Evaluation of measurement errors in the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) outcome.

BACKGROUND: The Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) is the recommended core outcome instrument for atopic dermatitis (AD) symptoms. POEM is reported by recalling the presence/absence of seven symptoms in the last 7 days. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate measurement errors in POEM recordings due to imperfect recall. METHODS: Using data from a clinical trial of 247 AD patients aged 12-65 years, we analysed the reported POEM score (r-POEM) and the POEM derived from the corresponding daily scores for the same seven symptoms without weekly recall (d-POEM). We quantified recall error by comparing the r-POEM and d-POEM for 777 patient-weeks collected from 207 patients, and estimated two components of recall error: (1) recall bias due to systematic errors in measurements and (2) recall noise due to random errors in measurements, using a bespoke statistical model. RESULTS: POEM scores have a relatively low recall bias, but a high recall noise. Recall bias was estimated at 1.2 points lower for the r-POEM on average than the d-POEM, with a recall noise of 5.7 points. For example, a patient with a recall-free POEM of 11 (moderate) could report their POEM score anywhere from 5 to 14 (with 95% probability) because of recall error. Model estimates suggested that patients tend to recall itch and dryness more often than experienced (positive bias of less than 1 day), but less often for the other symptoms (bleeding, cracking, flaking, oozing/weeping and sleep disturbance; negative bias ranging 1-4 days). CONCLUSIONS: In this clinical trial data set, we found that patients tended to slightly underestimate their symptoms when reporting POEM, with significant variation in how well they were able to recall the frequency of their symptoms every time they reported POEM. A large recall noise should be taken into consideration when interpreting POEM scores.

Treatment of Hidradenitis Suppurativa Evaluation Study (THESEUS): a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic, painful disease affecting flexures and other skin regions, producing nodules, abscesses and skin tunnels. Laser treatment targeting hair follicles and deroofing of skin tunnels are standard HS interventions in some countries but are rarely offered in the UK. OBJECTIVES: To describe current UK HS management pathways and influencing factors to inform the design of future randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: THESEUS was a nonrandomized 12-month prospective cohort study set in 10 UK hospitals offering five interventions: oral doxycycline 200 mg daily; oral clindamycin and rifampicin both 300 mg twice daily for 10 weeks, extended for longer in some cases; laser treatment targeting hair follicles; deroofing; and conventional surgery. The primary outcome was the combination of clinician-assessed eligibility and participant hypothetical willingness to receive each intervention. The secondary outcomes were the proportion of participants selecting each intervention as their final treatment option; the proportion who switch treatments; treatment fidelity; and attrition rates. THESEUS was prospectively registered on the ISRCTN registry: ISRCTN69985145. RESULTS: The recruitment target of 150 participants was met after 18 months, in July 2021, with two pauses due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Baseline demographics reflected the HS secondary care population: average age 36 years, 81% female, 20% non-White, 64% current or ex-smokers, 86% body mass index ≥ 25, 68% with moderate disease, 19% with severe disease and 13% with mild disease. Laser was the intervention with the highest proportion (69%) of participants eligible and willing to receive treatment, then deroofing (58%), conventional surgery (54%), clindamycin and rifampicin (44%), and doxycycline (37%). Laser was ranked first choice by the greatest proportion of participants (41%). Attrition rates were 11% and 17% after 3 and 6 months, respectively. Concordance with doxycycline was 52% after 3 months due to lack of efficacy, participant choice and adverse effects. Delays with procedural interventions were common, with only 43% and 26% of participants starting laser and deroofing, respectively, after 3 months. Uptake of conventional surgery was too small to characterize the intervention. Switching treatment was uncommon and there were no serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: THESEUS has established laser treatment and deroofing for HS in the UK and demonstrated their popularity with patients and clinicians for future RCTs.

How to use the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema Core Outcome Set for atopic dermatitis trials: a users' guide.

BACKGROUND: The Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative has agreed upon the Core Outcome Set (COS) for use in atopic dermatitis (AD) clinical trials, but additional guidance is needed to maximize its uptake. OBJECTIVES: To provide answers to some of the commonly asked questions about using the HOME COS; to provide data to help with the interpretation of trial results; and to support sample size calculations for future trials. METHODS AND RESULTS: We provide practical guidance on the use of the HOME COS for investigators planning clinical trials in patients with AD. It answers some of the common questions about using the HOME COS, how to access the outcome measurement instruments, what training/resources are needed to use them appropriately and clarifies when the COS is applicable. We also provide exemplar data to inform sample size calculations for eczema trials and encourage standardized data collection and reporting of the COS. CONCLUSIONS: By encouraging adoption of the COS and facilitating consistent reporting of outcome data, it is hoped that the results of eczema trials will be more comprehensive and readily combined in meta-analyses and that patient care will subsequently be improved.

