Talking in primary care (TIP): protocol for a cluster-randomised controlled trial in UK primary care to assess clinical and cost-effectiveness of communication skills e-learning for practitioners on patients' musculoskeletal pain and enablement.

INTRODUCTION: Effective communication can help optimise healthcare interactions and patient outcomes. However, few interventions have been tested clinically, subjected to cost-effectiveness analysis or are sufficiently brief and well-described for implementation in primary care. This paper presents the protocol for determining the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a rigorously developed brief eLearning tool, EMPathicO, among patients with and without musculoskeletal pain. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A cluster randomised controlled trial in general practitioner (GP) surgeries in England and Wales serving patients from diverse geographic, socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds. GP surgeries are randomised (1:1) to receive EMPathicO e-learning immediately, or at trial end. Eligible practitioners (eg, GPs, physiotherapists and nurse practitioners) are involved in managing primary care patients with musculoskeletal pain. Patient recruitment is managed by practice staff and researchers. Target recruitment is 840 adults with and 840 without musculoskeletal pain consulting face-to-face, by telephone or video. Patients complete web-based questionnaires at preconsultation baseline, 1 week and 1, 3 and 6 months later. There are two patient-reported primary outcomes: pain intensity and patient enablement. Cost-effectiveness is considered from the National Health Service and societal perspectives. Secondary and process measures include practitioner patterns of use of EMPathicO, practitioner-reported self-efficacy and intentions, patient-reported symptom severity, quality of life, satisfaction, perceptions of practitioner empathy and optimism, treatment expectancies, anxiety, depression and continuity of care. Purposive subsamples of patients, practitioners and practice staff take part in up to two qualitative, semistructured interviews. ETHICS APPROVAL AND DISSEMINATION: Approved by the South Central Hampshire B Research Ethics Committee on 1 July 2022 and the Health Research Authority and Health and Care Research Wales on 6 July 2022 (REC reference 22/SC/0145; IRAS project ID 312208). Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed academic publications, conference presentations and patient and practitioner outlets. If successful, EMPathicO could quickly be made available at a low cost to primary care practices across the country. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN18010240.

Lower urinary tract symptoms in men: the TRIUMPH cluster RCT.

