Capturing and reporting topical treatment use in childhood eczema: lessons for data collection in eczema trials.

BACKGROUND: Emollients and topical corticosteroids (TCS) prevent and treat flares in eczema. However, topical treatment use is poorly recorded and reported in clinical trials. There is no clear consensus of how best to capture and summarise topical treatment use. OBJECTIVES: To explore different ways of capturing and reporting topical treatment use in childhood eczema. METHODS: Secondary data analysis using 450 participants from the Best Emollients for Eczema (BEE) trial. Participants were allocated to use one type of emollient (lotion, cream, gel, or ointment) 'twice daily and when required' for 16 weeks. Otherwise, clinical management remained unchanged. Parents completed weekly questions about topical therapy use and eczema symptoms. Two versions of topical treatment use questionnaires were used. The first (n=202, 44.9%) asked parents to report treatment use on days 1-7, starting completion on the day they were randomised. The second (n=248, 55.1%) reported use by day of the week (Monday to Sunday), starting completion the first Monday after randomisation. Both underwent Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) review, but the second version was tested more thoroughly using cognitive interviewing techniques, following parent feedback that questions on the first version were confusing. Descriptive statistics compared questionnaire completion and differences in emollient and TCS use. RESULTS: Overall, questionnaire completion for both emollient and TCS use decreased with time: but at weeks 1 and 16 were 84.7% (381/450) and 58.9% (265/450) for emollient use, and 94.2% (424/450) and 80.4% (362/450) for TCS use, respectively. Fewer emollient use questionnaires were completed with first (33.5%) than the second (87.9%) version (p<0.001). TCS use questionnaire completion were similar for both (84.9% and 87.4%, p=0.002). We present different ways of summarising topical treatment use. CONCLUSIONS: While questionnaire completion was similar for TCS use, emollient use data completeness was higher in the second version. When designing questionnaires, balancing the detail and complexity of questions is important, especially if being collected as a secondary outcome measure. Numerous ways of summarising the same data can provide different information. Future collection and reporting of treatment use should reflect specific trial aims.

Emollient application from birth to prevent eczema in high-risk children: the BEEP RCT.

Background: Atopic eczema is a common childhood skin problem linked with asthma, food allergy and allergic rhinitis that impairs quality of life. Objectives: To determine whether advising parents to apply daily emollients in the first year can prevent eczema and/or other atopic diseases in high-risk children. Design: A United Kingdom, multicentre, pragmatic, two-arm, parallel-group randomised controlled prevention trial with follow-up to 5 years. Setting: Twelve secondary and four primary care centres. Participants: Healthy infants (at least 37 weeks' gestation) at high risk of developing eczema, screened and consented during the third trimester or post delivery. Interventions: Infants were randomised (1 : 1) within 21 days of birth to apply emollient (Doublebase Gel®; Dermal Laboratories Ltd, Hitchin, UK or Diprobase Cream®) daily to the whole body (excluding scalp) for the first year, plus standard skin-care advice (emollient group) or standard skin-care advice only (control group). Families were not blinded to allocation. Main outcome measures: Primary outcome was eczema diagnosis in the last year at age 2 years, as defined by the UK Working Party refinement of the Hanifin and Rajka diagnostic criteria, assessed by research nurses blinded to allocation. Secondary outcomes up to age 2 years included other eczema definitions, time to onset and severity of eczema, allergic rhinitis, wheezing, allergic sensitisation, food allergy, safety (skin infections and slippages) and cost-effectiveness. Results: One thousand three hundred and ninety-four newborns were randomised between November 2014 and November 2016; 693 emollient and 701 control. Adherence in the emollient group was 88% (466/532), 82% (427/519) and 74% (375/506) at 3, 6 and 12 months. At 2 years, eczema was present in 139/598 (23%) in the emollient group and 150/612 (25%) in controls (adjusted relative risk 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 1.16; p = 0.61 and adjusted risk difference -1.2%, 95% confidence interval -5.9% to 3.6%). Other eczema definitions supported the primary analysis. Food allergy (milk, egg, peanut) was present in 41/547 (7.5%) in the emollient group versus 29/568 (5.1%) in controls (adjusted relative risk 1.47, 95% confidence interval 0.93 to 2.33). Mean number of skin infections per child in the first year was 0.23 (standard deviation 0.68) in the emollient group versus 0.15 (standard deviation 0.46) in controls; adjusted incidence rate ratio 1.55, 95% confidence interval 1.15 to 2.09. The adjusted incremental cost per percentage decrease in risk of eczema at 2 years was £5337 (£7281 unadjusted). No difference between the groups in eczema or other atopic diseases was observed during follow-up to age 5 years via parental questionnaires. Limitations: Two emollient types were used which could have had different effects. The median time for starting emollients was 11 days after birth. Some contamination occurred in the control group (< 20%). Participating families were unblinded and reported on some outcomes. Conclusions: We found no evidence that daily emollient during the first year of life prevents eczema in high-risk children. Emollient use was associated with a higher risk of skin infections and a possible increase in food allergy. Emollient use is unlikely to be considered cost-effective in this context. Future research: To pool similar studies in an individual patient data meta-analysis. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN21528841. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 12/67/12) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 29. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Eczema is a troublesome itchy skin condition affecting 1 in 5 children and 1 in 10 UK adults. There is no cure and affected children are more likely to develop food allergies. We wanted to see if we could prevent eczema by protecting the skin of babies at higher risk of developing eczema (with an immediate relative with eczema, asthma or hay fever) with moisturisers used to treat dry skin. Previous research suggested that protecting the skin barrier might also prevent food allergy. One thousand three hundred and ninety-four families took part in a study; half of them were asked to apply moisturiser every day to their newborn baby for the first year and half to look after their baby's skin in the normal way. At the age of 2 years, we did not see any difference in how common eczema was between the two groups: 23% had eczema in the moisturiser group and 25% in the normal care group. It did not matter how we defined eczema ­ whether examined by a researcher or parent report. We did not find any differences in related conditions like asthma or hay fever either. We found that children using moisturisers had seen their doctor slightly more often for mild skin infections. There was a hint that food allergy might have been increased in the moisturiser group, but there was not enough data to be sure. We followed up the children to age 5 years, but we still did not find any benefits from using moisturisers in early life. Since this study, other similar research has been done using newer types of moisturisers, but their results are the same. This study shows that using daily moisturisers on healthy babies with a high risk of eczema does not prevent eczema. It is one less thing for busy families to worry about.

