You are here

Article Text

Article menu
XML
Dermatology
Original research
Safety of topical corticosteroids in atopic eczema: an umbrella review
  1. Emma Axon1,
  2. Joanne R Chalmers1,
  3. Miriam Santer2,
  4. Matthew J Ridd3,
  5. Sandra Lawton4,
  6. Sinead M Langan5,
  7. Douglas J C Grindlay1,
  8. Ingrid Muller2,
  9. Amanda Roberts1,
  10. Amina Ahmed1,
  11. Hywel C Williams1,
  12. Kim S Thomas1
  1. 1Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
  2. 2Primary Care & Population Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, UK
  3. 3Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol Faculty of Health Sciences, Bristol, UK
  4. 4Dermatology Department, Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust, Rotherham, UK
  5. 5Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Emma Axon; emma.axon{at}nottingham.ac.uk

Abstract

Objective An umbrella review summarising all safety data from systematic reviews of topical corticosteroids (TCS) in adults and children with atopic eczema.

Methods Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology map of eczema systematic reviews were searched until 7 November 2018 and Epistemonikos until 2 March 2021. Reviews were included if they assessed the safety of TCS in atopic eczema and searched >1 database using a reproducible search strategy. Review quality was assessed using version 2 of 'A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews' (AMSTAR 2 tool).

Results 38 systematic reviews included, 34 low/critically low quality. Treatment and follow-up were usually short (2–4 weeks).

Key findings TCS versus emollient/vehicle: No meta-analyses identified for skin-thinning. Two 2-week randomised controlled trials (RCTs) found no significant increased risk with very potent TCS (0/196 TCS vs 0/33 vehicle in children and 6/109 TCS vs 2/50 vehicle, age unknown). Biochemical adrenal suppression (cortisol) was 3.8% (95% CI 2.4% to 5.8%) in a meta-analysis of 11 uncontrolled observational studies (any potency TCS, 522 children). Effects reversed when treatment ceased.

TCS versus topical calcineurin inhibitors: Meta-analysis showed higher relative risk of skin thinning with TCS (4.86, 95% CI 1.06 to 22.28, n=4128, four RCTs, including one 5-year RCT). Eight cases in 2068 participants, 7 using potent TCS. No evidence of growth suppression.

Once daily versus more frequent TCS: No meta-analyses identified. No skin-thinning in one RCT (3 weeks potent TCS, n=94) or biochemical adrenal suppression in two RCTs (up to 2 weeks very potent/moderate TCS, n=129).

TCS twice/week to prevent flares (‘weekend therapy’) versus vehicle: No meta-analyses identified. No evidence of skin thinning in five RCTs. One RCT found biochemical adrenal suppression (2/44 children, potent TCS).

Conclusions We found no evidence of harm when TCS were used intermittently ‘as required’ to treat flares or ‘weekend therapy’ to prevent flares. However, long-term safety data were limited.

PROSPERO registration number CRD42018079409.

  • eczema
  • paediatric dermatology
  • adult dermatology

Data availability statement

Data are available on reasonable request. All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as online supplemental information. For any further details email cebd@nottingham.ac.uk or emma.axon@nottingham.ac.uk

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-046476

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Strengths and limitations of this study

    • Robust Cochrane methodology was followed and a thorough and inclusive literature search was performed to ensure this was a comprehensive overview.

    • By extracting data from existing reviews, results are limited to topics for which there is an eligible systematic review.

    • Safety was usually reported in less detail than effectiveness in systematic reviews limiting the available data for extraction, therefore potentially missing data included in the original papers.

    • Most included reviews were rated low or critically low-quality using AMSTAR 2, and where quality of evidence assessments were reported for individual studies most indicated a high or unclear risk in at least one domain.

    • Many randomised controlled trials were only short in duration (2–4 weeks) limiting our ability to assess side effects that take longer to develop such as skin thinning.

    Introduction

    Atopic eczema (also known as atopic dermatitis or eczema) is an itchy inflammatory skin condition. It is most common in children with one in five affected worldwide,1 2 but often persists into adulthood.3

    Topical corticosteroids (TCSs) are first-line therapy for treating inflammatory eczema flares but widespread concerns regarding their safety among patients and healthcare professionals contribute to poor adherence, and subsequent worsening of disease control and quality of life.4 5 Safety concerns include skin thinning and retardation of growth and development. These concerns are thought to mainly originate from what is now considered to be inappropriate use, such as using potent TCS on the face or continual long-term use.6 Strategies recommended to minimise exposure to TCS, and hence the risk of adverse events, include reducing frequency of application to once daily during treatment of an inflammatory episode, or TCS used for two consecutive days a week (sometimes referred to as ‘weekend therapy’) as a strategy to prevent flares.7–9 This umbrella review aims to assess safety (local and systemic adverse events) of TCS compared with other topical treatments, placebo or no comparator in people of any age and gender with atopic eczema, and addressed two areas of research prioritised in the James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership for atopic eczema.10

    Methods

    Protocol, registration and study design

    This umbrella review includes published systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and/or observational studies reporting adverse event data in people with eczema using TCS. The aim of this overview was to summarise data from existing reviews, therefore, meta-analyses and data from individual studies were extracted and presented in this overview in the format and completeness that they were presented in the original systematic reviews. The only exception was for missing p values which were calculated where appropriate. The checklist ‘Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)’ was followed.11 ,12

    Search strategy

    Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Epistemonikos were searched from inception to 7 November 2018 by DJCG (information specialist), with no restrictions on language or publication date. The search strategy is in online supplemental appendix 1. The Epistemonikos search was updated on 2 March 2021, with a publication date restricted to 2018–2021. Epistemonikos is now well established as a comprehensive database of reviews that regularly searches ten major databases including the Cochrane Library, PubMed and Embase13 thus making the need to search these individual databases redundant. We also checked the Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology eczema map of systematic reviews,14 and searched PROSPERO up to 23 March 2021 for any relevant ongoing systematic reviews using the terms ‘eczema’ and ‘dermatitis’.

    Eligibility criteria

    We included systematic reviews that presented data on the safety of TCS used to treat people of any age and gender with atopic eczema, had clinical outcomes, searched at least one database and provided a reproducible search strategy. Systematic reviews of any types of clinical study design were included. Multiple reviews on the same topic were included, except for ‘abridged’ versions of the same review where no additional data were reported. To avoid duplication of data, for each comparison, the review that included the highest number of studies on that comparison and therefore appeared the most comprehensive was taken as the primary review and other included reviews were checked for additional studies and data. Conference abstracts were excluded. Reviews that covered multiple skin conditions were only included if they reported data on atopic eczema patients separately.

    Interventions and control

    Our intervention of interest was any TCS of any preparation and potency used to treat atopic eczema. For RCTs, the comparisons of interest were any other TCS, the same TCS used in a different way, another topical anti-inflammatory treatment, vehicle, no treatment or a combination of any of these. Comparisons with non-topical treatments were excluded as we were interested in clinical practice decisions regarding alternatives to TCS.

    Outcomes

    Safety outcomes reported during the treatment and follow-up were extracted where reported in the reviews on immediate cutaneous adverse events (eg, burning sensation/stinging), other cutaneous adverse events (eg, skin thinning, telangiectasia, skin infections, folliculitis), systemic adverse events (eg, effects on endocrine system, impact on growth) and rebound symptoms/steroid withdrawal.

    Selection of studies and data extraction

    Records identified from the database searches were uploaded into Covidence (Veritas Health Innovation, Australia).15 Two authors (EA and JRC) independently assessed the eligibility of each record, and where unclear the full text was obtained. The number of included and excluded records along with reasons for exclusion were reported in a PRISMA flow diagram.