Background: Conservative therapies are recommended as initial treatment for male lower urinary tract symptoms. However, there is a lack of evidence on effectiveness and uncertainty regarding approaches to delivery. Objective: The objective was to determine whether or not a standardised and manualised care intervention delivered in primary care achieves superior symptomatic outcome for lower urinary tract symptoms to usual care. Design: This was a two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial. Setting: The trial was set in 30 NHS general practice sites in England. Participants: Participants were adult men (aged ≥ 18 years) with bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms. Interventions: Sites were randomised 1 : 1 to deliver the TReatIng Urinary symptoms in Men in Primary Health care using non-pharmacological and non-surgical interventions trial intervention or usual care to all participants. The TReatIng Urinary symptoms in Men in Primary Health care using non-pharmacological and non-surgical interventions intervention comprised a standardised advice booklet developed for the trial from the British Association of Urological Surgeons' patient information sheets, with patient and expert input. Patients were directed to relevant sections by general practice or research nurses/healthcare assistants following urinary symptom assessment, providing the manualised element. The healthcare professional provided follow-up contacts over 12 weeks to support adherence to the intervention. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the validated patient-reported International Prostate Symptom Score 12 months post consent. Rather than the minimal clinically important difference of 3.0 points for overall International Prostate Symptom Score, the sample size aimed to detect a difference of 2.0 points, owing to the recognised clinical impact of individual symptoms. Results: A total of 1077 men consented to the study: 524 in sites randomised to the intervention arm (n = 17) and 553 in sites randomised to the control arm (n = 13). A difference in mean International Prostate Symptom Score at 12 months was found (adjusted mean difference of -1.81 points, 95% confidence interval -2.66 to -0.95 points), with a lower score in the intervention arm, indicating less severe symptoms. Secondary outcomes of patient-reported urinary symptoms, quality of life specific to lower urinary tract symptoms and perception of lower urinary tract symptoms all showed evidence of a difference between the arms favouring the intervention. No difference was seen between the arms in the proportion of urology referrals or adverse events. In qualitative interviews, participants welcomed the intervention, describing positive effects on their symptoms, as well as on their understanding of conservative care and their attitude towards the experience of lower urinary tract symptoms. The interviews highlighted that structured, in-depth self-management is insufficiently embedded within general practitioner consultations. From an NHS perspective, mean costs and quality-adjusted life-years were similar between trial arms. The intervention arm had slightly lower mean costs (adjusted mean difference of -£29.99, 95% confidence interval -£109.84 to £22.63) than the usual-care arm, and a small gain in quality-adjusted life-years (adjusted mean difference of 0.001, 95% confidence interval -0.011 to 0.014). Conclusions: The intervention showed a small, sustained benefit for men's lower urinary tract symptoms and quality of life across a range of outcome measures in a UK primary care setting. Qualitative data showed that men highly valued the intervention. Intervention costs were marginally lower than usual-care costs. Limitations of the study included that trial participants were unmasked, with limited diversity in ethnicity and deprivation level. Additional research is needed to assess the applicability of the intervention for a more ethnically diverse population.. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN11669964. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/90/03) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 13. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Urinary problems among men become more common with age. Nearly one-third of all men aged > 65 years experience some urinary symptoms, which can have a substantial effect on their daily lives. Symptoms include needing to pass urine more often, urgently or during the night, and difficulties in passing urine. Men are usually diagnosed and treated by their general practitioner, and should be offered advice on controlling their symptoms themselves (e.g. lifestyle changes and exercises) before trying tablets or surgery. However, it is not known how helpful such advice is, and how general practices can effectively provide it. Thirty general practices in the West of England and Wessex took part in the study. Practices were split into two groups, with each practice providing either the TReatIng Urinary symptoms in Men in Primary Health care using non-pharmacological and non-surgical interventions care package or the practice's usual care to all of its patients in the trial. The TReatIng Urinary symptoms in Men in Primary Healthcare using nonpharmacological and non-surgical interventions care package included a booklet of advice to help control urinary symptoms, with a nurse or healthcare assistant directing men to relevant sections according to their symptoms, and providing follow-up contacts. We mainly assessed the benefits of the TReatIng Urinary symptoms in Men in Primary Healthcare using nonpharmacological and non-surgical interventions care package, compared with usual care, by using a questionnaire on urinary symptoms completed by participants. A total of 1077 men with urinary symptoms that bothered them joined the study. The main result was that men reported greater improvement in urinary symptoms with the TRIUMPH care package than with usual care, 12 months after joining the study. We also found that men receiving the TRIUMPH care package had a slight improvement in quality of life and outlook on their urinary symptoms. There was no difference between the two groups in the number of patients referred to hospital for treatment, the type, number and severity of side effects or cost to the NHS. Overall, the TRIUMPH care package was more effective in treating men with urinary symptoms than usual care by their general practice.

Education to improve timeliness of shingles diagnosis: Cluster RCT and qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Herpes zoster (shingles) is normally diagnosed clinically. Timely diagnosis is important so antiviral treatment can be started soon after rash onset. AIM: To assess whether a practice-level educational intervention, aimed at non-clinical patient-facing staff, improves the timely assessment of patients with shingles. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cluster randomised Study Within A Trial (SWAT) with nested qualitative study in General Practices in England. METHODS: Practices were cluster randomised 1:1, stratified by centre and minimised by practice list size and index of multiple deprivation score. Intervention practices were sent educational materials, highlighting the common presenting features of shingles and what action to take if suspected. The primary and secondary outcomes were the mean proportion of patients per practice seen within 72 hours and 144 of rash onset, respectively. Comparison between groups was conducted using linear regression, adjusting for randomisation variables. Semi-structured interviews with practice staff in intervention practices explored views and opinions of the intervention. RESULTS: 67 practices were enrolled; 34 randomised to intervention, 33 to control. The mean difference in proportion of patients seen within 72 and 144 hours was -0.132 (95% CI -0.308, 0.043) and -0.039 (95% CI -0.158, 0.080), respectively. In intervention practices, 90.5% reported distributing the educational materials, however engagement with these was suboptimal. 12 participants were interviewed, and the poster component of the intervention was said to be easiest to implement. CONCLUSION: Our educational intervention did not improve the timely assessment of patients with shingles. This may be the result of poor intervention engagement.

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

BACKGROUND: Two online behavioural interventions (Eczema Care Online; one website for parents/carers of children with eczema; 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; UK primary care. METHOD: Parents/carers and young people were recruited through primary care. Intervention use was recorded and summarised descriptively. Logistic regression explored socio-demographic 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 participants subsets. RESULTS: 340 parents/carers and 337 young people were recruited. 87% (148/171) parent/carers and 91% (153/168) young people in the intervention group completed the core introduction. At 24 weeks, users 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 accounted for approximately 30% of the intervention effect among parents/carers and 50% among young people. CONCLUSION: Findings demonstrated that positive intervention outcomes depended on a modest time commitment from users. They provide further support that the wider implementation of Eczema Care Online is justified.

