Topical Anti-Inflammatory Treatments for Eczema: A Cochrane Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Eczema is the most burdensome skin condition worldwide and topical anti-inflammatory treatments are commonly used to control symptoms. The relative effectiveness and safety of different topical anti-inflammatory treatments is uncertain. DESIGN: Network meta-analysis performed within a Cochrane systematic review to compare and statistically rank efficacy and safety of topical anti-inflammatory eczema treatments. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and trial registries to June 2023. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTED TRIALS: Included trials were within-participant or between-participant randomised controlled trials. Participants had eczema that was not clinically infected and was not contact dermatitis, seborrheic eczema or hand eczema. Interventions were topical anti-inflammatory treatments but not complementary treatments, antibiotics alone, wet wraps, phototherapy or systemic treatments. Comparators were no treatment/vehicle or another topical anti-inflammatory. RESULTS: We identified 291 trials (45,846 participants), mainly in high-income countries. Most were industry-funded with median 3 weeks treatment duration. Risk of bias assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool was high in 89% of trials, mainly due to risk of selective reporting. Network meta-analysis of binary outcomes ranked potent and/or very potent topical steroids, tacrolimus 0.1% and ruxolitinib 1.5% among the most effective treatments for improving patient-reported symptoms (40 trials, all low confidence) and clinician-reported signs (32 trials, all moderate confidence). For investigator global assessment, the Janus kinas inhibitors ruxolitinib 1.5%, delgocitinib 0.5% or 0.25%, very potent/potent topical steroids and tacrolimus 0.1% were ranked as most effective (140 trials, all moderate confidence). Continuous outcome data were mixed. Local application site reactions were most common with tacrolimus 0.1% (moderate confidence) and crisaborole 2% (high confidence) and least common with topical steroids (moderate confidence). Skin thinning was not increased with short-term use of any topical steroid potency (low confidence) but skin thinning was reported in 6/2044 (0.3%) participants treated with longer-term (6-60 months) topical steroids. CONCLUSION: Potent topical steroids, Janus kinase inhibitors and tacrolimus 0.1% were consistently ranked as among the most effective topical anti-inflammatory treatments for eczema.

Patient and health professional views on risk-stratified monitoring of immune-suppressing treatment in adults with inflammatory diseases.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the acceptability of an individualised risk-stratified approach to monitoring for target-organ toxicity in adult patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases established on immune-suppressing treatment(s). METHODS: Adults (≥18 years) taking immune-suppressing treatment(s) for at-least six months, and healthcare professionals (HCPs) with experience of either prescribing and/or monitoring immune-suppressing drugs were invited to participate in a single, remote, one-to-one, semi-structured interview. Interviews were conducted by a trained qualitative researcher and explored their views and experiences of current monitoring and acceptability of a proposed risk-stratified monitoring plan. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and inductively analysed using thematic analysis in NVivo. RESULTS: Eighteen patients and 13 HCPs were interviewed. While participants found monitoring of immune-suppressing drugs with frequent blood-tests reassuring, the current frequency of these was considered burdensome by patients and HCPs alike, and to be a superfluous use of healthcare resources. Given abnormalities rarely arose during long-term treatment, most felt that monitoring blood-tests were not needed as often. Patients and HCPs found it acceptable to increase the interval between monitoring blood-tests from three-monthly to six-monthly or annually depending on the patients' risk profiles. Conditions of accepting such a change included: allowing for clinician and patient autonomy in determining an individuals' frequency of monitoring blood-tests, the flexibility to change monitoring frequency if someone's risk profile changed, and endorsement from specialist societies and healthcare providers such as the National Health Service. CONCLUSION: A risk-stratified approach to monitoring was acceptable to patients and HCPs. Guideline groups should consider these findings when recommending blood-test monitoring intervals.

Prevalence and risk factors for milk allergy overdiagnosis in the BEEP trial cohort.