    Two authors (EA and JRC) independently extracted all safety data presented in the included reviews along with other information such as review/participant characteristics, and funding sources. Any disagreements regarding eligibility or data extraction were resolved via discussion or input from a third reviewer (HCW or KST). Where available, we reported results separately for age, filaggrin mutation status, TCS potency, site of application of the TCS, and duration of continuous treatment.

    Assessment of quality of included systematic reviews

    As this was an overview of reviews, the methodological quality of the evidence was assessed at the systematic review level using version 2 of 'A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews' (AMSTAR 2 tool) and this was conducted in duplicate by EA and JRC.16 Reviews were considered critically low quality if there was more than one critical flaw. Data on the quality of individual studies (eg, risk of bias) and the quality of evidence (eg, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation, GRADE17) were also extracted where presented in the review, but undertaking these quality assessments for individual studies was not within the remit of this overview.

    Measures of treatment effect and data synthesis

    Where relevant meta-analyses were presented in the systematic review, the forest plots, relative risk (RR) and 95% CI were extracted. In the absence of any meta-analysis, adverse event data from individual studies were included in this overview based on the data presented in the published systematic review. P values were calculated using Review Manager software,18 with <0.05 indicating statistically significant results. Where meta-analyses were presented, we assessed the following subgroups where possible: age, TCS potency, anatomical site, treatment duration and genetic predisposition to a disrupted skin barrier (filaggrin status). TCS potency was determined using a hierarchy of sources: UK ‘British National Formulary’, WHO and USA classifications.19–21 A National Health Service classification ranging from very common (>1 in 10 people affected) to very rare (<1 in 10 000) was used to narratively describe the absolute risk of each adverse event.22

    Patient and public involvement

    People with eczema and parents of children with eczema were involved in the decision to conduct this overview and in the design. The James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership for atopic eczema involved people with eczema and parents of children with eczema in which two of the identified priority areas were around research into the safety of TCS.10 Two of the overview authors are patient representatives (AR and AA) and both have been involved in the design of this overview and interpretation of the findings.

    Wider patient and parent involvement has been particularly important in identifying important safety outcomes for this overview. We held a workshop involving five patient representatives in which the proposed overview was discussed which highlighted the need to seek out data on long-term TCS use, reversibility of any side effects and TCS withdrawal symptoms. We supplemented this with a survey about safety concerns with TCS at a National Eczema Society meeting of 31 people with eczema or parents of children with eczema and a published qualitative study of patient concerns relating to TCS safety.6

    Dissemination of the results is underway as part of the wider programme of research of which this overview is a part and our patient representatives are a key stakeholder in this activity.

    Results

    Search results

    After deduplication, 635 records were screened; 127 records underwent full-text screening and 38 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria (figure 1).7 8 23–56 The list of excluded reviews is in online supplemental appendix 2. The search of PROSPERO identified five ongoing systematic reviews (online supplemental appendix 3).57–61

    Figure 1
    Figure 1

    PRISMA flow diagram. PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.

    Characteristics and quality of the included systematic reviews

    All but three reviews were published in English. Two Chinese reviews and one German review were translated into English.32 36 45 Thirty of the included reviews were rated critically low quality according to AMSTAR 2; with four low, two moderate and two high quality (table 1). The most common reasons for downgrading were no protocol, no list of full-text exclusions or a literature search restricted to the English language.

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Characteristics of included systematic reviews

    The included reviews identified 106 studies (77 RCTs and 29 observational studies) that included relevant safety data. Risk of bias assessments were available from the reviews for 63 RCTs, of which 42 used the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Most of these assessments rated at least one domain as high or unclear risk, most noticeably selection bias from lack of allocation concealment, performance bias due to lack of blinding of participants and detection bias due to lack of blinding of outcome assessors. The trials included in the reviews usually evaluated use of short bursts of TCS (2–4 weeks) to treat the flare but varied greatly in length of follow-up. Around two-thirds of trials included no post-treatment follow-up, while the remainder included several weeks/months of follow-up generally using TCS intermittently ‘as required’. A total of 14 RCTs (5874 participants) and 5 cohort/observational studies (4 438 698 participants) out of a total of 106 studies included follow-up of more than 3 months. One notable trial (the ‘PETITE’ study) had 5 years follow-up with TCS used ‘as required’.62

    Characteristics and quality assessments of each systematic review are in table 1, with further detail in online supplemental appendices 4 and 5. Individual study data and quality assessments are in online supplemental appendix 6.

    Safety of TCS compared with other topical treatments or corticosteroids

    How safe are TCS compared with emollient or vehicle, or no comparison?

    Thirteen reviews provided data on this comparison: 1 high54, 2 low42 47 and 10 critically low quality.25 28 31 35–37 50 51 55 63 Key results can be found in table 2 and additional data in online supplemental appendix 6.

    View this table:
    Table 2

    Summary of main findings for key safety outcomes

    Reported rates of skin thinning in RCTs were generally very low, with no significant increases seen with TCS compared with emollient/vehicle. No skin thinning or telangiectasia was reported in an RCT, 196 participants aged ≥12 years old using very potent TCS twice a day for 2 weeks compared with 33 using vehicle.64 Another RCT reported skin thinning in 6/109 participants using very potent TCS for 2 weeks compared with 2/50 using vehicle, p=0.69.65

    No significant differences in other cutaneous adverse events, such as hypopigmentation, were observed between treatments in five RCTs, and event rates were low.66–70

    A meta-analysis55 of 11 uncontrolled observational studies (up to 4 weeks of treatment) reported biochemical adrenal suppression (cortisol levels) in 20/522 children (3.8%, 95% CI 2.4% to 5.8%) with any potency TCS.71–81 This was 2% (3/148 children) when only mild potency TCS were analysed.72 74 77 79 No clinical symptoms or signs of adrenal suppression were observed,71–81 and the biochemical effects were transient, with cortisol levels returning to normal after TCS were discontinued.71 75 77 78 81

    Two included reviews assessed TCS withdrawal symptoms, mostly from case reports, but no incidence data were reported.41 44

    How safe are TCS compared with topical calcineurin inhibitors?

    Eight systematic reviews were identified: one moderate23, one low48 and six critically low quality.27 30 43 50 52 82 Most RCTs used twice daily TCS to treat the current flare (up to 3 weeks), and where longer-term follow-up was included, TCSs were used ‘as required’ to treat flares. Key results can be found in table 2 and additional data in online supplemental appendix 6.

    Meta-analyses of cutaneous adverse events were presented in two reviews.27 82 So the more comprehensive review was used to extract the cutaneous adverse event data.27 Some minor modifications were made to the data for this overview shown in online supplemental appendix 7. A meta-analysis of four RCTs (26 weeks to 5 years duration, twice a day or ‘as directed’) showed a significant increase in the RR of skin thinning with TCS compared with topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCIs) (0.1% tacrolimus or 1% pimecrolimus) (RR 4.86, 95% CI 1.06 to 22.28, p=0.04, n=4128). However, skin thinning was uncommon: 8/2068 participants (0.4%) with TCS vs 0/2060 (0%) with TCIs. Of the eight cases of skin thinning, seven were reported when using potent TCS and one using mild/moderate TCS.62 83–85

    The RR of skin burning and pruritus (itching) was significantly lower with TCS compared with TCIs (1% pimecrolimus or 0.1 % / 0.03% tacrolimus) in meta-analyses of 10 RCTs in 4211 participants (skin burning: RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.40, p<0.00001; pruritus: RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.82, p<0.0001).83 85–93 The GRADE assessments for these two adverse events indicated these were of moderate quality.82 There was no significant difference in skin infections with potent, moderate or mild potency TCS compared with TCIs (1% pimecrolimus or 0.1 %/0.03% tacrolimus)62 83–86 88 90 92 or erythema compared with 0.1% tacrolimus (online supplemental appendix 8).91 92

    Subgroup analyses of age, TCS potency and specific TCI showed no significant differences for any comparison (online supplemental appendix 9). We were unable to undertake any further subgroup analyses.

