A randomized controlled trial protocol assessing the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of methotrexate vs. ciclosporin in the treatment of severe atopic eczema in children: the TREatment of severe Atopic eczema Trial (TREAT).

BACKGROUND: Oral systemic immunomodulatory medication is regularly used off-licence in children with severe atopic eczema. However, there is no firm evidence regarding the effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness and impact on quality of life from an adequately powered randomized controlled trial (RCT) using systemic medication in children. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether there is a difference in the speed of onset, effectiveness, side-effect profile and reduction in flares post-treatment between ciclosporin (CyA) and methotrexate (MTX), and also the cost-effectiveness of the drugs. Treatment impact on quality of life will also be examined in addition to whether FLG genotype influences treatment response. In addition, the trial studies the immune-metabolic effects of CyA and MTX. METHODS: Multicentre, parallel group, assessor-blind, pragmatic RCT of 36 weeks' duration with a 24-week follow-up period. In total, 102 children aged 2-16 years with moderate-to-severe atopic eczema, unresponsive to topical treatment will be randomized (1 : 1) to receive MTX (0·4 mg kg-1 per week) or CyA (4 mg kg-1 per day). RESULTS: The trial has two primary outcomes: change from baseline to 12 weeks in Objective Severity Scoring of Atopic Dermatitis (o-SCORAD) and time to first significant flare following treatment cessation. CONCLUSIONS: This trial addresses important therapeutic questions, highlighted in systematic reviews and treatment guidelines for atopic eczema. The trial design is pragmatic to reflect current clinical practice.

Which outcomes should be used in future bronchiolitis trials? Developing a bronchiolitis core outcome set using a systematic review, Delphi survey and a consensus workshop.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to develop a core outcome set (COS) for use in future clinical trials in bronchiolitis. We wanted to find out which outcomes are important to healthcare professionals (HCPs) and to parents and which outcomes should be prioritised for use in future clinical trials. DESIGN AND SETTING: The study used a systematic review, workshops and interviews, a Delphi survey and a final consensus workshop. RESULTS: Thirteen parents and 45 HCPs took part in 5 workshops; 15 other parents were also separately interviewed. Fifty-six items were identified from the systematic review, workshops and interviews. Rounds one and two of the Delphi survey involved 299 and 194 participants, respectively. Sixteen outcomes met the criteria for inclusion within the COS. The consensus meeting was attended by 10 participants, with representation from all three stakeholder groups. Nine outcomes were added, totalling 25 outcomes to be included in the COS. CONCLUSION: We have developed the first parent and HCP consensus on a COS for bronchiolitis in a hospital setting. The use of this COS will ensure outcomes in future bronchiolitis trials are important and relevant, and will enable the trial results to be compared and combined. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN75766048.

Hand trauma: A prospective observational study reporting diagnostic concordance in emergency hand trauma which supports centralised service improvements.

BACKGROUND: Hand injuries are common, contributing up to 30% of accident and emergency (A&E) attendances. The aim of this study was to prospectively analyse the pathological demographics of hand injuries in a level 1 trauma centre with a Hand Trauma Unit and direct A&E links, and compare clinical and intra-operative findings. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between clinical and intra-operative findings (100% diagnostic concordance). METHODS: Data were prospectively collected for referrals during 2012. Referral diagnosis, additional pathologies found on clinical assessment and intra-operative findings were documented on a live database accessible from both the Hand Unit and associated operating theatres. Odds ratios were calculated using SAS. RESULTS: Injuries (1526) were identified in 1308 patients included in the study. Diagnostic concordance between Hand Unit clinical examination and intra-operative findings was 92.5% ± 2.85% (mean ± SEM); this was lower for flexor tendon injuries (56.3%) because a greater number of additional pathologies were found intra-operatively (2.25 ± 0.10). This 'trend' was noted across multiple referral pathologies including phalangeal fractures (1.28 ± 0.02; 82.9%), lacerations (1.33 ± 0.04; 79.1%), extensor tendon injuries (1.30 ± 0.05; 87.8%) and dislocations (1.18 ± 0.05; 87.8%). Odds ratio analysis indicated a relationship between primary referral diagnoses that were more or less likely to be associated with additional injuries (p < 0.05); referral diagnoses of flexor tendon injuries and lacerations were most likely to be associated with additional injuries. CONCLUSIONS: As hand injuries are a common presentation to A&E departments, greater emphasis should be placed on training clinicians in the management of hand trauma. Our findings, coupled with the presented relevant literature reports, lead us to advocate that A&E departments should move towards a system wherein links to specialist hand trauma services are in place; we hereby present useful data for hospitals implementing such services.