BACKGROUND: Cow's milk allergy (CMA) overdiagnosis in young children appears to be increasing and has not been well characterised. We used a clinical trial population to characterise CMA overdiagnosis and identify individual-level and primary care practice-level risk factors. METHODS: We analysed data from 1394 children born in England in 2014-2016 (BEEP trial, ISRCTN21528841). Participants underwent formal CMA diagnosis at ≤2 years. CMA overdiagnosis was defined in three separate ways: parent-reported milk reaction; primary care record of milk hypersensitivity symptoms; and primary care record of low-allergy formula prescription. RESULTS: CMA was formally diagnosed in 19 (1.4%) participants. CMA overdiagnosis was common: 16.1% had parent-reported cow's milk hypersensitivity, 11.3% primary care recorded milk hypersensitivity and 8.7% had low-allergy formula prescription. Symptoms attributed to cow's milk hypersensitivity in participants without CMA were commonly gastrointestinal and reported from a median age of 49 days. Low-allergy formula prescriptions in participants without CMA lasted a median of 10 months (interquartile range 1, 16); the estimated volume consumed was a median of 272 litres (26, 448). Risk factors for CMA overdiagnosis were high practice-based low-allergy formula prescribing in the previous year and maternal report of antibiotic prescription during pregnancy. Exclusive formula feeding from birth was associated with increased low-allergy formula prescription. There was no evidence that practice prescribing of paediatric adrenaline auto-injectors or anti-reflux medications, or maternal features such as anxiety, age, parity and socioeconomic status were associated with CMA overdiagnosis. CONCLUSION: CMA overdiagnosis is common in early infancy. Risk factors include high primary care practice-based low-allergy formula prescribing and maternal report of antibiotic prescription during pregnancy.

Diagnostic accuracy of autofluorescence-Raman microspectroscopy for surgical margin assessment during Mohs micrographic surgery of basal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Autofluorescence (AF)-Raman microspectroscopy is a technology that can detect residual basal cell carcinoma (BCC) on the resection margin of fresh, surgically excised tissue specimens. The technology does not require tissue fixation, staining, labelling or sectioning, and provides quantitative diagnosis maps of the surgical margins in 30 min. OBJECTIVES: To determine the accuracy of the AF-Raman instrument in detecting incomplete BCC excisions during Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS), using histology as the reference standard. METHODS: Skin layers from 130 patients undergoing MMS at the Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust (September 2022-July 2023) were investigated with the AF-Raman instrument. The layers were measured when fresh, immediately after excision. The AF-Raman results and the intraoperative assessment by Mohs surgeons were compared with a postoperative consensus-derived reference produced by three dermatopathologists. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated. The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03482622). RESULTS: AF-Raman analysis was successfully completed for 125 of 130 layers and, on average, covered 91% of the specimen surface area, with the lowest surface area covered being 87% for the eyelid and the highest being 94% for forehead specimens. The AF-Raman instrument identified positive margins in 24 of 36 BCC-positive cases [67% sensitivity, 95% confidence interval (CI) 49-82] and negative margins in 65 of 89 BCC-negative cases (73% specificity, 95% CI 63-82). Only one of 12 false-negative cases was caused by misclassification by the AF-Raman algorithm. The other 11 false-negatives cases were a result of no valid Raman signal being recorded at the location of the residual BCC due to either occlusion by blood or poor contact between tissue and the cassette window. The intraoperative diagnosis by Mohs surgeons identified positive margins in 31 of 36 BCC-positive cases (86% sensitivity, 95% CI 70-95) and negative margins in 79 of 89 BCC-negative cases (89% specificity, 95% CI 81-95). CONCLUSIONS: The AF-Raman instrument has the potential to provide intraoperative microscopic assessment of surgical margins in BCC surgery. Further improvements are required for tissue processing, to ensure complete coverage of the surgical specimens.

Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is one of the most common human cancers, occurring mostly on the face and neck. Most BCCs are treated by cutting them out under local anaesthetic. This is routinely done in a hospital by a dermatologist or plastic surgeon. Surgery aims to remove all the cancer leaving the smallest scar possible, but it is often difficult to know how much normal skin to remove. Results from the laboratory often take 1 to 2 weeks to show if the cancer is clear. A technique called 'Mohs' (micrographic surgery) is recommended for these 'high-risk' BCCs. Mohs surgery removes thin layers of skin and investigates them under a microscope while the patient is still in the hospital. This is repeated until all the layers are clear of cancer. Because of the patchy availability of Mohs surgery, many patients with high-risk BCCs are treated by traditional methods that may not be as good as Mohs. We have developed an instrument that scans layers of skin and can quickly detect BCC. The instrument allows surgeons to check each removed skin layer for cancer cells to decide if more layers need to be removed. In this study, the instrument was tested on skin tissue layers from 130 patients who had Mohs surgery at the Nottingham Treatment Centre. The results showed that the instrument can measure skin layers in approximately 30 minutes and identify BCC with a similar accuracy to a Mohs surgeon, but only when the skin layers are prepared properly. With future improvements, the technology might be used to guide Mohs surgery or help surgeons in centres that do not have access to Mohs surgery.