    No differences in growth were observed in one 5-year RCT (‘PETITE’ study) in 2418 young children using moderate/mild potency TCS compared with those using TCI (1% pimecrolimus) (rates not given) and no cases of lymphoma were reported.62 A large cohort study (n=1 438 333) showed a small non-significant increased risk of lymphoma with TCI and TCS compared with the general population, with a similar risk between treatments.94 In addition, one case–control study (294 cases/293 000 controls) found no increased risk of lymphoma with TCS or TCI compared with controls.95

    Is there any difference in safety of TCS of different potencies?

    Six reviews compared the safety of different potency TCS: two low,42 47 and four critically low quality.28 34 50 53 RCTs were mainly short-term use of TCS (2–3 weeks), used once or twice daily. Results can be found in online supplemental appendix 6.

    One RCT reported mild skin thinning in 4/13 children using potent TCS for up to 6 weeks compared with 2/12 using mild TCS (p=0.42),96 while another RCT in 37 children found no evidence of skin thinning with mild or moderate potency TCS for 3 weeks.97 One study compared 3 weeks of potent and moderate TCS in 40 children and reported ‘some’ biochemical adrenal suppression (cortisol levels) but no numerical data were provided.98

    How safe are TCS compared with topically applied Chinese herbal medicine?

    Two systematic reviews provided data on TCS compared with topical Chinese herbal medicine: one high quality40 and one critically low.39 Results can be found in online supplemental appendix 6.

    A meta-analysis of two RCTs99 100 was presented in two systematic reviews.39 40 More cutaneous adverse events, including application site burning, were observed with 2 weeks of very potent/potent TCS compared with topical Chinese herbal medicine (RR 12.03, 95% CI 1.59 to 91.26, p=0.02; 11/147 vs 0/148 participants). One additional RCT, including 95 young children, reported minor adverse events such as burning with 2 weeks of potent TCS but no numerical data were presented.101

    Safety of different strategies for using TCS

    How safe are once daily TCS compared with more frequent application?

    Two low-quality reviews provided safety data relating to different frequency of application.7 47 Key results can be found in table 2 and additional data in online supplemental appendix 6.

    No skin thinning was reported with once or twice daily application of potent TCS for 3 weeks in one RCT (94 adults).102 Four RCTs in 740 older children/adults showed no significant difference between once and twice daily application of moderate/potent TCS in other cutaneous adverse events including telangiectasia,103 104 folliculitis105 and burning, itching or stinging.105 106 Two RCTs showed no significant differences in biochemical adrenal suppression (cortisol levels) between once and twice daily very potent/moderate TCS used for up to 2 weeks in 129 children.81 107

    How safe are TCS when used proactively to prevent flares (‘weekend therapy’)?

    Two reviews included data on the safety of TCS used proactively 2 days a week (‘weekend therapy’) to prevent flares, both critically low quality.8 53 Key results can be found in table 2 and additional data in online supplemental appendix 6.

    There was no evidence of skin thinning in five RCTs comparing 16–20 weeks of weekend therapy with potent TCS versus vehicle in 993 participants.103 108–111 Furthermore, two RCTs (n=423) reported no significant differences in other cutaneous adverse events, including folliculitis and transient telangiectasia, with potent TCS compared with vehicle.108 109 Events were uncommon in both groups.

    There was no evidence of biochemical adrenal suppression (cortisol levels) in two RCTs (n=129) between potent TCS and vehicle used for 16 weeks.108 111 In a 20-week RCT, 2/44 children had possible adrenal suppression with potent TCS compared with zero with vehicle.109

    How safe are TCS used under occlusion?

    Four reviews included data on the safety of TCS used under occlusion: one high54, and three critically low quality.26 32 38 Results can be found in online supplemental appendix 6.

    There were no cases of skin thinning and one case of striae in two uncontrolled observational studies of a diluted potent TCS used under wet-wrap for 1–2 weeks in 44 young children.112 113 A significant difference in the rate of folliculitis (mostly mild) was observed in one RCT of TCS under wet-wrap for 4 weeks, with more folliculitis in the diluted potent TCS group (10/19 children) compared with emollient (2/20 children) (p=0.02).114 A meta-analysis from one review38 of two RCTs in young children showed no significant difference in the number of participants with cutaneous adverse events between mild potency TCS under wet wrap (7/38 participants) versus not under wet-wrap (0/31 participants) (p=0.08)115 116; this evidence was rated low quality by the systematic review authors using GRADE.17

    Biochemical adrenal suppression (cortisol levels) was reported in three uncontrolled observational studies of 2–14 days of diluted potent TCS under wet-wraps in 74 children.112 113 117 Actual rates were not specified in the review, but increases were described as transient in two studies.112 117 One short-term uncontrolled observational study of diluted potent TCS under wet-wrap in eight children showed no effect on growth or bone turnover.118

    Discussion

    This comprehensive overview of systematic reviews which, for the first time, brings together all safety data from systematic reviews on TCS used in eczema from 38 systematic reviews, a topic that was identified as a priority in a James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership on eczema. Skin thinning and effects on growth concern many people with eczema and parents of children with eczema when using TCS. However, we found no evidence of skin thinning when TCS were used intermittently ‘as required’ to treat flares or as ‘weekend therapy’ to prevent flares, although the majority of data was from short-term studies.5 Similarly, we found no evidence of growth retardation or clinically significant adrenal suppression but the only data available was from one 5-year study that included 1213 children using TCS.62 Other studies only reported biochemical signs of adrenal suppression. Adherence to TCS treatment is known to be poor and these findings, particularly around skin thinning, may encourage appropriate use of TCS and therefore improve treatment effectiveness and patient benefit.119

    A thorough literature search was conducted and Cochrane methodology was used. Conclusions were limited by the content of the included reviews because safety was frequently reported in less detail than effectiveness, reviews reported on different adverse events and some adverse events were not described in the reviews. It is not clear whether this is because the trials did not report adverse events in sufficient detail or whether the review authors did not include all the available safety data, perhaps only focusing on a restricted group of adverse events. None of the included systematic reviews presented data on our prespecified subgroup analyses. Furthermore, most of the included reviews were rated low or critically low-quality using AMSTAR 2. The lack of comprehensive search strategies and duplicate screening/data extraction in the included reviews may have resulted in missing studies and safety data, which could have impacted on this overview particularly where there was limited data. In addition, where the quality of evidence assessments (eg, GRADE) were reported in the reviews, most individual studies included in the reviews indicated a high or unclear risk in at least one domain.

    Many RCTs did not include follow-up beyond 2–4 weeks of treatment and therefore data on long-term safety are limited. Although short-term TCS use reflects appropriate treatment duration for treating an individual flare, it does not reflect the chronic nature of eczema and the need for TCS use over the long-term. The ‘PETITE study’ was the notable exception and data published in the correspondence showed there was only one episode of skin thinning in 1213 children using mild/moderate TCS ‘as required’ with 5-year follow-up.62 Trials using intermittent TCS as ‘weekend therapy’ to prevent flares also provide reassurance for the safety of longer-term use of TCS, as these trials generally included 16–20 weeks of follow-up to assess the prevention of flares. The inclusion of systematic reviews that included observational studies as well as reviews of RCTs also increased the amount of safety data available to report in this overview.