A core domain set for pyoderma gangrenosum trial outcomes: an international eDelphi and consensus study from the UPGRADE initiative.

BACKGROUND: Pyoderma gangrenosum (PG) is a rare ulcerative skin condition with no current standardized outcomes or outcome measures. With a rich investigational therapeutic pipeline, standardization of outcomes and improvement of data quality and interpretability will promote the appropriate and consistent evaluation of potential new therapies. Core outcome sets (COS) are agreed, standardized sets of outcomes that represent the minimum that should be measured and reported in all clinical trials of a specific condition. OBJECTIVES: To identify and reach a consensus on which domains (what to be measured) should be included in the Understanding Pyoderma Gangrenosum: Review and Analysis of Disease Effects (UPGRADE) core domain set for clinical trials in PG. METHODS: Collaborative discussions between patients and PG experts, and a systematic review of the literature identified items and prospective domains. A three-round international eDelphi exercise was performed to prioritize the domains and refine the provisional items (consensus: ≥ 70% of participants rating a domain as 'extremely important' and < 15% of participants voting 'not important'), followed by an international meeting to reach consensus on the core domain set (consensus: < 30% disagreement). Item-generation discussions and consensus meetings were hosted via online videoconferences. The eDelphi exercise and consensus voting were performed using Qualtrics survey software. Participants were adults with PG, healthcare professionals, researchers and industry representatives. RESULTS: Collaborative discussions and systematic reviews yielded 115 items, which were distilled into 15 prospective domains. The eDelphi exercise removed the three lowest-priority domains ('laboratory tests', 'treatment costs' and 'disease impact on family') and ranked 'pain', 'quality of life' and 'physical symptoms' as the highest-priority prospective domains. Consensus was reached on the domains of 'pain', 'quality of life' and 'clinical signs'. The domain of 'disease course/disease progression' narrowly failed to reach consensus for inclusion in the core set (32% of participants voted 'no'). Refinement of this domain definition will be required and presented for consideration at future consensus meetings. CONCLUSIONS: The UPGRADE core domain set for clinical trials in PG has been agreed by international multistakeholder consensus. Future work will develop and/or select outcome measurement instruments for these domains to establish a COS.

Emollients for preventing atopic eczema: Cost-effectiveness analysis of the BEEP trial.

BACKGROUND: Recent discoveries have led to the suggestion that enhancing skin barrier from birth might prevent eczema and food allergy. OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of daily all-over-body application of emollient during the first year of life for preventing atopic eczema in high-risk children at 2 years from a health service perspective. We also considered a 5-year time horizon as a sensitivity analysis. METHODS: A within-trial economic evaluation using data on health resource use and quality of life captured as part of the BEEP trial alongside the trial data. Parents/carers of 1394 infants born to families at high risk of atopic disease were randomised 1:1 to the emollient group, which were advised to apply emollient (Doublebase Gel or Diprobase Cream) to their child at least once daily to the whole body during the first year of life or usual care. Both groups received advice on general skin care. The main economic outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), defined as incremental cost per percentage decrease in risk of eczema in the primary cost-effectiveness analysis. Secondary analysis, undertaken as a cost-utility analysis, reports incremental cost per Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) where child utility was elicited using the proxy CHU-9D at 2 years. RESULTS: At 2 years, the adjusted incremental cost was £87.45 (95% CI -54.31, 229.27) per participant, whilst the adjusted proportion without eczema was 0.0164 (95% CI -0.0329, 0.0656). The ICER was £5337 per percentage decrease in risk of eczema. Adjusted incremental QALYs were very slightly improved in the emollient group, 0.0010 (95% CI -0.0069, 0.0089). At 5 years, adjusted incremental costs were lower for the emollient group, -£106.89 (95% CI -354.66, 140.88) and the proportion without eczema was -0.0329 (95% CI -0.0659, 0.0002). The 5-year ICER was £3201 per percentage decrease in risk of eczema. However, when inpatient costs due to wheezing were excluded, incremental costs were lower and incremental effects greater in the usual care group. CONCLUSIONS: In line with effectiveness endpoints, advice given in the BEEP trial to apply daily emollient during infancy for eczema prevention in high-risk children does not appear cost-effective.