Measuring Signs of Atopic Dermatitis in Clinical Practice: A HOME-CP Consensus Statement.

Importance: Outcome measurement is an essential component of value-based health care and can aid patient care, quality improvement, and clinical effectiveness evidence generation. The Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema Clinical Practice initiative aims to identify a list of validated, feasible, outcome measurement instruments recommended to measure atopic dermatitis (AD) in the clinical practice setting. The clinical practice set is a list of instruments that clinicians can pick and choose from to suit their needs in the context of clinical care. Objective: To recommend instruments to measure clinical signs of AD in clinical practice. Evidence Review: Following the predefined roadmap, a mixed methods design was implemented and incorporated systematic reviews and qualitative consensus methods. Previous systematic reviews identified few clinical signs instruments with sufficient validation for recommendation. An updated systematic review evaluating the validity of clinical signs instruments informed an international meeting to reach consensus on recommended instruments to measure AD clinical signs in clinical practice. Consensus was defined as less than 30% disagreement. An in-person consensus exercise was held in Montreal, Canada, on October 16, 2022. The 34 attendees included patient and patient advocate research partners, health care professionals, researchers, methodologists, and industry representatives. Findings: The updated systematic review found that the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), Scoring Atopic Dermatitis, and objective Scoring Atopic Dermatitis were the only instruments that demonstrated sufficient performance in all assessed measurement properties. The modified EASI and Signs Global Assessment × Body Surface Area instruments were also recommended. The EASI, Validated Investigator Global Assessment, and Investigator's Global Assessment multiplied by or measured concurrently with a body surface area measure achieved consensus in criteria and were adopted. Conclusions and Relevance: This consensus statement by the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema initiative suggests that when assessing and documenting clinical signs of AD, there are several valid and feasible instruments that can best fit a clinician's specific practice needs. These instruments should improve and standardize the documentation of signs severity, help determine the effect of treatment, facilitate the generation of clinical effectiveness evidence, and enhance the implementation of value-based health care.

Online behavioural interventions for children and young people with eczema: a quantitative evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Two online behavioural interventions (one website for parents/carers of children with eczema; and one for young people with eczema) have been shown in randomised controlled trials to facilitate a sustained improvement in eczema severity. AIM: To describe intervention use and examine potential mediators of intervention outcomes and contextual factors that may influence intervention delivery and outcomes. DESIGN AND SETTING: Quantitative process evaluation in UK primary care. METHOD: Parents/carers and young people were recruited through primary care. Intervention use was recorded and summarised descriptively. Logistic regression explored sociodemographic and other factors associated with intervention engagement. Mediation analysis investigated whether patient enablement (ability to understand and cope with health issues), treatment use, and barriers to adherence were mediators of intervention effect. Subgroup analysis compared intervention effects among pre-specified participant subsets. RESULTS: A total of 340 parents/carers and 337 young people were recruited. Most parents/carers (87%, n = 148/171) and young people (91%, n = 153/168) in the intervention group viewed the core introduction by 24 weeks. At 24 weeks, users had spent approximately 20 minutes on average on the interventions. Among parents/carers, greater intervention engagement was associated with higher education levels, uncertainty about carrying out treatments, and doubts about treatment efficacy at baseline. Among young people, higher intervention use was associated with higher baseline eczema severity. Patient enablement (the ability to understand and cope with health issues) accounted for approximately 30% of the intervention effect among parents/carers and 50% among young people. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that positive intervention outcomes depended on a modest time commitment from users. This provides further support that the wider implementation of Eczema Care Online is justified.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of two online interventions supporting self-care for eczema for parents/carers and young people.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of online behavioral interventions (EczemaCareOnline.org.uk) designed to support eczema self-care management for parents/carers and young people from an NHS perspective. METHODS: Two within-trial economic evaluations, using regression-based approaches, adjusting for baseline and pre-specified confounder variables, were undertaken alongside two independent, pragmatic, parallel group, unmasked randomized controlled trials, recruiting through primary care. Trial 1 recruited 340 parents/carers of children aged 0-12 years and Trial 2 337 young people aged 13-25 years with eczema scored ≥ 5 on Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM). Participants were randomized (1:1) to online intervention plus usual care or usual care alone. Resource use, collected via medical notes review, was valued using published unit costs in UK £Sterling 2021. Quality-of-life was elicited using proxy CHU-9D in Trial 1 and self-report EQ-5D-5L in Trial 2. RESULTS: The intervention was dominant (cost saving and more effective) with a high probability of cost-effectiveness (> 68%) in most analyses. The exception was the complete case cost-utility analysis for Trial 1 (omitting participants with children aged < 2), with adjusted incremental cost savings of -£34.15 (95% CI - 104.54 to 36.24) and incremental QALYs of - 0.003 (95% CI - 0.021 to 0.015) producing an incremental cost per QALY of £12,466. In the secondary combined (Trials 1 and 2) cost-effectiveness analysis, the adjusted incremental cost was -£20.35 (95% CI - 55.41 to 14.70) with incremental success (≥ 2-point change on POEM) of 10.3% (95% CI 2.3-18.1%). CONCLUSION: The free at point of use online eczema self-management intervention was low cost to run and cost-effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered prospectively with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN79282252). URL www.EczemaCareOnline.org.uk .