    Although this review focused on the safety of TCS as the key issue for patients, treatment decisions are a balance of benefits and harms. For example, although the safety profile of Chinese herbal medicine was better than TCS, in practice this would be considered alongside the relative effectiveness of these treatments. Likewise, although there was no difference in the safety of once vs twice daily TCS, effectiveness of these regimens is also important to consider. A Cochrane review is underway comparing the effectiveness and safety of different ways of using TCS.120

    In summary, we found no evidence that TCS cause harm when used intermittently ‘as required’ to treatment eczema flares or as ‘weekend therapy’ to prevent flares and this should support the use of TCS in the management of eczema. We found that the adverse events of greatest concern to patients and clinicians, such as skin thinning, are uncommon with short-term use of TCS. However, high-quality evidence was limited, particularly for long-term use. Rather than follow-up of perhaps just a few weeks, future RCTs should include lengthier follow-up to enable better safety assessment. However, it should be noted that longer-term prospect observational studies are better placed to explore longer-term safety of TCS and should be designed with years rather than months of follow-up to add useful information to the field. Perhaps equally as important as duration of follow-up in trials is resolution of adverse events which is often not reported. For adverse events such as biochemical signs of adrenal suppression, it is crucial to know if the effect is transient and levels return to normal once the TCS is stopped, particularly as it is not clear how to interpret the clinical relevance of these.

    Data availability statement

    Data are available on reasonable request. All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as online supplemental information. For any further details email cebd@nottingham.ac.uk or emma.axon@nottingham.ac.uk

    Ethics statements

    Acknowledgments

    We would like to thank Faye Shelton for her assistance with the screening of the search results and to Jane Harvey for her input into classifying the TCS potencies. We would also like to thank Chiau Ming Long for translating two of the included reviews published in Chinese, and to Jonathan Batchelor for confirming exclusion of two reviews published in Japanese.