Emollients for prevention of atopic dermatitis: 5-year findings from the BEEP randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of emollients for preventing atopic dermatitis/eczema is controversial. The Barrier Enhancement for Eczema Prevention trial evaluated the effects of daily emollients during the first year of life on atopic dermatitis and atopic conditions to age 5 years. METHODS: 1394 term infants with a family history of atopic disease were randomized (1:1) to daily emollient plus standard skin-care advice (693 emollient group) or standard skin-care advice alone (701 controls). Long-term follow-up at ages 3, 4 and 5 years was via parental questionnaires. Main outcomes were parental report of a clinical diagnosis of atopic dermatitis and food allergy. RESULTS: Parents reported more frequent moisturizer application in the emollient group through to 5 years. A clinical diagnosis of atopic dermatitis between 12 and 60 months was reported for 188/608 (31%) in the emollient group and 178/631 (28%) in the control group (adjusted relative risk 1.10, 95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.30). Although more parents in the emollient group reported food reactions in the previous year at 3 and 4 years, cumulative incidence of doctor-diagnosed food allergy by 5 years was similar between groups (92/609 [15%] emollients and 87/632 [14%] controls, adjusted relative risk 1.11, 95% confidence interval 0.84 to 1.45). Findings were similar for cumulative incidence of asthma and hay fever. CONCLUSIONS: Daily emollient application during the first year of life does not prevent atopic dermatitis, food allergy, asthma or hay fever.

Evaluating the effect of weekly patient-reported symptom monitoring on trial outcomes: results of the Eczema Monitoring Online randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are commonly used in eczema clinical trials. Several trials have used PROMs weekly for symptom monitoring. However, the increased frequency of patient-reported symptom monitoring may prompt participants to enhance the self-management of eczema and increase standard topical treatment use that can lead to improvements in outcomes over time. This is concerning as weekly symptom monitoring may constitute an unplanned intervention, which may mask small treatment effects and make it difficult to identify changes in the eczema resulting from the treatment under investigation. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of weekly patient-reported symptom monitoring on participants' outcomes and to inform the design of future eczema trials. METHODS: This was an online parallel-group nonblinded randomized controlled trial. Parents/carers of children with eczema and young people and adults with eczema were recruited online, excluding people scoring < 3 points on the Patient Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), to avoid floor effects. Electronic PROMs were used for data collection. Participants were allocated using online randomization (1 : 1) to weekly POEM for 7 weeks (intervention) or no POEM during this period (control). The primary outcome was change in eczema severity based on POEM scores, assessed at baseline and week 8. Secondary outcomes included change in standard topical treatment use and data completeness at follow-up. Analyses were conducted according to randomized groups in those with complete data at week 8. RESULTS: A total of 296 participants were randomized from 14 September 2021 to 16 January 2022 (71% female, 77% white, mean age 26.7 years). The follow-up completion rate was 81.7% [n = 242; intervention group, n = 118/147 (80.3%); control group n = 124/149 (83.2%)]. After adjusting for baseline disease severity and age, eczema severity improved in the intervention group (mean difference in POEM score -1.64, 95% confidence interval -2.91 to -0.38; P = 0.01). No between-group differences were noted in the use of standard topical treatments and data completeness at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Weekly patient-reported symptom monitoring led to a small perceived improvement in eczema severity.

The Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) implementation roadmap.

BACKGROUND: Core outcome sets (COS) are consensus-driven sets of minimum outcomes that should be measured and reported in all clinical trials. COS aim to reduce heterogeneity in outcome measurement and reporting, and selective outcome reporting. Implementing COS into clinical trials is challenging. Guidance to improve COS uptake in dermatology is lacking. OBJECTIVES: To develop a structured practical guide to COS implementation. METHODS: Members of the Harmonising Outcome Measurement for Eczema (HOME) executive committee developed an expert opinion-based roadmap founded on a combination of a review of the COS implementation literature, the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative resources, input from HOME members and experience in COS development and clinical trials. RESULTS: The data review and input from HOME members was synthesized into themes, which guided roadmap development: (a) barriers and facilitators to COS uptake based on stakeholder awareness/engagement and COS features; and (b) key implementation science principles (assessment-driven, data-centred, priority-based and context-sensitive). The HOME implementation roadmap follows three stages. Firstly, the COS uptake scope and goals need to be defined. Secondly, during COS development, preparation for future implementation is supported by establishing the COS as a credible evidence-informed consensus by applying robust COS development methodology, engaging multiple stakeholders, fostering sustained and global engagement, emphasizing COS ease of use and universal applicability, and providing recommendations on COS use. Thirdly, incorporating completed COS into primary (trials) and secondary (reviews) research is an iterative process starting with mapping COS uptake and stakeholders' attitudes, followed by designing and carrying out targeted implementation projects. Main themes for implementation projects identified at HOME are stakeholder awareness/engagement; universal applicability for different populations; and improving ease-of-use by reducing administrative and study burden. Formal implementation frameworks can be used to identify implementation barriers/facilitators and to design implementation strategies. The effect of these strategies on uptake should be evaluated and implementation plans adjusted accordingly. CONCLUSIONS: COS can improve the quality and applicability of research and, so, clinical practice but can only succeed if used and reported consistently. The HOME implementation roadmap is an extension of the original HOME roadmap for COS development and provides a pragmatic framework to develop COS implementation strategies.

