrinsic defect of the skin occurs first and then causes immunological weirdnesses. In other words, trouble develops from the outside in.

The major breakthrough came in 2006, when Irwin McLean, a geneticist at the University of Dundee in Scotland, and Dr. Alan Irvine, a pediatric dermatologist at Our Lady’s Hospital for Sick Children in Dublin, Ireland, reported that chronic eczema was rampant among families carrying a defective gene for filaggrin, a skin protein that serves as a natural moisturizer. Without it, the usually impervious barrier formed by the skin is compromised by cracking.

“Our work has really said, ‘Look, it’s not all just about the immune system,’ ” Dr. Irvine said.

The flawed gene fails to produce filaggrin, which normally pulls together protein filaments and flattens out dead cells to form the skin’s outermost layer. The molecule also holds water in, moisturizing the barrier.

About one-third to half of all children and adults with moderate to severe chronic eczema have a nonfunctioning filaggrin gene, Dr. Irvine said. Researchers have identified nearly 40 filaggrin mutations, including variations specific to Asian populations. And evidence suggests that the risk of childhood asthma is nearly doubled in those who inherit one of these mutations, but only after eczema arises first.

With a dry, filaggrin-deficient barrier, almost anything on the patient’s skin — dust mites, pollen, food proteins or bacteria — can easily get through, said Dr. Jon M. Hanifin, a dermatologist at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland who was not involved in the genetic work. The new thinking is that the foreign intrusions activate immune cells to respond and crank out IgE, causing the inflamed skin lesions. That process may also prime the immune system to overreact to specific allergens, leading eventually to asthma, hay fever and food allergies.

The genetic findings could help explain why chronic eczema has grown increasingly common in industrialized countries in the past two decades, Dr. Irvine said. Environmental factors like increases in pollutants or use of soaps, air conditioning and central heating may dry out or irritate a defective skin barrier.

But debate rages on over how much of eczema may still originate from allergic disease. It is unclear whether a leaky skin barrier is always the initial culprit. Many people who do not have a filaggrin mutation still get eczema, and eczema does not occur in everyone who carries the genetic defect, noted Dr. Donald Leung, an immunologist at the National Jewish Medical and Research Center in Denver.

While a genetic skin barrier defect is important, he said, the immune and environmental factors also play key contributing roles in this complex disease. Dr. Leung’s own research has revealed that inflammation itself can reduce filaggrin levels in the skin.

On the other hand, mutations in additional skin barrier genes may yet be discovered.

It may be possible to create eczema drugs enhancing filaggrin production. For now, the genetic studies magnify the need to protect the dry, damaged skin barrier — and keep out irritants and allergens — by hydrating it and keeping it intact. That means that along with using anti-inflammatory medications, it is crucial for eczema patients to follow the basic advice on moisturizing to prevent flare-ups, Dr. Hanifin said.

For infants, the research even raises the possibility of prevention.

“It points up to us that maybe we can reduce the impact of asthma and allergic rhinitis by treating the skin in kids with eczema early,” he said, “by moisturizing right from day one.”

source: click here



Researchers are reporting that they have developed a new way to help doctors and parents make some of the most agonizing decisions in medicine, about how much treatment to give tiny, extremely premature infants.

These are infants at the edge of viability, weighing less than 2.2 pounds and born after 22 to 25 weeks of pregnancy, far ahead of the normal 40 weeks. About 40,000 babies a year are born at this very early stage in the United States.

The new method uses an online calculator developed for such cases factoring in traits like birth weight and sex and generating statistics on chances of the baby’s survival and the likelihood of disabilities (www.nichd.nih.gov/neonatalestimates).

The statistics are not a personal prediction. They estimate risk based on data from similar infants in a large study being published on Thursday in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Certain factors gave babies an advantage. At any given gestational age, they were more likely to survive and escape serious disability if they weighed more than others, if they were singletons rather than twins or multiples or if their mothers had been given steroids before birth to help the fetal lungs to mature.

Girls also fared better than boys of the same age, a factor doctors have known a long time without being able to explain.

Any of those factors was about as good as being a week older, which makes an enormous difference in development from 22 to 25 weeks’ pregnancy, the researchers said. The finding means that a girl at 23 weeks could be as strong as a boy at 24.

“If you could take what the girls have and give it to the boys, we’d be one step ahead of the game,” said Dr. Rosemary D. Higgins, an author of the study and a program scientist at the Neonatal Research Network of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Although some extremely premature infants do well, many die, sometimes after weeks or months of painful invasive procedures in the intensive care unit. Survivors often suffer brain damage, behavior problems, vision and hearing loss and other disabilities.

Outcomes are nearly impossible to predict at birth. Doctors and parents struggle to decide when aggressive treatment seems reasonable — and when death or severe disability seems so likely, even with treatment, that it would be kinder to avoid painful procedures and provide just “comfort care,” letting nature take its course and letting the child die.

These decisions, made every day in hospitals around the country, are “heart wrenching and passionate,” Dr. Higgins said. “No one ever thinks they’re going to be in this situation, and it’s difficult, for families and also for physicians.”

Dr. Higgins said the study and the calculator were part of an effort to give doctors and parents more solid evidence to make decisions. She said people might be misled by occasional reports of tiny “miracle babies” who beat the odds and wrongly imagined high rates of survival and good health.

Dr. Higgins said she had no idea what overall effect the study and calculator might have on medical practice or whether they would lead to more or less treatment of extremely premature infants. Two families in the exact same situation could easily make opposite decisions about whether to pursue treatment.

Currently, decisions about using respirators, intravenous feeding and other forms of intensive care are mostly based on estimates of a baby’s gestational age — how far along the pregnancy was. Intensive care is often given to infants born in the 25th week, but not the 22nd. The hardest judgment calls are for babies in the 23rd and 24th weeks.

Plugging numbers into the calculator shows that two infants with the same gestational age, the usual criterion to decide treatment, can have quite different odds of survival and disability.

For instance, a 24-week-old two-pound male twin whose mother did not receive steroids has survival odds of 69 percent and a 50 percent chance of having a severe impairment. A female twin the same age and weight has survival odds of 86 percent and a 23 percent chance of severe impairment.

In theory, at least, the calculator would seem to favor treating girls, because, all else being equal, their odds for survival are better.

The study included 4,446 infants born at 22 to 25 weeks at 19 hospitals in the Neonatal Research Network; 744, generally the smallest and most premature, did not receive intensive care, and all died. The babies were assessed at birth, and the survivors were examined again shortly before turning 2.

Over all, half the infants died, half the survivors had neurological impairments, and half the impairments were severe.

Many survivors spent months in the hospital, at a typical cost of $3,400 a day. The researchers estimated that if all babies born at 22 to 23 weeks received intensive care, for every 100 infants treated there would be 1,749 extra hospital days and zero to nine additional survivors, with zero to three having no impairment.

Dr. Eric C. Eichenwald, medical director of the newborn center at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston, said that the study was important and that its most striking finding was how large the benefits of the various factors could be.

Dr. Eichenwald said the calculator was “a way in which we can provide more accurate information to the process of counseling parents as to what the burdens of intensive care might be.”

Dr. Nehal A. Parikh, another author of the study, from the University of Texas Medical School at Houston, said he thought the statistics would help doctors in advising families.

“We lay out the facts, rather than our own opinions,” Dr. Parikh said, “because we’re not the ones taking these babies home.”

source: click here