This is the abstract from a review done in Australia on the effects of TCS in children.
“… and their unfounded concerns…” Ya, you read that right. I’m quite concerned as to what they deem unfounded?
“Contrary to popular perceptions, (TCS) use in pediatric eczema does not cause atrophy, hypopigmentation, hypertrichosis, osteoporosis, purpura or telangiectasia when used appropriately as per guidelines.”
It is well known that using topical steroids on children should be used with extreme caution, and if parents have questions or concerns, they didn’t just suddenly make them up in their head. No, they have undoubtedly heard things (that are likely founded) and have every right to be concerned. Often times, children even outgrow eczema. If their case is mild, there is no reason to start lathering them in topical steroids (in my personal opinion). Babies get rashes and skin blemishes. If they aren’t bothering the child or aren’t severe, perhaps finding a more natural way to deal with their skin would be best before jumping onto steroids.
A problem I also have with the “use appropriately as per guidelines” sentence is that doctors often stray from the said guidelines. If the product says to only use the drug a certain way and the doctor’s discretion is different, then there is a huge problem. No amount of “don’t worry” or “it’s totally safe” will in actuality make it safe for you to go past the 2 to 4 week rule in children. And, the larger the surface area you are told to put the steroid, the higher the potential of adverse effects (you know, those “unfounded” ones).
To further my proof, you can read the FDA Evaluation and Research paper.
Founded by three different references, it states, “… HPA axis suppression has been observed in infants and children with both high potency and low potency topical corticosteroids.” Why on earth would you put a child at an even higher risk with potent steroids when they should only be placed on the least potent steroid first, of which they could still risk having side effects if used over the guideline mark? For example, this evaluation states Fluticasone (Class 5 steroid), is said to be approved for patients 3 months old and up for a maximum of 4 weeks. Other studies show an even shorter period of 2 weeks should be utilized. The potent and super potent steroids are Class 1 and 2.
The best part of this research paper: “… the labeling of each product should advise practitioners of the appropriate duration of use of the product. The labeling should give information regarding how quickly improvement in dermatoses should occur after therapy with topical corticosteroid is started, and practitioners should be advised to discontinue the product if improvement does not occur within this time frame.”
It doesn’t say if the steroid isn’t working, immediately up their potency. It says DISCONTINUE. They need to be reassessed.This is what is supposed to happen.
Preventable: Protecting Our Largest Organ 
Yes! Maybe they work for some when used “according to guidelines” but it is the “unless directed by a doctor” portion of labeling that is dangerous. This gives doctors the freedom to prescribe steroids that shouldn’t be used (chlobetasol for a 4 year old, AHEM) and extend their usage however they see fit. These doctors, in our experience, have also been the ones to offer no help at all during the TSW process- preferring denial to offering aide with the very problem that their negligence created!
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Sindrom rdeče kože and commented:
O stranskih učinkih uporabe topičnih steroidov pri otrocih v Avstraciji. Velik problem je v tem, da zdravniki pogosto sami predlagajo daljši čas uporabe kot je naveden na zdravilu. In ko mazilo ne učinkuje, predpišejo bolj potentno, namesto, da bi ODSVETOVALI uporabo v tem primeru. Napisano od Briane, v angleščini.
LikeLike