    References

    1. ↵
      1. Odhiambo JA,
      2. Williams HC,
      3. Clayton TO, et al
      . Global variations in prevalence of eczema symptoms in children from Isaac phase three. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2009;124:1251–8.doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2009.10.009pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20004783
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    2. ↵
      1. Weidinger S,
      2. Novak N
      . Atopic dermatitis. Lancet 2016;387:1109–22.doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00149-Xpmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26377142
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    3. ↵
      1. Abuabara K,
      2. Yu AM,
      3. Okhovat J-P, et al
      . The prevalence of atopic dermatitis beyond childhood: a systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Allergy 2018;73:696–704.doi:10.1111/all.13320pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28960336
      OpenUrlPubMed
    4. ↵
      1. Aubert-Wastiaux H,
      2. Moret L,
      3. Le Rhun A, et al
      . Topical corticosteroid phobia in atopic dermatitis: a study of its nature, origins and frequency. Br J Dermatol 2011;165:808–14.doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.2011.10449.xpmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21671892
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    5. ↵
      1. Charman CR,
      2. Morris AD,
      3. Williams HC
      . Topical corticosteroid phobia in patients with atopic eczema. Br J Dermatol 2000;142:931–6.doi:10.1046/j.1365-2133.2000.03473.xpmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10809850
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    6. ↵
      1. Li AW,
      2. Yin ES,
      3. Antaya RJ
      . Topical corticosteroid phobia in atopic dermatitis: a systematic review. JAMA Dermatol 2017;153:1036–42.doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2017.2437pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28724128
      OpenUrlPubMed
    7. ↵
      1. Green C,
      2. Colquitt JL,
      3. Kirby J, et al
      . Clinical and cost-effectiveness of once-daily versus more frequent use of same potency topical corticosteroids for atopic eczema: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2004;8:iii–iv.doi:10.3310/hta8470pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15527669
      OpenUrlPubMed
    8. ↵
      1. Schmitt J,
      2. von Kobyletzki L,
      3. Svensson A, et al
      . Efficacy and tolerability of proactive treatment with topical corticosteroids and calcineurin inhibitors for atopic eczema: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Br J Dermatol 2011;164:415–28.doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.2010.10030.xpmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20819086
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    9. ↵
      1. Williams HC
      . Established corticosteroid creams should be applied only once daily in patients with atopic eczema. BMJ 2007;334:1272.doi:10.1136/bmj.39195.636319.80pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17569936
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    10. ↵
      1. Batchelor JM,
      2. Ridd MJ,
      3. Clarke T, et al
      . The eczema priority setting partnership: a collaboration between patients, carers, clinicians and researchers to identify and prioritize important research questions for the treatment of eczema. Br J Dermatol 2013;168:577–82.doi:10.1111/bjd.12040pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22963149
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    11. ↵
      1. Bougioukas KI,
      2. Liakos A,
      3. Tsapas A,
      4. Ntzani E, et al
      . Preferred reporting items for overviews of systematic reviews including harms checklist: a pilot tool to be used for balanced reporting of benefits and harms. J Clin Epidemiol 2018;93:9–24.doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.10.002pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29037888
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    12. ↵
      1. Mead E,
      2. Chalmers J,
      3. Thomas K
      . The safety of topical corticosteroids in atopic eczema: an overview of systematic reviews [CRD42018079409], 2017. Available: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=79409 [Accessed 13 Jul 2018].
    13. ↵
      1. Rada G,
      2. Pérez D,
      3. Araya-Quintanilla F, et al
      . Epistemonikos: a comprehensive database of systematic reviews for health decision-making. BMC Med Res Methodol 2020;20:286. doi:10.1186/s12874-020-01157-xpmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33256642
      OpenUrlPubMed
    14. ↵
      1. Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology
      . Systematic reviews on eczema: University of Nottingham, 2018. Available: https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/research/groups/cebd/resources/eczema-systematic-reviews.aspx [Accessed 07 Nov 2018].
    15. ↵
      Covidence systematic review software. Melbourne, Australia: veritas health innovation, 2017. Available: www.covidence.org;
    16. ↵
      1. Shea BJ,
      2. Reeves BC,
      3. Wells G, et al
      . AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ 2017;358:j4008.doi:10.1136/bmj.j4008pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28935701
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    17. ↵
      1. Schünemann HBJ,
      2. Oxman A
      . Handbook for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations using the grade approach (updated October 2013). grade Working group, 2013: the grade Working group, 2013. www.guidelinedevelopment.org/handbook
    18. ↵
      1. The Cochrane Collaboration
      . Review manager 5 (RevMan 5). Copenhagen: Nordic Cochrane Centre, 2014.
    19. ↵
      1. Resource clinical
      . Potency of topical corticosteroids (UK classification), 2015. Available: http://www.resourceclinical.com/clinical-tables/topical-corticosteroids-potency-UK-classification.html
    20. ↵
      1. Resource clinical
      . Potency of topical corticosteroids (USA classification), 2015. Available: http://www.resourceclinical.com/clinical-tables/topical-corticosteroids-potency-USA-classification.pdf
    21. ↵
      1. World Health Organization (WHO)
      . Who model prescribing information: drugs used in skin diseases. classification of topical corticosteroids, 2017. Available: http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/en/d/Jh2918e/32.html
    22. ↵
    23. ↵
      1. Ashcroft DM,
      2. Chen L-C,
      3. Garside R
      . Topical pimecrolimus for eczema. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007:CD005500.
    24. ↵
      1. Ashcroft DM,
      2. Dimmock P,
      3. Garside R, et al
      . Efficacy and tolerability of topical pimecrolimus and tacrolimus in the treatment of atopic dermatitis: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2005;330:516–22.doi:10.1136/bmj.38376.439653.D3pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15731121
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    25. ↵
      1. Barnes L,
      2. Kaya G,
      3. Rollason V
      . Topical corticosteroid-induced skin atrophy: a comprehensive review. Drug Saf 2015;38:493–509.doi:10.1007/s40264-015-0287-7pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25862024
      OpenUrlPubMed
    26. ↵
      1. Braham SJ,
      2. Pugashetti R,
      3. Koo J, et al
      . Occlusive therapy in atopic dermatitis: overview. J Dermatolog Treat 2010;21:62–72.doi:10.3109/09546630902911854pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19444691
      OpenUrlPubMed
    27. ↵
      1. Broeders JA,
      2. Ahmed Ali U,
      3. Fischer G
      . Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing topical calcineurin inhibitors with topical corticosteroids for atopic dermatitis: a 15-year experience. J Am Acad Dermatol 2016;75:410–9.doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2016.02.1228
      OpenUrlPubMed
    28. ↵
      1. Callen J,
      2. Chamlin S,
      3. Eichenfield LF, et al
      . A systematic review of the safety of topical therapies for atopic dermatitis. Br J Dermatol 2007;156:203–21.doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.2006.07538.xpmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17223859
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    29. ↵
      1. Chen S-L,
      2. Yan J,
      3. Wang F-S
      . Two topical calcineurin inhibitors for the treatment of atopic dermatitis in pediatric patients: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. J Dermatolog Treat 2010;21:144–56.doi:10.3109/09546630903401470pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20394490
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    30. ↵
      1. Cury Martins J,
      2. Martins C,
      3. Aoki V, et al
      . Topical tacrolimus for atopic dermatitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015:CD009864.doi:10.1002/14651858.CD009864.pub2pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26132597
    31. ↵
      1. de Tiedra A,
      2. Mercadal J,
      3. Lozano R
      . Prednicarbate versus fluocortin for inflammatory dermatoses. A cost-effectiveness study. Pharmacoeconomics 1997;12:193–208.doi:10.2165/00019053-199712020-00009pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10169671
      OpenUrlPubMed
    32. ↵
      1. Devillers ACA,
      2. Oranje AP
      . Efficacy and safety of 'wet-wrap' dressings as an intervention treatment in children with severe and/or refractory atopic dermatitis: a critical review of the literature. Br J Dermatol 2006;154:579–85.doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.2006.07157.xpmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16536797
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    33. ↵
      1. Dong Y,
      2. Zeng W,
      3. Li W
      . Efficacy and safety of topical tacrolimus for childhood atopic dermatitis; a meta-analysis. J Clin Dermatol 2017;46:239–42.
      OpenUrl
    34. ↵
      1. Eichenfield LF,
      2. Tom WL,
      3. Berger TG, et al
      . Guidelines of care for the management of atopic dermatitis: section 2. management and treatment of atopic dermatitis with topical therapies. J Am Acad Dermatol 2014;71:116–32.doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2014.03.023pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24813302
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    35. ↵
      1. Feldman SR
      . Relative efficacy and interchangeability ofvarious clobetasol propionate vehicles in the management of steroid-responsive dermatoses. Curr Ther Res Clin Exp 2005;66:154–71.doi:10.1016/j.curtheres.2005.06.010pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24672120
      OpenUrlPubMed
    36. ↵
      1. Frangos JE,
      2. Kimball AB
      . Clobetasol propionate emollient formulation foam in the treatment of corticosteroid-responsive dermatoses. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2008;9:2001–7.doi:10.1517/14656566.9.11.2001pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18627337
      OpenUrlPubMed
    37. ↵
      1. Froeschl B,
      2. Arts D,
      3. Leopold C
      . Corticosteroid therapy in the treatment of pediatric patients with atopic dermatitis (structured Abstract). Health Technol Assess 2007 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clhta/articles/HTA-32008100208/frame.html
    38. ↵
      1. González-López G,
      2. Ceballos-Rodríguez RM,
      3. González-López JJ, et al
      . Efficacy and safety of wet wrap therapy for patients with atopic dermatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Dermatol 2017;177:688–95.doi:10.1111/bjd.15165pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27861727
      OpenUrlPubMed
    39. ↵
      1. Gu S,
      2. Yang AW,
      3. Li CG, et al
      . Topical application of Chinese herbal medicine for atopic eczema: a systematic review with a meta-analysis. Dermatology 2014;228:294–302.doi:10.1159/000360526pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24821063
      OpenUrlPubMed
    40. ↵
      1. Gu S,
      2. Yang AWH,
      3. Xue CCL, et al
      . Chinese herbal medicine for atopic eczema. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013:CD008642. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD008642.pub2pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24018636
    41. ↵
      1. Hajar T,
      2. Leshem YA,
      3. Hanifin JM, et al
      . A systematic review of topical corticosteroid withdrawal ("steroid addiction") in patients with atopic dermatitis and other dermatoses. J Am Acad Dermatol 2015;72:541–9.doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2014.11.024pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25592622
      OpenUrlPubMed
    42. ↵
      1. Hoare C,
      2. Li Wan Po A,
      3. Williams H
      . Systematic review of treatments for atopic eczema. Health Technol Assess 2000;4:1–191.doi:10.3310/hta4370pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11134919