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.

Discontinuation of anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha treatment owing to blood test abnormalities, and cost-effectiveness of alternate blood monitoring strategies.

BACKGROUND: There is no evidence base to support the use of 6-monthly monitoring blood tests for the early detection of liver, blood and renal toxicity during established anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) treatment. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the incidence and risk factors of anti-TNFα treatment cessation owing to liver, blood and renal side-effects, and to estimate the cost-effectiveness of alternate intervals between monitoring blood tests. METHODS: A secondary care-based retrospective cohort study was performed. Data from the British Association of Dermatologists Biologic and Immunomodulators Register (BADBIR) were used. Patients with at least moderate psoriasis prescribed their first anti-TNFα treatment were included. Treatment discontinuation due to a monitoring blood test abnormality was the primary outcome. Patients were followed-up from start of treatment to the outcome of interest, drug discontinuation, death, 31 July 2021 or up to 5 years, whichever came first. The incidence rate (IR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of anti-TNFα discontinuation with monitoring blood test abnormality was calculated. Multivariate Cox regression was used to examine the association between risk factors and outcome. A mathematical model evaluated costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with increasing the length of time between monitoring blood tests during anti-TNFα treatment. RESULTS: The cohort included 8819 participants [3710 (42.1%) female, mean (SD) age 44.76 (13.20) years] that contributed 25 058 person-years (PY) of follow-up and experienced 125 treatment discontinuations owing to a monitoring blood test abnormality at an IR of 5.85 (95% CI 4.91-6.97)/1000 PY. Of these, 64 and 61 discontinuations occurred within the first year and after the first year of treatment start, at IRs of 8.62 (95% CI 6.74-11.01) and 3.44 (95% CI 2.67-4.42)/1000 PY, respectively. Increasing age (in years), diabetes and liver disease were associated with anti-TNFα discontinuation after a monitoring blood test abnormality [adjusted hazard ratios of 1.02 (95% CI 1.01-1.04), 1.68 (95% CI 1.00-2.81) and 2.27 (95% CI 1.26-4.07), respectively]. Assuming a threshold of £20 000 per QALY gained, no monitoring was most cost-effective, but all extended periods were cost-effective vs. 3- or 6-monthly monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: Anti-TNFα drugs were uncommonly discontinued owing to abnormal monitoring blood tests after the first year of treatment. Extending the duration between monitoring blood tests was cost-effective. Our results produce evidence for specialist society guidance to reduce patient monitoring burden and healthcare costs.

Practicality, Validity and Responsiveness of Using the Proxy Version of the CHU-9D with Children Aged 2 to 5 Years.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the practicality, validity and responsiveness of proxy CHU-9D in children aged 2-5 years. METHODS: We used data from BEEP, a UK randomised controlled trial testing whether daily emollients in infancy could prevent eczema in high-risk infants. The main parent/carer completed the proxy CHU-9D using developers' additional guidance for completion in under-5's and the Patient-Orientated Eczema Measure (POEM) at ages 2, 3, 4 and 5. Practicality was assessed by completion rates. Construct validity assessed if CHU-9D could discriminate between those with/without eczema and between eczema severity levels on POEM. Responsiveness was determined by ability to discriminate between three groups: those whose POEM score, i) deteriorated ≥3 points, ii) change not clinically important (-2.9 to 2.9 points), and iii) improved ≥3 points. Analysis was conducted in STATA 17. RESULTS: Of 1,394 children participating in BEEP, study questionnaires were completed by 1,212 (87%), 981 (70%), 990 (71%), and 976 (70%) at 2, 3, 4 and 5-years. Of these the CHU-9D was completed by 1,066 (88.0%), 685 (69.8%), 925 (93.4%) and 923 (94.6%) respectively. Mean utility at all timepoints was around 0.934 (range 0.443-1). For construct validity, very small differences on the CHU-9D between known groups were observed(p <0.01). 801 participants had responsiveness data: 13% deteriorated, 72% had non-clinically important change, and 15% improved. Mean utility change (standardised response mean) for these groups was -0.0198 (0.21), 0.0041 (0.05), and 0.0175 (0.21)showing small change and small responsiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Proxy CHU-9D in 2-5 year old children shows potential but further research is needed.