Core outcome domains for lichen sclerosus: a CORALS initiative consensus statement.

BACKGROUND: Lichen sclerosus (LS) is a chronic inflammatory condition mainly affecting genital skin. It causes distressing symptoms that impact daily quality of life (QoL). It causes progressive anatomical changes and a potential risk of cancer. Published randomized controlled trials are of varying methodological quality and difficult to combine in meta-analyses. This is partly due to lack of agreed outcome measures to assess treatment response. Identification of core outcome sets (COSs), which standardize key outcomes to be measured in all future trials, is a solution to this problem. OBJECTIVES: To obtain international agreement on which outcome domains should be measured in interventional trials of genital LS. METHODS: Recommended best practice for COS domain development was followed: (i) identification of potential outcome domains: a long list was generated through an up-to-date LS literature search, including information collected during the LS priority-setting partnership; (ii) provisional agreement of outcome domains: a three-stage multi-stakeholder international electronic-Delphi (e-Delphi) consensus study; (iii) final agreement of outcome domains: online consensus meeting with international stakeholders including anonymized voting. RESULTS: In total, 123 participants (77 patients, 44 health professionals, 2 researchers) from 20 countries completed three rounds of the e-Delphi study. Eleven outcome domains were rated as 'critical' and were discussed at the online consensus meetings. The first set of consensus meetings involved 42 participants from 12 countries. Consensus was met for 'symptoms' (100% agreed) and 'QoL - LS-specific' (92% agreed). After the second set of meetings, involving 29 participants from 12 countries, 'clinical (visible) signs' also met consensus (97% agreed). CONCLUSIONS: The international community has agreed on three key outcome domains to measure in all future LS clinical trials. We recommend that trialists and systematic reviewers incorporate these domains into study protocols with immediate effect. CORALS will now work with stakeholders to select an outcome measurement instrument per prioritized core domain.

'Eczema shouldn't control you; you should control eczema': qualitative process evaluation of online behavioural interventions to support young people and parents/carers of children with eczema.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of well-conducted randomized controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of theory-based online interventions for eczema. To address these deficiencies, we previously developed and demonstrated the effectiveness of two online behavioural interventions: Eczema Care Online for parents/carers of children with eczema, and Eczema Care Online for young people with eczema. OBJECTIVES: To explore the views and experiences of people who have used the Eczema Care Online interventions to provide insights into how the interventions worked and identify contextual factors that may impede users' engagement with the interventions. METHODS: Qualitative semistructured interviews were conducted with 17 parents/carers of children with eczema and 17 young people with eczema. Participants were purposively sampled from two randomized controlled trials of the interventions and recruited from GP surgeries in England. Transcripts were analysed using inductive thematic analysis, and intervention modifications were identified using the person-based approach table of changes method. RESULTS: Both young people and parents/carers found the interventions easy to use, relatable and trustworthy, and perceived that they helped them to manage their eczema, thus suggesting that Eczema Care Online may be acceptable to its target groups. Our analysis suggested that the interventions may reduce eczema severity by facilitating empowerment among its users, specifically through improved understanding of, and confidence in, eczema management, reduced treatment concerns, and improved treatment adherence and management of irritants/triggers. Reading about the experiences of others with eczema helped people to feel 'normal' and less alone. Some (mainly young people) expressed firmly held negative beliefs about topical corticosteroids, views that were not influenced by the intervention. Minor improvements to the design and navigation of the Eczema Care Online interventions and content changes were identified and made, ready for wider implementation. CONCLUSIONS: People with eczema and their families can benefit from reliable information, specifically information on the best and safest ways to use their eczema treatments early in their eczema journey. Together, our findings from this study and the corresponding trials suggest wider implementation of Eczema Care Online (EczemaCareOnline.org.uk) is justified.

How is oral isotretinoin prescribed for the treatment of acne vulgaris? Results from a UK Dermatology Clinical Trials Network (UKDCTN) and British Dermatological Nursing Group (BDNG) survey of health professionals.

We undertook a survey of UK healthcare professionals through the UK Dermatology Clinical Trials Network and British Dermatological Nursing Group to understand clinicians' routine practice of prescribing oral isotretinoin for treatment of acne vulgaris. We also wanted to understand clinicians' experiences and views on prescribing low daily dose regimens. Overall, the survey showed that clinicians adopted a patient-centred approach when deciding isotretinoin dosing. The rationale for using a low-dose regimen varied, but was focused on patient wellbeing during treatment. Some clinicians were concerned that use of a low-dose regimen could be less effective and lead to longer treatment durations. The survey results will be useful to inform a clinical trial investigating the effectiveness and safety of low daily dose isotretinoin for the treatment of acne.

