Efficacy and Utility of Wet Wrap Dressing for Patients with Pediatric Atopic Dermatitis
- Author:
Joong Woon CHOI
1
;
Seung Hee LOH
;
Bark Lynn LEW
;
Woo Young SIM
Author Information
1. Department of Dermatology, Kyung Hee University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. bellotte@hanmail.net
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Atopic dermatitis;
Wet wrap dressing;
Pediatric
- MeSH:
Bandages;
Calcineurin Inhibitors;
Child;
Clothing;
Compliance;
Dermatitis, Atopic;
Eczema;
Emollients;
Humans;
Pruritus;
Self-Assessment;
Skin;
Steroids;
Therapeutic Uses;
Water
- From:Korean Journal of Dermatology
2019;57(6):301-306
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: Management of atopic dermatitis (AD) involves the regular use of emollients together with topical steroids or calcineurin inhibitors for acute flares. However, the long-term use of oral medications in young children may have certain limitations. Wet wrap dressing (WWD) is an interesting alternative therapy for the short-term control of severe or refractory flares, thus avoiding the use of systemic treatments. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the efficacy between WWD and topical steroid agents and to control and estimate the utility of WWD in pediatric AD. METHODS: A total of 40 patients with mild-to-severe AD (eczema area and severity index of ≥3) aged <13 years were included in this study. Twenty patients were treated with WWD using two layers of cotton bandages or garments (Tubifast™), and the remaining were applied with topical steroid agents without cotton bandages. Improvement in severity of atopic dermatitis was evaluated using the eczema area and severity index (EASI). Improvement in skin barrier dysfunction was evaluated by measuring the transepidermal water loss (TEWL). We compared the two groups after 1 week of treatment using analysis of covariance and t-test. Furthermore, we surveyed the study groups using a questionnaire to estimate the utility of WWD and its adverse effects as well as to evaluate subjective outcomes of WWD. RESULTS: There were significant reductions in the mean EASI (−6.3, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −7.5 to −5.1, p=0.013) and TEWL (−26.7, 95% CI: −31.2 to −22.3, p=0.002) after 1 week of WWD treatment compared with the mean EASI (−4.0, 95% CI: −5.2 to −2.9) and TEWL (−15.4, 95% CI: −19.8 to −10.9) of the control group. Results of patient self-assessment and scores in the visual analogue scale (VAS) for pruritus were improved in both groups, but the differences were not statistically significant. Usefulness of WWD as an alternative therapy for the conventional therapy was satisfactory. CONCLUSION: This study is meaningful in that it estimates both the subjective and objective efficacy of WWD. In view of these findings, WWD showed superior therapeutic effects than conventional steroid application in the treatment of AD in children, with good compliance of patients and parent-caregivers.