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 can community pharmacists be supported to manage skin conditions? A multistage stakeholder research prioritisation exercise.

OBJECTIVE: To establish research priorities which will support the development and delivery of community pharmacy initiatives for the management of skin conditions. DESIGN: An iterative, multistage stakeholder consultation consisting of online survey, participant workshops and prioritisation meeting. SETTING: All data collection took place online with participants completing a survey (delivered via the JISC Online Survey platform, between July 2021 and January 2022) and participating in online workshops and meetings (hosted on Microsoft Teams between April and July 2022). PARTICIPANTS: 174 community pharmacists and pharmacy staff completed the online survey.53 participants participated in the exploratory workshops (19 community pharmacists, 4 non-pharmacist members of pharmacy staff and 30 members of the public). 4 healthcare professionals who were unable to attend a workshop participated in a one-to-one interview.29 participants from the workshops took part in the prioritisation meeting (5 pharmacists/pharmacy staff, 1 other healthcare professional and 23 members of the public). RESULTS: Five broad areas of potential research need were identified in the online survey: (1) identifying and diagnosing skin conditions; (2) skin conditions in skin of colour; (3) when to refer skin conditions; (4) disease-specific concerns and (5) product-specific concerns.These were explored and refined in the workshops to establish 10 potential areas for research, which will support pharmacists in managing skin conditions. These were ranked in the prioritisation meeting. Among those prioritised were topics which consider how pharmacists work with other healthcare professionals to identify and manage skin conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Survey responses and stakeholder workshops all recognised the potential for community pharmacists to play an active role in the management of common skin conditions. Future research may support this in the generation of resources for pharmacists, in encouraging public take-up of pharmacy services, and in evaluating the most effective provision for dealing with skin conditions.

Cost-effectiveness of a primary healthcare intervention to treat male lower urinary tract symptoms: the TRIUMPH cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of a primary care intervention for male lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) compared with usual care. DESIGN: Economic evaluation alongside a cluster randomised controlled trial from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective with a 12-month time horizon. SETTING: Thirty NHS general practice sites in England. PARTICIPANTS: 1077 men aged 18 or older identified in primary care with bothersome LUTS. INTERVENTIONS: A standardised and manualised intervention for the treatment of bothersome LUTS was compared with usual care. The intervention group (n=524) received a standardised information booklet with guidance on conservative treatment for LUTS, urinary symptom assessment and follow-up contacts for 12 weeks. The usual care group (n=553) followed local guidelines between general practice sites. MEASURES: Resource use was obtained from electronic health records, trial staff and participants, and valued using UK reference costs. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated from the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. Adjusted mean differences in costs and QALYs and incremental net monetary benefit were estimated. RESULTS: 866 of 1077 (80.4%) participants had complete data and were included in the base-case analysis. Over the 12-month follow-up period, intervention and usual care arms had similar mean adjusted costs and QALYs. Mean differences were lower in the intervention arm for adjusted costs -£29.99 (95% CI -£109.84 to £22.63) while higher in the intervention arm for adjusted QALYs 0.001 (95% CI -0.011 to 0.014). The incremental net monetary benefit statistic was £48.01 (95% CI -£225.83 to £321.85) at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence UK threshold of £20 000 per QALY. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve showed a 63% probability of the intervention arm being cost-effective at this threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Costs and QALYs were similar between the two arms at 12 months follow-up. This indicates that the intervention can be implemented in general practice at neutral cost. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN11669964.

"not one size fits all" The challenges of measuring paediatric health-related quality of life and the potential role of digital ecological momentary assessment: a qualitative study.

PURPOSE: To explore the views of clinicians and researchers about the challenges of measuring health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in children (5-11 years) and to explore whether digital ecological momentary assessment (EMA) could enhance HRQoL measurement. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews with 18 professionals (10 academics/researchers, four clinicians, four with both professional backgrounds) experienced in child HRQoL measurement. We analysed data thematically. RESULTS: Theme One describes the uncertainty around conceptualising HRQoL for children and which domains to include; the greater immediacy and sensitivity of children's reflections on their HRQoL, leading to high variability of the construct; and the wide individual differences across childhood, incongruent with fixed HRQoL measures. Theme Two describes the challenges of proxy reporting, questioning whether proxies can meaningfully report a child's HRQoL and reflecting on discrepancies between child and proxy reporting. Theme Three covers the challenge of interpreting change in HRQoL over time; does a change in HRQoL reflect a change in health, or does this reflect developmental changes in how children report HRQoL. Theme Four discusses digital EMA for HRQoL data capture. In-the-moment, repeated measurement could provide rich data and address challenges of recall, ecological validity and variability; passive data could provide objective markers to supplement subjective responses; and technology could enable personalisation and child-centred design. However, participants also raised methodological, practical and ethical challenges of digital approaches. CONCLUSION: Digital EMA may address some of the challenges of HRQoL data collection with children. We conclude by discussing potential future research to explore and develop this approach.