The HOME Core outcome set for clinical trials of atopic dermatitis.

Core outcome sets are critically important outcomes that should be measured in clinical trials. Their absence in atopic dermatitis is a form of research waste and impedes combining evidence to inform patient care. Here, we articulate the rationale for core outcome sets in atopic dermatitis and review the work of the international Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema group from its inception in Munich, 2010. We describe core domain determination (what should be measured), to instrument selection (how domains should be measured), culminating in the complete core outcome measurement set in Tokyo, 2019. Using a "road map," Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema includes diverse research methods including Delphi and nominal group techniques informed by systematic reviews of properties of candidate instruments. The 4 domains and recommended instruments for including in all clinical trials of atopic dermatitis are patient symptoms, measured by Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure and peak Numerical Rating Scale 11 for itch intensity over 24 hours, clinical signs measured using the Eczema Area and Severity Index, quality of life measured by the Dermatology Life Quality Index series for adults, children, and infants, and long-term control measured by either Recap of atopic eczema or Atopic Dermatitis Control Tool.

Using the Vitiligo Noticeability Scale in clinical trials: construct validity, interpretability, reliability and acceptability.

BACKGROUND: Validated outcome measures are needed for vitiligo trials. OBJECTIVES: To assess construct validity, interpretability, reliability and acceptability of the Vitiligo Noticeability Scale (VNS). METHODS: We used images of vitiligo before and after treatment, plus outcome data, from the HI-Light Vitiligo trial. We compared outcome assessments made by trial participants with assessments of images by clinicians and people with vitiligo who were not trial participants [Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) panel]. Hypothesis testing assessed psychometric properties of the VNS, with κ statistics to assess agreement between outcomes. Three focus groups and two online discussion groups provided insight into the use of VNS by people with vitiligo. RESULTS: Our hypothesis of a positive association between VNS and participant-reported global treatment success was supported for trial participants (κ = 0·41 if VNS success was defined as ≥ 4; κ = 0·71 if VNS success was defined as ≥ 3), but not for the blinded PPI panel (κ = 0·28). As hypothesized, the association with participant-reported global success was higher for VNS (κ = 0·41) than for clinician-reported percentage repigmentation (κ = 0·17). Seventy-five per cent of trial participants valued a VNS of 3 (partial response) as a treatment success. Test-retest reliability was good: κ = 0·69 (95% confidence interval 0·63-0·74). Age and skin phototype did not influence interpretation of the VNS scores. To people with vitiligo, the VNS is an acceptable and meaningful patient-reported outcome measure. CONCLUSIONS: Trial participants may assess their vitiligo differently compared with blinded assessors. A VNS score of 3 may be more highly valued by people undergoing vitiligo treatment than was previously thought. What is already known about this topic? Vitiligo is a common condition, and can have a considerable psychological impact. A Vitiligo Core Outcome Set is being developed, to enable the results of vitiligo trials to be compared and combined more easily. The Vitiligo Noticeability Scale (VNS) is a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) developed in partnership with people with vitiligo; initial validation studies have been promising. What does this study add? The VNS shows good construct validity, reliability and acceptability; it can be used in all ages and skin phototypes. All five levels of the VNS scale should be reported for transparency, to aid interpretation of trial findings, and to facilitate meta-analysis in systematic reviews. VNS assessments made by trial participants and independent observers are likely to be qualitatively different, making blinded assessment of VNS by independent observers difficult to interpret. Blinding of participants to trial interventions is recommended whenever possible. What are the clinical implications of the work? The VNS can be used as a PROM to assess the cosmetic acceptability of repigmentation at individual patches of vitiligo. A VNS score of 3 or more is likely to be valued by patients as a treatment success.

Content validity of the Recap of atopic eczema (RECAP) instrument in Dutch, English and German to measure eczema control in young people with atopic eczema: a cognitive interview study.