Topical anti-inflammatory treatments for eczema: network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Eczema (atopic dermatitis) is the most burdensome skin condition worldwide and cannot currently be prevented or cured. Topical anti-inflammatory treatments are used to control eczema symptoms, but there is uncertainty about the relative effectiveness and safety of different topical anti-inflammatory treatments. OBJECTIVES: To compare and rank the efficacy and safety of topical anti-inflammatory treatments for people with eczema using a network meta-analysis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and trial registries on 29 June 2023, and checked the reference lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included within-participant or between-participant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in people of any age with eczema of any severity, but excluded trials in clinically infected eczema, seborrhoeic eczema, contact eczema, or hand eczema. We included topical anti-inflammatory treatments used for at least one week, compared with another anti-inflammatory treatment, no treatment, or vehicle/placebo. Vehicle is a 'carrier system' for an active pharmaceutical substance, which may also be used on its own as an emollient for dry skin. We excluded trials of topical antibiotics used alone, complementary therapies, emollients used alone, phototherapy, wet wraps, and systemic treatments. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Primary outcomes were patient-reported eczema symptoms, clinician-reported eczema signs and investigator global assessment. Secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life, long-term control of eczema, withdrawal from treatment/study, and local adverse effects (application-site reactions, pigmentation changes and skin thinning/atrophy were identified as important concerns through patient and public involvement). We used CINeMA to quantify our confidence in the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included 291 studies involving 45,846 participants with the full spectrum of eczema severity, mainly conducted in high-income countries in secondary care settings. Most studies included adults, with only 31 studies limited to children aged < 12 years. Studies usually included male and female participants, multiple ethnic groups but predominantly white populations. Most studies were industry-funded (68%) or did not report their funding sources/details. Treatment duration and trial participation were a median of 21 and 28 days (ranging from 7 days to 5 years), respectively. Interventions used were topical corticosteroids (TCS) (172), topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCI) (134), phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE-4) inhibitors (55), janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors (30), aryl hydrocarbon receptor activators (10), or other topical agents (21). Comparators included vehicle (170) or other anti-inflammatory treatments. The risk of bias was high in 242 of the 272 (89.0%) trials contributing to data analyses, most commonly due to concerns about selective reporting. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was only possible for short-term outcomes. Patient-reported symptoms NMA of 40 trials (6482 participants) reporting patient-reported symptoms as a binary outcome ranked tacrolimus 0.1% (OR 6.27, 95% CI 1.19 to 32.98), potent TCS (OR 5.99, 95% CI 2.83 to 12.69), and ruxolitinib 1.5% (OR 5.64, 95% CI 1.26 to 25.25) as the most effective, all with low confidence. Mild TCS, roflumilast 0.15%, and crisaborole 2% were the least effective. Class-level sensitivity analysis found potent/very potent TCS had similar effectiveness to potent TCI and was more effective than mild TCI and PDE-4 inhibitors. NMA of 29 trials (3839 participants) reporting patient-reported symptoms as a continuous outcome ranked very potent TCS (SMD -1.99, 95% CI -3.25 to -0.73; low confidence) and tacrolimus 0.03% (SMD -1.57, 95% CI -2.42 to -0.72; moderate confidence) the highest. Direct information for tacrolimus 0.03% was based on one trial of 60 participants at high risk of bias. Roflumilast 0.15%, delgocitinib 0.25% or 0.5%, and tapinarof 1% were the least effective. Class-level sensitivity analysis found potent/very potent TCS had similar effectiveness to potent TCI and JAK inhibitors and mild/moderate TCS was less effective than mild TCI. A further 50 trials (9636 participants) reported patient-reported symptoms as a continuous outcome but could not be included in NMA. Clinician-reported signs NMA of 32 trials (4121 participants) reported clinician signs as a binary outcome and ranked potent TCS (OR 8.15, 95% CI 4.99, 13.57), tacrolimus 0.1% (OR 8.06, 95% CI 3.30, 19.67), ruxolitinib 1.5% (OR 7.72, 95% CI 4.92, 12.10), and delgocitinib 0.5% (OR 7.61, 95% CI 3.72, 15.58) as most effective, all with moderate confidence. Mild TCS, roflumilast 0.15%, crisaborole 