Cost-effectiveness of Spironolactone for Adult Female Acne (SAFA): economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to estimate the cost-effectiveness of oral spironolactone plus routine topical treatment compared with routine topical treatment alone for persistent acne in adult women from a British NHS perspective over 24 weeks. DESIGN: Economic evaluation undertaken alongside a pragmatic, parallel, double-blind, randomised trial. SETTING: Primary and secondary healthcare, community and social media advertising. PARTICIPANTS: Women ≥18 years with persistent facial acne judged to warrant oral antibiotic treatment. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised 1:1 to 50 mg/day spironolactone (increasing to 100 mg/day after 6 weeks) or matched placebo until week 24. Participants in both groups could continue topical treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost-utility analysis assessed incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) using the EQ-5D-5L. Cost-effectiveness analysis estimated incremental cost per unit change on the Acne-QoL symptom subscale. Adjusted analysis included randomisation stratification variables (centre, baseline severity (investigator's global assessment, IGA <3 vs ≥3)) and baseline variables (Acne-QoL symptom subscale score, resource use costs, EQ-5D score and use of topical treatments). RESULTS: Spironolactone did not appear cost-effective in the complete case analysis (n=126 spironolactone, n=109 control), compared with no active systemic treatment (adjusted incremental cost per QALY £67 191; unadjusted £34 770). Incremental cost per QALY was £27 879 (adjusted), just below the upper National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's threshold value of £30 000, where multiple imputation took account of missing data. Incremental cost per QALY for other sensitivity analyses varied around the base-case, highlighting the degree of uncertainty. The adjusted incremental cost per point change on the Acne-QoL symptom subscale for spironolactone compared with no active systemic treatment was £38.21 (complete case analysis). CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate a high level of uncertainty, particularly with respect to estimates of incremental QALYs. Compared with no active systemic treatment, spironolactone was estimated to be marginally cost-effective where multiple imputation was performed but was not cost-effective in complete case analysis. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN12892056).

Parent satisfaction with lotion, cream, gel and ointment emollient types: secondary analysis of Best Emollients for Eczema study.

INTRODUCTION: The main determinant of emollient effectiveness is whether it used, which in turn is linked with user satisfaction. OBJECTIVES: To compare parental satisfaction with emollients for the treatment of childhood eczema. METHODS: Secondary analysis of data from the Best Emollients for Eczema (BEE) trial. 550 children aged between 6 months to 12 years were recruited from primary care in England and randomised to use a lotion, cream, gel or ointment as their main emollient for 16 weeks. At week 16 parents were asked to complete an emollient satisfaction questionnaire (ESQ). Completion rates and scores were compared, using chi-squared, t-test calculations, and one-way ANOVA as appropriate. RESULTS: Data on 378 participants (68.7% of those randomised) were analysed. Mean (SD) ESQ scores were gel 20.9 (5.3), lotion 20.4 (5.6), cream 18.8 (6.3) and ointment 15.2 (6.8) (p<0.0001). In pairwise comparisons, there was a statistically significant difference in mean ESQ scores between ointment and lotion (p<0.0001), ointment and cream (p<0.0001) and ointment and gel (p<0.0001) but not between lotion, cream, and gel. Participants using lotions had highest overall satisfaction and were most likely to continue using their emollient. ESQ scores were correlated with reported emollient use and improvements in parent-reported eczema severity. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, lotions and gels were favoured over creams and ointments. Although satisfaction is determined by personal preference, these results will aid parents, clinicians, and children find the right emollient(s) for them.

Treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men in primary care using a conservative intervention: cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a standardised and manualised care intervention in men in primary care could achieve superior improvement of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) compared with usual care. DESIGN: Cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 30 National Health Service general practice sites in England. PARTICIPANTS: Sites were randomised 1:1 to the intervention and control arms. 1077 men (≥18 years) with bothersome LUTS recruited between June 2018 and August 2019: 524 were assigned to the intervention arm (n=17 sites) and 553 were assigned to the usual care arm (n=13 sites). INTERVENTION: Standardised information booklet developed with patient and expert input, providing guidance on conservative and lifestyle interventions for LUTS in men. After assessment of urinary symptoms (manualised element), general practice nurses and healthcare assistants or research nurses directed participants to relevant sections of the manual and provided contact over 12 weeks to assist with adherence. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was patient reported International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) measured 12 months after participants had consented to take part in the study. The target reduction of 2.0 points on which the study was powered reflects the minimal clinically important difference where baseline IPSS is <20. Secondary outcomes were patient reported quality of life, urinary symptoms and perception of LUTS, hospital referrals, and adverse events. The primary intention-to-treat analysis included 887 participants (82% of those recruited) and used a mixed effects multilevel linear regression model adjusted for site level variables used in the randomisation and baseline scores. RESULTS: Participants in the intervention arm had a lower mean IPSS at 12 months (adjusted mean difference -1.81 points, 95% confidence interval -2.66 to -0.95) indicating less severe urinary symptoms than those in the usual care arm. LUTS specific quality of life, incontinence, and perception of LUTS also improved more in the intervention arm than usual care arm at 12 months. The proportion of urology referrals (intervention 7.3%, usual care 7.9%) and adverse events (intervention seven events, usual care eight events) were comparable between the arms. CONCLUSIONS: A standardised and manualised intervention in primary care showed a sustained reduction in LUTS in men at 12 months. The mean difference of -1.81 points (95% confidence interval -0.95 to -2.66) on the IPSS was less than the predefined target reduction of 2.0 points. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN11669964.

Comparison of lotions, creams, gels and ointments for the treatment of childhood eczema: the BEE RCT.

Background: Emollients are recommended for children with eczema (atopic eczema/dermatitis). A lack of head-to-head comparisons of the effectiveness and acceptability of the different types of emollients has resulted in a 'trial and error' approach to prescribing. Objective: To compare the effectiveness and acceptability of four commonly used types of emollients for the treatment of childhood eczema. Design: Four group, parallel, individually randomised, superiority randomised clinical trials with a nested qualitative study, completed in 2021. A purposeful sample of parents/children was interviewed at ≈ 4 and ≈ 16 weeks. Setting: Primary care (78 general practitioner surgeries) in England. Participants: Children aged between 6 months and 12 years with eczema, of at least mild severity, and with no known sensitivity to the study emollients or their constituents. Interventions: Study emollients sharing the same characteristics in the four types of lotion, cream, gel or ointment, alongside usual care, and allocated using a web-based randomisation system. Participants were unmasked and the researcher assessing the Eczema Area Severity Index scores was masked. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure scores over 16 weeks. The secondary outcomes were Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure scores over 52 weeks, Eczema Area Severity Index score at 16 weeks, quality of life (Atopic Dermatitis Quality of Life, Child Health Utility-9 Dimensions and EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, scores), Dermatitis Family Impact and satisfaction levels at 16 weeks. Results: A total of 550 children were randomised to receive lotion (analysed for primary outcome 131/allocated 137), cream (137/140), gel (130/135) or ointment (126/138). At baseline, 86.0% of participants were white and 46.4% were female. The median (interquartile range) age was 4 (2-8) years and the median Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure score was 9.3 (SD 5.5). There was no evidence of a difference in mean Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure scores over the first 16 weeks between emollient types (global p = 0.765): adjusted Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure pairwise differences - cream-lotion 0.42 (95% confidence interval -0.48 to 1.32), gel-lotion 0.17 (95% confidence interval -0.75 to 1.09), ointment-lotion -0.01 (95% confidence interval -0.93 to 0.91), gel-cream -0.25 (95% confidence interval -1.15 to 0.65), ointment-cream -0.43 (95% confidence interval -1.34 to 0.48) and ointment-gel -0.18 (95% confidence interval -1.11 to 0.75). There was no effect modification by parent expectation, age, disease severity or the application of UK diagnostic criteria, and no differences between groups in any of the secondary outcomes. Median weekly use of allocated emollient, non-allocated emollient and topical corticosteroids was similar across groups. Overall satisfaction was highest for lotions and gels. There was no difference in the number of adverse reactions and there were no significant adverse events. In the nested qualitative study (n = 44 parents, n = 25 children), opinions about the acceptability of creams and ointments varied most, yet problems with all types were reported. Effectiveness may be favoured over acceptability. Parents preferred pumps and bottles over tubs and reported improved knowledge about, and use of, emollients as a result of taking part in the trial. Limitations: Parents and clinicians were unmasked to allocation. The findings may not apply to non-study emollients of the same type or to children from more ethnically diverse backgrounds. Conclusions: The four emollient types were equally effective. Satisfaction with the same emollient types varies, with different parents/children favouring different ones. Users need to be able to choose from a range of emollient types to find one that suits them. Future work: Future work could focus on how best to support shared decision-making of different emollient types and evaluations of other paraffin-based, non-paraffin and 'novel' emollients. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN84540529 and EudraCT 2017-000688-34. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (HTA 15/130/07) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 19. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