BACKGROUND: Recap of atopic eczema (RECAP) is a patient-reported outcome measure assessing eczema control. This instrument has been developed and validated in the UK. There are self-reported and proxy-reported versions in English, Dutch and German. However, it is unclear whether the self-reported version shows adequate content validity when completed by young people (8-16 years) in these languages. OBJECTIVES: To assess the content validity (comprehensibility, relevance and comprehensiveness) of the English, German and Dutch versions of the self-reported RECAP in young people with atopic eczema and to identify the most appropriate age cutoff for self-completion. METHODS: We conducted 23 semistructured cognitive interviews with young people aged 8-16 years, using the 'think-aloud' method. In Germany and the Netherlands, participants were recruited in dermatology clinics and in the UK through social media and existing mailing lists. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed in the three languages, using a problem-focused coding manual. Transcripts were coded by two independent reviewers in each country. Themes were translated into English and compared across the three countries. RESULTS: Significant age-related comprehensibility issues with the last three items of the questionnaire occurred with young people aged 8-11 years, causing difficulties completing RECAP without help. However, older children had only minor problems and were able to complete the questionnaire by themselves. The self-reported version of RECAP has sufficient content validity for self-completion in young people aged 12 years and above. However, the German version with some translational adaptations may be appropriate for children from the age of 8 years. There may be some situations where the proxy version is needed for older children too. CONCLUSIONS: The self-reported version of RECAP is appropriate for use from the age of 12 years. The proxy version can be used in children younger than 12 years. Other measurement properties should be further investigated. What is already known about this topic? Recap of atopic eczema (RECAP) is an instrument recommended by the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema initiative for the core outcome domain of long-term control of atopic eczema. Content validity of RECAP for self-completion by adults and of the proxy version has been assessed. What does this study add? In this study, content validity (comprehensibility, relevance and comprehensiveness) of the self-reported version of RECAP among young people (aged 8-16 years) with atopic eczema across the UK, Germany and the Netherlands is assessed. Based on these findings, key recommendations on how to measure eczema control in young people with atopic eczema are formulated. What are the clinical implications of this work? The Dutch, English and German self-completion versions of RECAP are recommended for use in adolescents from the age of 12 years. The proxy version could be used in children younger than 12 years or where children are cognitively or physically incapable of reporting their experience of eczema control. Caregivers should be encouraged to complete RECAP together with their child where possible.

Strategies for using topical corticosteroids in children and adults with eczema.

BACKGROUND: Eczema is a common skin condition. Although topical corticosteroids have been a first-line treatment for eczema for decades, there are uncertainties over their optimal use. OBJECTIVES: To establish the effectiveness and safety of different ways of using topical corticosteroids for treating eczema. SEARCH METHODS: We searched databases to January 2021 (Cochrane Skin Specialised Register; CENTRAL; MEDLINE; Embase; GREAT) and five clinical trials registers. We checked bibliographies from included trials to identify further trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials in adults and children with eczema that compared at least two strategies of topical corticosteroid use. We excluded placebo comparisons, other than for trials that evaluated proactive versus reactive treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods, with GRADE certainty of evidence for key findings. Primary outcomes were changes in clinician-reported signs and relevant local adverse events. Secondary outcomes were patient-reported symptoms and relevant systemic adverse events. For local adverse events, we prioritised abnormal skin thinning as a key area of concern for healthcare professionals and patients. MAIN RESULTS: We included 104 trials (8443 participants). Most trials were conducted in high-income countries (81/104), most likely in outpatient or other hospital settings. We judged only one trial to be low risk of bias across all domains. Fifty-five trials had high risk of bias in at least one domain, mostly due to lack of blinding or missing outcome data. Stronger-potency versus weaker-potency topical corticosteroids Sixty-three trials compared different potencies of topical corticosteroids: 12 moderate versus mild, 22 potent versus mild, 25 potent versus moderate, and 6 very potent versus potent. Trials were usually in children with moderate or severe eczema, where specified, lasting one to five weeks. The most reported outcome was Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) of clinician-reported signs of eczema. We pooled four trials that compared moderate- versus mild-potency topical corticosteroids (420 participants). Moderate-potency topical corticosteroids probably result in more participants achieving treatment success, defined as cleared or marked improvement on IGA (52% versus 34%; odds ratio (OR) 2.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.41 to 3.04; moderate-certainty evidence). We pooled nine trials that compared potent versus mild-potency topical corticosteroids (392 participants). Potent topical corticosteroids probably result in a large increase in number achieving treatment success (70% versus 39%; OR 3.71, 95% CI 2.04 to 6.72; moderate-certainty evidence). We pooled 15 trials that compared potent versus moderate-potency topical corticosteroids (1053 participants). There was insufficient evidence of a benefit of potent topical corticosteroids compared to moderate topical corticosteroids (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.89; moderate-certainty evidence). We pooled three trials that compared very potent versus potent topical corticosteroids (216 participants). The evidence is uncertain with a wide confidence interval (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.09; low-certainty evidence). Twice daily or more versus once daily application We pooled 15 of 25 trials in this comparison (1821 participants, all reported IGA). The trials usually assessed adults and children with moderate or severe eczema, where specified, using potent topical corticosteroids, lasting two to six weeks. Applying potent topical corticosteroids only once a day probably does not decrease the number achieving treatment success compared to twice daily application (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.38; 15 trials, 1821 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Local adverse events Within the trials that tested 'treating eczema flare-up' strategies, we identified only 26 cases of abnormal skin thinning from 2266 participants (1% across 22 trials). Most cases were from the use of higher-potency topical corticosteroids (16 with very potent, 6 with potent, 2 with moderate and 2 with mild). We assessed this evidence as low certainty, except for very potent versus potent topical corticosteroids, which was very low-certainty evidence.  Longer versus shorter-term duration of application for induction of remission No trials were identified. Twice weekly application (weekend, or 'proactive therapy') to prevent relapse (flare-ups) versus no topical corticosteroids/reactive application Nine trials assessed this comparison, generally lasting 16 to 20 weeks. We pooled seven trials that compared weekend (proactive) topical corticosteroids therapy versus no topical corticosteroids (1179 participants, children and adults with a range of eczema severities, though mainly moderate or severe). Weekend (proactive) therapy probably results in a large decrease in likelihood of a relapse from 58% to 25% (risk ratio (RR) 0.43, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.57; 7 trials, 1149 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Local adverse events We did not identify any cases of abnormal skin thinning in seven trials that assessed skin thinning (1050 participants) at the end of treatment. We assessed this evidence as low certainty. Other comparisons  Other comparisons included newer versus older preparations of topical corticosteroids (15 trials), cream versus ointment (7 trials), topical corticosteroids with wet wrap versus no wet wrap (6 trials), number of days per week applied (4 trials), different concentrations of the same topical corticosteroids (2 trials), time of day applied (2 trials), topical corticosteroids alternating with topical calcineurin inhibitors versus topical corticosteroids alone (1 trial), application to wet versus dry skin (1 trial) and application before versus after emollient (1 trial). No trials compared branded versus generic topical corticosteroids and time between application of emollient and topical corticosteroids. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Potent and moderate topical corticosteroids are probably more effective than mild topical corticosteroids, primarily in moderate or severe eczema; however, there is uncertain evidence to support any advantage of very potent over potent topical corticosteroids. Effectiveness is similar between once daily and twice daily (or more) frequent use of potent topical corticosteroids to treat eczema flare-ups, and topical corticosteroids weekend (proactive) therapy is probably better than no topical corticosteroids/reactive use to prevent eczema relapse (flare-ups). Adverse events were not well reported and came largely from low- or very low-certainty, short-term trials. In trials that reported abnormal skin thinning, frequency was low overall and increased with increasing potency. We found no trials on the optimum duration of treatment of a flare, branded versus generic topical corticosteroids, and time to leave between application of topical corticosteroids and emollient. There is a need for longer-term trials, in people with mild eczema.