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.

Treatment of Hidradenitis Suppurativa Evaluation Study: the THESEUS prospective cohort study.

Background: Hidradenitis suppurativa is a chronic inflammatory skin disease characterised by recurrent inflammatory lesions and skin tunnels in flexural sites such as the axilla. Deroofing of skin tunnels and laser treatment are standard hidradenitis suppurativa interventions in some countries but not yet introduced in the United Kingdom. Objective: To understand current hidradenitis suppurativa management pathways and what influences treatment choices to inform the design of future randomised controlled trials. Design: Prospective 12-month observational cohort study, including five treatment options, with nested qualitative interviews and an end-of-study consensus workshop. Setting: Ten United Kingdom hospitals with recruitment led by dermatology and plastic surgery departments. Participants: Adults with active hidradenitis suppurativa of any severity not adequately controlled by current treatment. Interventions: Oral doxycycline 200 mg once daily; oral clindamycin and rifampicin, both 300 mg twice daily for 10 weeks initially; laser treatment targeting the hair follicle (neodymium-doped yttrium aluminium garnet or alexandrite); deroofing; and conventional surgery. Main outcome measures: Primary outcome was the proportion of participants who are eligible, and hypothetically willing, to use the different treatment options. Secondary outcomes included proportion of participants choosing each of the study interventions, with reasons for their choices; proportion of participants who switched treatments; treatment fidelity; loss to follow-up rates over 12 months; and efficacy outcome estimates to inform outcome measure instrument responsiveness. Results: Between February 2020 and July 2021, 151 participants were recruited, with two pauses due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Follow-up rates were 89% and 83% after 3 and 6 months, decreasing to 70% and 44% at 9 and 12 months, respectively, because pandemic recruitment delays prevented all participants reaching their final review. Baseline demographics included an average age of 36 years, 81% female, 20% black, Asian or Caribbean, 64% current or ex-smokers and 86% with a raised body mass index. Some 69% had moderate disease, 19% severe disease and 13% mild disease. Regarding the study's primary outcome, laser treatment was the intervention with the highest proportion (69%) of participants who were eligible and hypothetically willing to receive treatment, followed by deroofing (58%), conventional surgery (54%), the combination of oral clindamycin and rifampicin (44%) and doxycycline (37%). Considering participant willingness in isolation, laser was ranked first choice by the greatest proportion (41%) of participants. The cohort study and qualitative study demonstrated that participant willingness to receive treatment was strongly influenced by their clinician. Fidelity to oral doxycycline was only 52% after 3 months due to lack of effectiveness, participant preference and adverse effects. Delays receiving procedural interventions were common, with only 43% and 26% of participants commencing laser therapy and deroofing, respectively, after 3 months. Treatment switching was uncommon and there were no serious adverse events. Daily pain score text messages were initiated in 110 participants. Daily responses reduced over time with greatest concordance during the first 14 days. Limitations: It was not possible to characterise conventional surgery due to a low number of participants. Conclusion: The Treatment of Hidradenitis Suppurativa Evaluation Study established deroofing and laser treatment for hidradenitis suppurativa in the United Kingdom and developed a network of 10 sites for subsequent hidradenitis suppurativa randomised controlled trials. Future work: The consensus workshop prioritised laser treatment and deroofing as interventions for future randomised controlled trials, in some cases combined with drug treatment. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN69985145. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 12/35/64) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 30. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

The Treatment of Hidradenitis Suppurativa Evaluation Study introduced deroofing of skin tunnels and laser treatment for hidradenitis suppurativa and found that these are preferred interventions for future trials compared with oral antibiotics or conventional surgery.