One in five children in the UK have eczema, a long-term, itchy, dry skin condition. It can significantly affect both the child and their family. Most children are diagnosed and looked after by their family doctor (general practitioner) and are prescribed moisturisers (also called emollients) to relieve skin dryness and other creams (topical corticosteroids) to control flare-ups. However, there are many different types of emollients and, to our knowledge, limited research to show which is better. In the Best Emollients for Eczema clinical trial, we compared the four main types of moisturisers ­ lotions, creams, gels and ointments. These types vary in their consistency, from thin to thick. We recruited 550 children (most of whom were white and had moderate eczema) and randomly assigned them to use one of the four different types as their main moisturiser for 16 weeks. We found no difference in effectiveness. Parent-reported eczema symptoms, eczema severity and quality of life were the same for all the four types of moisturisers. However, overall satisfaction was highest for lotions and gels. Ointments may need to be used less and cause less stinging. We interviewed 44 parents and 25 children who took part. Opinions of all four types of moisturisers varied. What one family liked about a moisturiser was not necessarily the same for another and preferences were individual to each user. Sometimes there was a tension between how well a moisturiser worked (effectiveness) and how easy it was to use (acceptability). In these cases, effectiveness tended to decide whether or not parents kept using it. People found moisturisers in pumps and bottles easier to use than those in tubs. A number of participants valued the information they were given about how to use moisturisers. Our results suggest that the type of moisturiser matters less than finding one that suits the child and family.

Amitriptyline at Low-Dose and Titrated for Irritable Bowel Syndrome as Second-Line Treatment in primary care (ATLANTIS): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) are managed in primary care. When first-line therapies for IBS are ineffective, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline suggests considering low- dose tricyclic antidepressants as second-line treatment, but their effectiveness in primary care is unknown, and they are infrequently prescribed in this setting. METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (Amitriptyline at Low-Dose and Titrated for Irritable Bowel Syndrome as Second-Line Treatment [ATLANTIS]) was conducted at 55 general practices in England. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, with Rome IV IBS of any subtype, and ongoing symptoms (IBS Severity Scoring System [IBS-SSS] score ≥75 points) despite dietary changes and first-line therapies, a normal full blood count and C-reactive protein, negative coeliac serology, and no evidence of suicidal ideation. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to low-dose oral amitriptyline (10 mg once daily) or placebo for 6 months, with dose titration over 3 weeks (up to 30 mg once daily), according to symptoms and tolerability. Participants, their general practitioners, investigators, and the analysis team were all masked to allocation throughout the trial. The primary outcome was the IBS-SSS score at 6 months. Effectiveness analyses were according to intention-to-treat; safety analyses were on all participants who took at least one dose of the trial medication. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN48075063) and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between Oct 18, 2019, and April 11, 2022, 463 participants (mean age 48·5 years [SD 16·1], 315 [68%] female to 148 [32%] male) were randomly allocated to receive low-dose amitriptyline (232) or placebo (231). Intention-to-treat analysis of the primary outcome showed a significant difference in favour of low-dose amitriptyline in IBS-SSS score between groups at 6 months (-27·0, 95% CI -46·9 to -7·10; p=0·0079). 46 (20%) participants discontinued low-dose amitriptyline (30 [13%] due to adverse events), and 59 (26%) discontinued placebo (20 [9%] due to adverse events) before 6 months. There were five serious adverse reactions (two in the amitriptyline group and three in the placebo group), and five serious adverse events unrelated to trial medication. INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, this is the largest trial of a tricyclic antidepressant in IBS ever conducted. Titrated low-dose amitriptyline was superior to placebo as a second-line treatment for IBS in primary care across multiple outcomes, and was safe and well tolerated. General practitioners should offer low-dose amitriptyline to patients with IBS whose symptoms do not improve with first-line therapies, with appropriate support to guide patient-led dose titration, such as the self-titration document developed for this trial. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Programme (grant reference 16/162/01).