Prescribing and using vitiligo treatments: lessons from a nested process evaluation within the HI-Light vitiligo randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The HI-Light Trial demonstrated that for active, limited vitiligo, combination treatment with potent topical corticosteroid (TCS) and handheld narrowband ultraviolet B offers a better treatment response than potent TCS alone. However, it is unclear how to implement these findings. AIM: We sought to answer three questions: (i) Can combination treatment be used safely and effectively by people with vitiligo?; (ii) Should combination treatment be made available as routine clinical care?; and (iii) Can combination treatment be integrated within current healthcare provision? METHODS: This was a mixed-methods process evaluation, including semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of trial participants, structured interviews with commissioners, and an online survey and focus groups with trial staff. Transcripts were coded by framework analysis, with thematic development by multiple researchers. RESULTS: Participants found individual treatments easy to use, but the combination treatment was complicated and required nurse support. Both participants and site investigators felt that combination treatment should be made available, although commissioners were less certain. There was support for the development of services offering combination treatment, although this might not be prioritized above treatment for other conditions. A 'mixed economy' model was suggested, involving patients purchasing their own devices, although concerns regarding the safe use of treatments mean that training, monitoring and ongoing support are essential. The need for medical physics support may mean that a regional service is more practical. CONCLUSION: Combination treatment should be made available for people seeking treatment for vitiligo, but services require partnership with medical physics and ongoing training and support for patients.