      OpenUrlPubMed
    43. ↵
      1. Iskedjian M,
      2. Piwko C,
      3. Shear NH, et al
      . Topical calcineurin inhibitors in the treatment of atopic dermatitis: a meta-analysis of current evidence. Am J Clin Dermatol 2004;5:267–79.doi:10.2165/00128071-200405040-00006pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15301573
      OpenUrlPubMed
    44. ↵
      1. Juhász MLW,
      2. Curley RA,
      3. Rasmussen A, et al
      . Systematic review of the topical steroid addiction and topical steroid withdrawal phenomenon in children diagnosed with atopic dermatitis and treated with topical corticosteroids. J Dermatol Nurses Assoc 2017;9:233–40.doi:10.1097/JDN.0000000000000331
      OpenUrl
    45. ↵
      1. Legendre L,
      2. Barnetche T,
      3. Mazereeuw-Hautier J, et al
      . Risk of lymphoma in patients with atopic dermatitis and the role of topical treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Acad Dermatol 2015;72:992–1002.doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2015.02.1116pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25840730
      OpenUrlPubMed
    46. ↵
      1. Li R,
      2. Zhu H,
      3. Fan L
      . Efficacy and tolerability of topical tacrolimus in the treatment of atopic dermatitis: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Dermatol 2007;36:757–60.
      OpenUrl
    47. ↵
      1. Nankervis H,
      2. Thomas KS,
      3. Delamere FM, et al
      . Scoping systematic review of treatments for eczema. Programme Grants Appl Res 2016;4:1–480.doi:10.3310/pgfar04070
      OpenUrl
    48. ↵
      1. Burls A,
      2. Knight T,
      3. Penaloza Hidalgo B, et al
      . A systematic review of effectiveness and cost effectiveness of tacrolimus ointment for topical treatment of atopic dermatitis in adults and children, 2004: 81.
    49. ↵
      1. Sidbury R,
      2. Tom WL,
      3. Bergman JN, et al
      . Guidelines of care for the management of atopic dermatitis: section 4. prevention of disease flares and use of adjunctive therapies and approaches. J Am Acad Dermatol 2014;71:1218–33.doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2014.08.038pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25264237
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    50. ↵
      1. Siegfried EC,
      2. Jaworski JC,
      3. Kaiser JD, et al
      . Systematic review of published trials: long-term safety of topical corticosteroids and topical calcineurin inhibitors in pediatric patients with atopic dermatitis. BMC Pediatr 2016;16.doi:10.1186/s12887-016-0607-9
    51. ↵
      1. Singh S,
      2. Mann BK
      . Clinical utility of clocortolone pivalate for the treatment of corticosteroid-responsive skin disorders: a systematic review. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol 2012;5:61–8.doi:10.2147/CCID.S23227pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22791998
      OpenUrlPubMed
    52. ↵
      1. Svensson A,
      2. Chambers C,
      3. Gånemo A, et al
      . A systematic review of tacrolimus ointment compared with corticosteroids in the treatment of atopic dermatitis. Curr Med Res Opin 2011;27:1395–406.doi:10.1185/03007995.2011.582483pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21563877
      OpenUrlPubMed
    53. ↵
      1. Tang TS,
      2. Bieber T,
      3. Williams HC
      . Are the concepts of induction of remission and treatment of subclinical inflammation in atopic dermatitis clinically useful? J Allergy Clin Immunol 2014;133:1615–25.doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2013.12.1079pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24655575
      OpenUrlPubMed
    54. ↵
      1. van Zuuren EJ,
      2. Fedorowicz Z,
      3. Christensen R, et al
      . Emollients and moisturisers for eczema. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;2:CD012119.doi:10.1002/14651858.CD012119.pub2pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28166390
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    55. ↵
      1. Wood Heickman LK,
      2. Davallow Ghajar L,
      3. Conaway M, et al
      . Evaluation of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis suppression following cutaneous use of topical corticosteroids in children: a meta-analysis. Horm Res Paediatr 2018;89:389–96.doi:10.1159/000489125pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29898449
      OpenUrlPubMed
    56. ↵
      1. Yan J,
      2. Chen S-L,
      3. Wang X-L, et al
      . Meta-Analysis of tacrolimus ointment for atopic dermatitis in pediatric patients. Pediatr Dermatol 2008;25:117–20.doi:10.1111/j.1525-1470.2007.00600.xpmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18304172
      OpenUrlPubMed
    57. ↵
      et alRuirui L, Jing G, Dingxi B. A network meta-analysis of five categories of external therapy of traditional Chinese for common diseases of dermatology [CRD42021230047], 2021. Available: www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=230047 [Accessed 27 Mar 2021].
    58. ↵
      1. Lee K
      . Efficacy of Non-Steroidal Topical Therapies for Atopic Dermatitis: A Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis [CRD42020161558], 2020. Available: www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=161558 [Accessed 27 Mar 2021].
    59. ↵
      1. Lam M,
      2. Zhu J,
      3. Tadrous M
      . The association between topical calcineurin inhibitor use and risk of cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis [CRD42020190452], 2020. Available: www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=190452 [Accessed 27 Mar 2021].
    60. ↵
      1. Tan Q,
      2. Tan C,
      3. Peng W
      . Effects of emollients in the management of atopic dermatitis in pediatric patients a systemic review and meta-analysis [CRD42015016525], 2015. Available: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42015016525 [Accessed 27 Mar 2021].
    61. ↵
      1. Yu A,
      2. Hong J,
      3. Lee M
      . Interventions to improve quality of life in paediatric atopic dermatitis: a systematic review [CRD42015027873], 2015. Available: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42015027873 [Accessed 27 Mar 2021].
    62. ↵
      1. Sigurgeirsson B,
      2. Boznanski A,
      3. Todd G, et al
      . Safety and efficacy of pimecrolimus in atopic dermatitis: a 5-year randomized trial. Pediatrics 2015;135:597–606.doi:10.1542/peds.2014-1990pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25802354
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    63. ↵
      1. Fishbein AB,
      2. Mueller K,
      3. Lor J, et al
      . Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing topical corticosteroids with Vehicle/Moisturizer in childhood atopic dermatitis. J Pediatr Nurs 2019;47:36–43.doi:10.1016/j.pedn.2019.03.018pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31026679
      OpenUrlPubMed
    64. ↵
      1. Breneman D,
      2. Fleischer A,
      3. ea FV
      , eds. Clobetasol propionate 0.05% is equivalent as lotion or emollient cream in atopic dermatitis. Presented at the World Congress of Dermatology, 2002; and the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, 2003, 2003.
    65. ↵
      1. Del Rosso JQ,
      2. Bhambri S
      . Daily application of fluocinonide 0.1% cream for the treatment of atopic dermatitis. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol 2009;2:24–32.pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20729956
      OpenUrlPubMed
    66. ↵
      1. Binder R
      . Clinical study of clocortolone pivalate in the treatment of eczema/atopic dermatitis. Curr Ther Res Clin Exp 1977;21:796–801.
      OpenUrl
    67. ↵
      1. Griffiths CEM,
      2. Van Leent EJM,
      3. Gilbert M, et al
      . Randomized comparison of the type 4 phosphodiesterase inhibitor cipamfylline cream, cream vehicle and hydrocortisone 17-butyrate cream for the treatment of atopic dermatitis. Br J Dermatol 2002;147:299–307.doi:10.1046/j.1365-2133.2002.04894.x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    68. ↵
      1. Paller AS,
      2. Nimmagadda S,
      3. Schachner L, et al
      . Fluocinolone acetonide 0.01% in peanut oil: therapy for childhood atopic dermatitis, even in patients who are peanut sensitive. J Am Acad Dermatol 2003;48:569–77.doi:10.1067/mjd.2003.174pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12664021
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    69. ↵
      1. Pellanda C,
      2. Weber M,
      3. Bircher A, et al
      . Low-Dose triamcinolone acetonide in the phytocosmetic lichtena reduces inflammation in mild to moderate atopic dermatitis. Dermatology 2005;211:338–40.doi:10.1159/000088504pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16286743
      OpenUrlPubMed
    70. ↵
      1. Dölle S,
      2. Hoser D,
      3. Rasche C, et al
      . Long-Term reduction in local inflammation by a lipid raft molecule in atopic dermatitis. Allergy 2010;65:1158–65.doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2010.02341.xpmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20337610
      OpenUrlPubMed
    71. ↵
      1. Abramovits W,
      2. Oquendo M
      . Hydrocortisone butyrate 0.1% cream (proprietary lipid rich cream vehicle) does not significantly suppress hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis and is effective in pediatric patients 3 months and older with extensive atopic dermatitis. Skinmed 2010;8:150–4.pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21137620
      OpenUrlPubMed
    72. ↵
      1. Dohil MA,
      2. Alvarez-Connelly E,
      3. Eichenfield LF
      . Fluocinolone acetonide 0.01% in peanut oil: safety and efficacy data in the treatment of childhood atopic dermatitis in infants as young as 3 months of age. Pediatr Dermatol 2009;26:262–8.doi:10.1111/j.1525-1470.2008.00856.xpmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19706085
      OpenUrlPubMed
    73. ↵
      1. Eichenfield L,
      2. Ellis CN,
      3. Fivenson D, et al
      . Evaluation of adrenal suppression of a lipid enhanced, topical emollient cream formulation of hydrocortisone butyrate 0.1% in treating children with atopic dermatitis. Pediatr Dermatol 2007;24:81–4.doi:10.1111/j.1525-1470.2007.00342.xpmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17300659
      OpenUrlPubMed
    74. ↵
      1. Eichenfield LF,
      2. Basu S,
      3. Calvarese B, et al
      . Effect of desonide hydrogel 0.05% on the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis in pediatric subjects with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. Pediatr Dermatol 2007;24:289–95.doi:10.1111/j.1525-1470.2007.00405.xpmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17542883
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    75. ↵
      1. Friedlander SF,
      2. Hebert AA,
      3. Allen DB, et al
      . Safety of fluticasone propionate cream 0.05% for the treatment of severe and extensive atopic dermatitis in children as young as 3 months. J Am Acad Dermatol 2002;46:387–93.doi:10.1067/mjd.2002.118337pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11862174
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    76. ↵
      1. Hebert AA,
      2. Friedlander SF,
      3. Allen DB
      . Topical fluticasone propionate lotion does not cause HPA axis suppression. J Pediatr 2006;149:378–82.doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2006.05.008pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16939752
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    77. ↵
      1. Hebert AA
      . Desonide foam 0.05%: Safety in children as young as 3 months. J Am Acad Dermatol 2008;59:334–40.doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2008.04.019
      OpenUrlPubMed
    78. ↵
      1. Kimball AB,
      2. Gold MH,
      3. Zib B, et al
      . Clobetasol propionate emulsion formulation foam 0.05%: review of phase II open-label and phase III randomized controlled trials in steroid-responsive dermatoses in adults and adolescents. J Am Acad Dermatol 2008;59:448–54.doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2008.04.020pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18539358
      OpenUrlPubMed
    79. ↵
      1. Lucky AW,
      2. Grote GD,
      3. Williams JL, et al
      . Effect of desonide ointment, 0.05%, on the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis of children with atopic dermatitis. Cutis 1997;59:151–3.pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9071556
      OpenUrlPubMed
    80. ↵
      1. Moshang T
      . Prednicarbate emollient cream 0.1% in pediatric patients with atopic dermatitis. Cutis 2001;68:63–9.pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11480151
      OpenUrlPubMed
    81. ↵
      1. Schlessinger J,
      2. Miller B,
      3. Gilbert RD, et al
      . An open-label adrenal suppression study of 0.1% fluocinonide cream in pediatric patients with atopic dermatitis. Arch Dermatol 2006;142:1568–72.doi:10.1001/archderm.142.12.1568pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17178982