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.

Where and how have written action plans for atopic eczema/dermatitis been developed and evaluated? Systematic review.

Background: Atopic eczema/dermatitis is a common inflammatory condition which affects 15%-30% of children and 2%-10% of adults. It can have a significant impact and its management can be challenging. It is important for patients, parents, and caregivers to know how to look after their skin. Objectives: To identify and review written eczema action plans (WAPs) that are available internationally for use by patients, parents, and caregivers. Methods: We followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines. We searched relevant databases (MEDLINE, Embase, COCHRANE) from inception until March 2022. We sought grey literature via Google searches and professional networks. Database search results were independently reviewed by two different reviewers. With identified WAPs, we assessed length, appearance, content, how it was developed and whether it had been evaluated. Results: From 312 abstracts, supplemented by other searches, we identified 20 unique eczema WAPs. From nine countries, all were written in English with 18 were designed for children. For the majority, it was unclear whether any development work preceded their creation or the intended clinical setting for use. Nineteen had a stepwise approach, 17 advised when to seek help, 6 were visually appealing and 6 had a rationale behind treatment documented in the WAP. Only three had been evaluated in clinical trials. Conclusion: Further evaluation is needed to assess the effectiveness of the WAPs that currently exist, prior to creating further WAPs. Patient and caregiver involvement is needed in any future work.

Ideas, concerns, expectations, and effects on life (ICEE) in GP consultations: an observational study using video-recorded UK consultations.

BACKGROUND: Eliciting patients' ideas, concerns, expectations, and whether a problem has an 'effect' on their life (ICEE), is a widely recommended communication technique. However, it is not known how frequently ICEE components are raised in UK GP consultations. AIM: To assess the frequency of ICEE in routine GP consultations with adult patients and explore variables associated with ICEE. DESIGN & SETTING: An observational study was undertaken. It involved secondary analysis of a pre-existing archive of video-recorded, face-to-face GP consultations in the UK. METHOD: Observational coding of 92 consultations took place. Associations were assessed using binomial and ordered logistic regression. RESULTS: Most consultations included at least one ICEE component (90.2%). The most common ICEE component per consultation was patient ideas (79.3%), followed by concerns (55.4%), expectations (51.1%), and then effects on life (42.4%). For all ICEE components patients more commonly initiated the ICEE dialogue, and in only three consultations (3.3%) did GPs directly ask patients about their expectations. Problems that were acute (odds ratio [OR] 2.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.36 to 6.53, P = 0.007) or assessed by GPs aged ≥50 years (OR 2.10, 95% CI = 1.07 to 4.13, P = 0.030) were associated with more ICEE components. Problems assessed later in the consultation (OR 0.60 per problem order increase, 95% CI = 0.41 to 0.87, P = 0.007) by patients aged ≥75 years (OR 0.40, 95% CI = 0.16 to 0.98, P = 0.046) and from the most deprived cohort (OR 0.39, 95% CI = 0.17 to 0.92, P = 0.032) were associated with fewer ICEE components. Patient ideas were associated with more patients being 'very satisfied' post-consultation (OR 10.74, 95% CI = 1.60 to 72.0, P = 0.014) and the opposite was true of concerns (OR 0.14, 95% CI = 0.02 to 0.86, P = 0.034). CONCLUSION: ICEE components were associated with patient satisfaction and demographic variables. Further research is required to assess if the way ICEE are communicated affects these associations and other potential confounders.