Daily emollient during infancy for prevention of eczema: the BEEP randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Skin barrier dysfunction precedes eczema development. We tested whether daily use of emollient in the first year could prevent eczema in high-risk children. METHODS: We did a multicentre, pragmatic, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial in 12 hospitals and four primary care sites across the UK. Families were approached via antenatal or postnatal services for recruitment of term infants (at least 37 weeks' gestation) at high risk of developing eczema (ie, at least one first-degree relative with parent-reported eczema, allergic rhinitis, or asthma, diagnosed by a doctor). Term newborns with a family history of atopic disease were randomly assigned (1:1) to application of emollient daily (either Diprobase cream or DoubleBase gel) for the first year plus standard skin-care advice (emollient group) or standard skin-care advice only (control group). The randomisation schedule was created using computer-generated code (stratified by recruiting centre and number of first-degree relatives with atopic disease) and participants were assigned to groups using an internet-based randomisation system. The primary outcome was eczema at age 2 years (defined by UK working party criteria) with analysis as randomised regardless of adherence to allocation for participants with outcome data collected, and adjusting for stratification variables. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN21528841. Data collection for long-term follow-up is ongoing, but the trial is closed to recruitment. FINDINGS: 1394 newborns were randomly assigned to study groups between Nov 19, 2014, and Nov 18, 2016; 693 were assigned to the emollient group and 701 to the control group. Adherence in the emollient group was 88% (466 of 532) at 3 months, 82% (427 of 519) at 6 months, and 74% (375 of 506) at 12 months in those with complete questionnaire data. At age 2 years, eczema was present in 139 (23%) of 598 infants with outcome data collected in the emollient group and 150 (25%) of 612 infants in the control group (adjusted relative risk 0·95 [95% CI 0·78 to 1·16], p=0·61; adjusted risk difference -1·2% [-5·9 to 3·6]). Other eczema definitions supported the results of the primary analysis. Mean number of skin infections per child in year 1 was 0·23 (SD 0·68) in the emollient group versus 0·15 (0·46) in the control group; adjusted incidence rate ratio 1·55 (95% CI 1·15 to 2·09). INTERPRETATION: We found no evidence that daily emollient during the first year of life prevents eczema in high-risk children and some evidence to suggest an increased risk of skin infections. Our study shows that families with eczema, asthma, or allergic rhinitis should not use daily emollients to try and prevent eczema in their newborn. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment.

Clinical examination for hyperlinear palms to determine filaggrin genotype: A diagnostic test accuracy study.

BACKGROUND: Palmar hyperlinearity is a feature of ichthyosis vulgaris, the monogenic skin disorder caused by FLG loss-of-function mutations. OBJECTIVE: To investigate how well the presence or absence of hyperlinear palms (HLP) detect FLG genotype in children. METHODS: STARD criteria are used to report this diagnostic accuracy study. Phenotype and genotype data (four most prevalent FLG null mutations) were obtained from a total of 3656 children in three studies: the UK CLOTHES trial (children 1-5 years with moderate-severe atopic eczema); UK BEEP trial (2 year olds at high risk of developing atopic eczema); UK-Irish eczema case collection (0-16 year olds with atopic eczema). All participants included in analyses of HLP as the index test and FLG genotype as the reference were of white European ancestry. RESULTS: Thirty-two percent of participants (1159/3656) had FLG null mutation(s) and 37% (1347/3656) had HLP. In 13% (464/3656), HLP was recorded as 'unsure' or not recorded. The sensitivity and specificity of HLP for detecting FLG mutations in each of the studies was: 67% (95% CI 55-78%) and 75% (67-82%) in CLOTHES; 46% (36-55%) and 89% (86-91%) in BEEP; 72% (68-75%) and 60% (57-62%) in the UK-Irish case collection. Positive and negative likelihood ratios were: 2.73 (1.95-3.81) and 0.44 (0.31-0.62) in CLOTHES; 4.02 (2.99-5.40) and 0.61 (0.52-0.73) in BEEP; 1.79 (1.66-1.93) and 0.47 (0.42-0.53) in the UK-Irish collection. DISCUSSION: Trained observers were able to define palmar hyperlinearity in the majority (3191/3656, 87%) of cases. The presence of HLP is not a reliable sign to detect FLG mutations, but the absence of HLP excludes FLG null genotype with a reasonable degree of certainty.

Measuring atopic eczema symptoms in clinical practice: The first consensus statement from the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema in clinical practice initiative.

BACKGROUND: Measuring patient-centered outcomes in clinical practice is valuable for monitoring patients and advancing real-world research. A new initiative from the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) group aims to recommend what might be recorded for atopic eczema patients in routine clinical care. OBJECTIVES: Prioritize outcome domains to measure atopic eczema in clinical practice and select valid and practical outcome measurement instruments for the highest-priority domain. METHODS: An online survey of HOME members identified and ranked 21 possible health domains. Suitable instruments were then selected for the top-prioritized domain at the HOME VI meeting, using established consensus processes informed by systematic reviews of instrument quality. RESULTS: Patient-reported symptoms was the top-prioritized domain. In accordance with psychometric properties and feasibility, there was consensus that the recommended instruments to measure atopic eczema symptoms in clinical practice are the POEM, the PO-SCORAD index, or both. The numeric rating scale for itch received support pending definition and validation in atopic eczema. CONCLUSION: Following the first step of the HOME Clinical Practice initiative, we endorse using the POEM, the PO-SCORAD index, or both for measuring atopic eczema symptoms in clinical practice. Additional high-priority domains for clinical practice will be assessed at subsequent HOME meetings.