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    82. ↵
      1. Abędź N,
      2. Pawliczak R
      . Efficacy and safety of topical calcineurin inhibitors for the treatment of atopic dermatitis: meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Postepy Dermatol Alergol 2019;36:752–9.doi:10.5114/ada.2019.91425pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31998006
      OpenUrlPubMed
    83. ↵
      1. Luger TA,
      2. Lahfa M,
      3. Fölster-Holst R, et al
      . Long-term safety and tolerability of pimecrolimus cream 1% and topical corticosteroids in adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. J Dermatolog Treat 2004;15:169–78.doi:10.1080/09546630410033781pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15204150
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    84. ↵
      1. Mandelin J,
      2. Remitz A,
      3. Virtanen H, et al
      . One-year treatment with 0.1% tacrolimus ointment versus a corticosteroid regimen in adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis: A randomized, double-blind, comparative trial. Acta Derm Venereol 2010;90:170–4.doi:10.2340/00015555-0803pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20169301
      OpenUrlPubMed
    85. ↵
      1. Reitamo S,
      2. Ortonne JP,
      3. Sand C, et al
      . A multicentre, randomized, double-blind, controlled study of long-term treatment with 0.1% tacrolimus ointment in adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. Br J Dermatol 2005;152:1282–9.doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.2005.06592.xpmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15948994
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    86. ↵
      1. Doss N,
      2. Kamoun M-R,
      3. Dubertret L, et al
      . Efficacy of tacrolimus 0.03% ointment as second-line treatment for children with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: evidence from a randomized, double-blind non-inferiority trial vs. fluticasone 0.005% ointment. Pediatr Allergy Immunol 2010;21:321–9.doi:10.1111/j.1399-3038.2009.00895.xpmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19563466
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    87. ↵
      1. Doss N,
      2. Reitamo S,
      3. Dubertret L, et al
      . Superiority of tacrolimus 0.1% ointment compared with fluticasone 0.005% in adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis of the face: results from a randomized, double-blind trial. Br J Dermatol 2009;161:427–34.doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.2009.09143.xpmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19416227
      OpenUrlPubMed
    88. ↵
      1. Hofman T,
      2. Cranswick N,
      3. Kuna P, et al
      . Tacrolimus ointment does not affect the immediate response to vaccination, the generation of immune memory, or humoral and cell-mediated immunity in children. Arch Dis Child 2006;91:905–10.doi:10.1136/adc.2006.094276pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16798785
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    89. ↵
      1. Luger T,
      2. Van Leent EJ,
      3. Graeber M, et al
      . Sdz ASM 981: an emerging safe and effective treatment for atopic dermatitis. Br J Dermatol 2001;144:788–94.doi:10.1046/j.1365-2133.2001.04134.xpmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11298538
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    90. ↵
      1. Reitamo S,
      2. Harper J,
      3. Bos JD, et al
      . 0.03% tacrolimus ointment applied once or twice daily is more efficacious than 1% hydrocortisone acetate in children with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis: results of a randomized double-blind controlled trial. Br J Dermatol 2004;150:554–62.doi:10.1046/j.1365-2133.2004.05782.x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    91. ↵
      1. Reitamo S,
      2. Rustin M,
      3. Ruzicka T, et al
      . Efficacy and safety of tacrolimus ointment compared with that of hydrocortisone butyrate ointment in adult patients with atopic dermatitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2002;109:547–55.doi:10.1067/mai.2002.121832pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11898005
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    92. ↵
      1. Reitamo S,
      2. Van Leent EJM,
      3. Ho V, et al
      . Efficacy and safety of tacrolimus ointment compared with that of hydrocortisone acetate ointment in children with atopic dermatitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2002;109:539–46.doi:10.1067/mai.2002.121831pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11898004
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    93. ↵
      1. Sikder M,
      2. Al Mamun S,
      3. Khan R
      . Topical 0.03% tacrolimus ointment, 0.05% clobetasone butyrate cream alone and their combination in older children with atopic dermatitis - An open randomized comparative study. J Pak Assoc Dermatol 2005;15:304–12.
      OpenUrl
    94. ↵
      1. Schneeweiss S,
      2. Doherty M,
      3. Zhu S, et al
      . Topical treatments with pimecrolimus, tacrolimus and medium- to high-potency corticosteroids, and risk of lymphoma. Dermatology 2009;219:7–21.doi:10.1159/000209289pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19293564
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    95. ↵
      1. Arellano FM,
      2. Wentworth CE,
      3. Arana A, et al
      . Risk of lymphoma following exposure to calcineurin inhibitors and topical steroids in patients with atopic dermatitis. J Invest Dermatol 2007;127:808–16.doi:10.1038/sj.jid.5700622pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17096020
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    96. ↵
      1. Prado de Oliveira Z,
      2. Cuce L,
      3. Arnone M
      . Comparative evaluation of efficacy, tolerability and safety of 0.1% topical momethasone furoate and 0.05% desonide in the treatment of childhood atopic dermatitis. An Bras Dermatol 2002;77:25–33.
      OpenUrl
    97. ↵
      1. Kuokkanen K,
      2. Sillantaka I
      . Alclometasone dipropionate 0.05% vs hydrocortisone 1.0%: potential to induce cutaneous atrophy in children. Clin Ther 1987;9:223–31.pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3568065
      OpenUrlPubMed
    98. ↵
      1. Smitt J,
      2. Winterberg D,
      3. Oosting J
      . Treatment of atopic dermatitis with topical corticosteroids in children. efficacy and systemic effects of triamcinolone acetonide and alclometasone dipropionate. Eur J Dermatol 1993;3:549–52.
      OpenUrl
    99. ↵
      1. Chen H
      . Clinical observation of Huanglian Qingdai cream for infantile eczema. J Sichuan Trad Chin Med 2011;29:88–9.
      OpenUrl
    100. ↵
      1. Huang Z,
      2. Chen P,
      3. Wei W
      . Observation of efficacy of Chushi Zhiyang cream for atopic dermatitis. Mod J Integr Trad Chin West Med 2010;19:2647–8.
      OpenUrl
    101. ↵
      1. Dong M
      . Efficacy of external use of Jingfang mixture in the treatment of children with eczema. Med J Qilu 2012;27:75–8.
      OpenUrl
    102. ↵
      1. Hoybye S,
      2. Balk Moller S,
      3. De Cunha Bang F
      . Continuous and intermittent treatment of atopic dermatitis in adults with mometasone furoate versus hydrocortisone 17-butyrate. Curr Ther Res Clin Exp 1991;50:67–72.
      OpenUrl
    103. ↵
      1. Berth-Jones J, et al
      . Twice Weekly fluticasone propionate added to emollient maintenance treatment to reduce risk of relapse in atopic dermatitis: randomised, double blind, parallel group study. BMJ 2003;326:1367–9.doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7403.1367
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    104. ↵
      1. Marchesi E,
      2. Rozzoni M,
      3. Pini P
      . Comparative study of mometasone furoate and betamethasone dipropionate in the treatment of atopic dermatitis. G Ital Dermatol Venereol 1994;129:IX–XII.
      OpenUrl
    105. ↵
      1. Koopmans B,
      2. Andersen BL,
      3. Mørk NJ, et al
      . Multicentre randomized double-blind study of Locoid Lipocream fatty cream twice daily versus Locoid Lipocream once daily and Locobase once daily. J Dermatolog Treat 1995;6:103–6.doi:10.3109/09546639509097161
      OpenUrl
    106. ↵
      1. Tharp MD
      . A comparison of twice-daily and once-daily administration of fluticasone propionate cream, 0.05%, in the treatment of eczema. Cutis 1996;57:19–26.pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8646865
      OpenUrlPubMed
    107. ↵
      1. Richelli C,
      2. Piacentini G,
      3. Sette L
      . Clinical efficacy and tolerability of clobetasone 17-butyrate 0.5% lotion in children with atopic dermatitis. Curr Ther Res Clin Exp 1990;47:413–7.
      OpenUrl
    108. ↵
      1. Glazenburg EJ,
      2. Wolkerstorfer A,
      3. Gerretsen AL, et al
      . Efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate 0.005% ointment in the long-term maintenance treatment of children with atopic dermatitis: Differences between boys and girls? Pediatr Allergy Immunol 2009;20:59–66.doi:10.1111/j.1399-3038.2008.00735.x
      OpenUrlPubMed
    109. ↵
      1. Hanifin J,
      2. Gupta AK,
      3. Rajagopalan R
      . Intermittent dosing of fluticasone propionate cream for reducing the risk of relapse in atopic dermatitis patients. Br J Dermatol 2002;147:528–37.doi:10.1046/j.1365-2133.2002.05006.x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    110. ↵
      1. Peserico A,
      2. Städtler G,
      3. Sebastian M, et al
      . Reduction of relapses of atopic dermatitis with methylprednisolone aceponate cream twice Weekly in addition to maintenance treatment with emollient: a multicentre, randomized, double-blind, controlled study. Br J Dermatol 2008;158:801–7.doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.2008.08436.x
      OpenUrlPubMed
    111. ↵
      1. Van Der Meer JB,
      2. Glazenburg EJ,
      3. Mulder PG, et al
      . The management of moderate to severe atopic dermatitis in adults with topical fluticasone propionate. The Netherlands adult atopic DermatitisStudy group. Br J Dermatol 1999;140:1114–21.doi:10.1046/j.1365-2133.1999.02893.xpmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10354080
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    112. ↵
      1. Devillers ACA,
      2. de Waard-van der Spek FB,
      3. Mulder PGH, et al
      . Treatment of refractory atopic dermatitis using 'wet-wrap' dressings and diluted corticosteroids: results of standardized treatment in both children and adults. Dermatology 2002;204:50–5.doi:10.1159/000051810pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11834850
      OpenUrlPubMed
    113. ↵
      1. Wolkerstorfer A,
      2. Visser RL,
      3. De Waard FB, et al
      . Efficacy and safety of wet‐wrap dressings in children with severe atopic dermatitis: influence of corticosteroid dilution. Br J Dermatol 2000;143:999–1004.doi:10.1046/j.1365-2133.2000.03833.x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    114. ↵
      1. Janmohamed SR,
      2. Oranje AP,
      3. Devillers AC, et al
      . The proactive wet-wrap method with diluted corticosteroids versus emollients in children with atopic dermatitis: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. J Am Acad Dermatol 2014;70:1076–82.doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2014.01.898
      OpenUrl
    115. ↵
      1. Beattie PE,
      2. Lewis-Jones MS
      . A pilot study on the use of wet wraps in infants with moderate atopic eczema. Clin Exp Dermatol 2004;29:348–53.doi:10.1111/j.1365-2230.2004.01583.x
      OpenUrlPubMed
    116. ↵
      1. Hindley D,
      2. Galloway G,
      3. Murray J
      . A randomised study of "wet wraps" versus conventional treatment for atopic eczema. Arch Dis Child 2006;91:164–8.doi:10.1136/adc.2004.050831
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    117. ↵
      1. Goodyear HM,
      2. Spowart K,
      3. Harper JI
      . 'Wet-wrap' dressings for the treatment of atopic eczema in children. Br J Dermatol 1991;125:604.doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.1991.tb14807.xpmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1760370
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    118. ↵
      1. McGowan R,
      2. Tucker P,
      3. Joseph D, et al
      . Short-Term growth and bone turnover in children undergoing occlusive steroid ('Wet-Wrap') dressings for treatment of atopic eczema. J Dermatolog Treat 2003;14:149–52.doi:10.1080/09546630310004207pmid:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14522624
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    119. ↵
      1. NICE
      . Atopic eczema in under 12s: diagnosis and management. Clinical guideline [CG57], 2007. Available: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg57
    120. ↵
      1. Chalmers JR,
      2. Axon E,
      3. Harvey J
      . Different strategies for using topical corticosteroids in people with eczema. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019:CD013356. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD013356