Effectiveness of spironolactone for women with acne vulgaris (SAFA) in England and Wales: pragmatic, multicentre, phase 3, double blind, randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of oral spironolactone for acne vulgaris in adult women. DESIGN: Pragmatic, multicentre, phase 3, double blind, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Primary and secondary healthcare, and advertising in the community and on social media in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: Women (≥18 years) with facial acne for at least six months, judged to warrant oral antibiotics. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to either 50 mg/day spironolactone or matched placebo until week six, increasing to 100 mg/day spironolactone or placebo until week 24. Participants could continue using topical treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was Acne-Specific Quality of Life (Acne-QoL) symptom subscale score at week 12 (range 0-30, where higher scores reflect improved QoL). Secondary outcomes were Acne-QoL at week 24, participant self-assessed improvement; investigator's global assessment (IGA) for treatment success; and adverse reactions. RESULTS: From 5 June 2019 to 31 August 2021, 1267 women were assessed for eligibility, 410 were randomly assigned to the intervention (n=201) or control group (n=209) and 342 were included in the primary analysis (n=176 in the intervention group and n=166 in the control group). Baseline mean age was 29.2 years (standard deviation 7.2), 28 (7%) of 389 were from ethnicities other than white, with 46% mild, 40% moderate, and 13% severe acne. Mean Acne-QoL symptom scores at baseline were 13.2 (standard deviation 4.9) and at week 12 were 19.2 (6.1) for spironolactone and 12.9 (4.5) and 17.8 (5.6) for placebo (difference favouring spironolactone 1.27 (95% confidence interval 0.07 to 2.46), adjusted for baseline variables). Scores at week 24 were 21.2 (5.9) for spironolactone and 17.4 (5.8) for placebo (difference 3.45 (95% confidence interval 2.16 to 4.75), adjusted). More participants in the spironolactone group reported acne improvement than in the placebo group: no significant difference was reported at week 12 (72% v 68%, odds ratio 1.16 (95% confidence interval 0.70 to 1.91)) but significant difference was noted at week 24 (82% v 63%, 2.72 (1.50 to 4.93)). Treatment success (IGA classified) at week 12 was 31 (19%) of 168 given spironolactone and nine (6%) of 160 given placebo (5.18 (2.18 to 12.28)). Adverse reactions were slightly more common in the spironolactone group with more headaches reported (20% v 12%; p=0.02). No serious adverse reactions were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Spironolactone improved outcomes compared with placebo, with greater differences at week 24 than week 12. Spironolactone is a useful alternative to oral antibiotics for women with acne. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN12892056.

Do temperature changes cause eczema flares? An English cohort study.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear if ambient temperature changes affect eczema. It is also unclear if people with worse disease are more susceptible to weather-related flares, or specific types of emollient offer protection. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effect of short-term temperature variations on eczema symptoms in children. METHODS: Data from a UK cohort of 519 children with eczema were combined with data from the Hadley Centre's Integrated Surface Database. Hot and cold weeks were defined by average regional temperature > 75th or < 25th percentile, January 2018 to February 2020. Eczema flares were defined as ≥ 3-point change in Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM). Random-effects logistic regression models were used to estimate the odds ratios of flares in hot and cold weeks (reference group: temperate weeks). RESULTS: The baseline mean age was 4.9 years (SD 3.2) and the POEM score was 9.2 (SD 5.5). From the 519 participants, there were 6796 consecutively paired POEMs and 1082 flares. Seasonal variation in POEM scores was observed, suggesting symptoms worsening in winter and improving in summer. Odds ratios of flares were: 1.15 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96-1.39, P = 0.14] in cold weeks and 0.85 (95% CI 0.72-1.00, P = 0.05) in hot weeks. The likelihood ratio test showed no evidence of this differing by disease severity (P = 0.53) or emollient type used (P = 0.55). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings are consistent with previous studies demonstrating either improvements in eczema symptoms or reduced flares in hot weather. Worse disease and different emollient types did not increase susceptibility or provide protection against temperature changes. Further work should investigate the role of sunlight, humidity, pollution and other environmental factors.

How and what adverse events are reported and captured in randomized control trials of emollients in the treatment of eczema?

BACKGROUND: Emollients are universally recommended for atopic dermatitis/eczema ('eczema'), to improve the skin barrier and reduce symptoms. However, our knowledge of the frequency and nature of adverse effects associated with their use is limited. OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine how well adverse events are reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of emollients for eczema. METHODS: MEDLINE was searched from inception (1946) to May 2022. Inclusion criteria were RCTs of moisturizers or emollients used as a leave-on treatment (as the intervention or control) in adults or children with eczema. Exclusion criteria were non-RCTs; patients with other diagnoses included; use of emollient as bath additives, soap substitutes or as preventative; and not published in English. References of eligible papers were reviewed for any additional, relevant research. Data were extracted into an Excel spreadsheet and analysed descriptively. An assessment of study quality was carried out using the Joanna Briggs Institute tool for RCTs. RESULTS: From 369 potential papers, 35 papers (reporting on 34 studies) were included. Most research was conducted in research centres or hospitals (unclear in 34%). In total, 89% reported collecting data on adverse events related to emollient treatment use but the methods used were poorly reported (40% unclear). Four papers used patient questionnaires/diaries. However, it was unclear how and what was collected as only two studies showed the questionnaires used. CONCLUSIONS: Reporting of adverse events related to emollient use in trials of patients with eczema is poor and inconsistent. Agreement should be reached on how and what adverse events should be collected, to standardize reporting across studies.