    Supplementary materials

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @riddmj, @IngridMuller7

    • Contributors All authors (EA, JRC, MS, MJR, SL, SML, DJCG, IM, AR, AA, HCW and KST) helped conceive of and design this overview. DJCG and EA conducted the searches. EA and JRC carried out the eligibility screening, data extraction and quality assessments. HCW and KST acted as 3rd reviewers to resolve disagreements. EA performed the statistical analysis and JRC is the study guarantor. EA and JRC collated and interpreted the data with input from all other authors. EA and JRC completed the initial drafts of the manuscript and all authors (EA, JRC, MS, MJR, SL, SML, DJCG, IM, AR, AA, HCW and KST) commented on and approved the final manuscript. The corresponding author attests that all listed authors meet authorship criteria and that no others meeting the criteria have been omitted.

    • Funding This report presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research programme (grant ref No. RP-PG-0216-20007).

    • Disclaimer The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the department of Health and Social Care.

    • Competing interests Authors are coapplicants on an NIHR Programme Grants for Applied Research (P-PG-0216-20007) which funded this overview. The aim of the Programme Grant is to develop an intervention to support eczema self-care and the results of this overview will contribute to this intervention. MJR is funded by an NIHR Post-Doctoral Research Fellowship (PDF-2014-07-013). SML is supported by a Wellcome Senior Clinical fellowship in Science (205039/Z/16/Z). HCW was an author on four included reviews, and KST was an author on one included review.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.