2%, and tapinarof 1% were the least effective. Class-level sensitivity analysis found potent/very potent TCS more effective than potent TCI, mild TCI, JAK inhibitors, PDE-4 inhibitors; and mild TCS and PDE-4 inhibitors had similar effectiveness. NMA of 49 trials (5261 participants) reported clinician signs as a continuous outcome and ranked tacrolimus 0.03% (SMD -2.69, 95% CI -3.36, -2.02) and very potent TCS (SMD -1.87, 95% CI -2.69, -1.05) as most effective, both with moderate confidence; roflumilast 0.15%, difamilast 0.3% and tapinarof 1% were ranked as least effective. Direct information for tacrolimus 0.03% was based on one trial in 60 participants with a high risk of bias. For some sensitivity analyses, potent TCS, tacrolimus 0.1%, ruxolitinib 1.5%, delgocitinib 0.5% and delgocitinib 0.25% became some of the most effective treatments. Class-level analysis found potent/very potent TCS had similar effectiveness to potent TCI and JAK inhibitors, and moderate/mild TCS was more effective than mild TCI. A further 100 trials (22,814 participants) reported clinician signs as a continuous outcome but could not be included in NMA. Investigator Global Assessment NMA of 140 trials (23,383 participants) reported IGA as a binary outcome and ranked ruxolitinib 1.5% (OR 9.34, 95% CI 4.8, 18.18), delgocitinib 0.5% (OR 10.08, 95% CI 2.65, 38.37), delgocitinib 0.25% (OR 6.87, 95% CI 1.79, 26.33), very potent TCS (OR 8.34, 95% CI 4.73, 14.67), potent TCS (OR 5.00, 95% CI 3.80, 6.58), and tacrolimus 0.1% (OR 5.06, 95% CI 3.59, 7.13) as most effective, all with moderate confidence. Mild TCS, crisaborole 2%, pimecrolimus 1%, roflumilast 0.15%, difamilast 0.3% and 1%, and tacrolimus 0.03% were the least effective. In a sensitivity analysis of low risk of bias information (12 trials, 1639 participants), potent TCS, delgocitinib 0.5% and delgocitinib 0.25% were most effective, and pimecrolimus 1%, roflumilast 0.15%, difamilast 1% and difamilast 0.3% least effective. Class-level sensitivity analysis found potent/very potent TCS had similar effectiveness to potent TCI and JAK inhibitors and were more effective than PDE-4 inhibitors; mild/moderate TCS were less effective than potent TCI and had similar effectiveness to mild TCI. Longer-term outcomes over 6 to 12 months showed a possible increase in effectiveness for pimecrolimus 1% versus vehicle (4 trials, 2218 participants) in a pairwise meta-analysis, and greater treatment success with mild/moderate TCS than pimecrolimus 1% (based on 1 trial of 2045 participants). Local adverse effects NMA of 83 trials (18,992 participants, 2424 events) reporting application-site reactions ranked tacrolimus 0.1% (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.53, 3.17; moderate confidence), crisaborole 2% (OR 2.12, 95% CI 1.18, 3.81; high confidence), tacrolimus 0.03% (OR 1.51, 95%CI 1.10, 2.09; low confidence), and pimecrolimus 1% (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.01, 2.04; low confidence) as most likely to cause site reactions. Very potent, potent, moderate, and mild TCS were least likely to cause site reactions. NMA of eight trials (1786 participants, 3 events) reporting pigmentation changes found no evidence for increased pigmentation changes with TCS and crisaborole 2%, with low confidence for mild, moderate or potent TCS and moderate confidence for crisaborole 2%. NMA of 25 trials (3691 participants, 36 events) reporting skin thinning found no evidence for increased skin thinning with short-term (median 3 weeks, range 1-16 weeks) use of mild TCS (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.12, 4.31), moderate TCS (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.16, 5.33), potent TCS (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.21, 4.43) or very potent TCS (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.31, 2.49), all with low confidence. Longer-term outcomes over 6 to 60 months showed increased skin thinning with mild to potent TCS versus TCI (3 trials, 4069 participants, 6 events with TCS). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Potent TCS, JAK inhibitors and tacrolimus 0.1% were consistently ranked as amongst the most effective topical anti-inflammatory treatments for eczema and PDE-4 inhibitors as amongst the least effective. Mild TCS and tapinarof 1% were ranked amongst the least effective treatments in three of five efficacy networks. TCI and crisaborole 2% were ranked most likely to cause local application-site reactions and TCS least likely. We found no evidence for increased skin thinning with short-term TCS but an increase with longer-term TCS.

How to review a submitted dermatology manuscript.

Although much has been written about peer review science, practical advice on HOW to peer review articles is lacking, especially for Dermatology. This article aims to provide a practical, stepwise framework to support new reviewers. Step 1 involves a rapid read of the manuscript to get a feel of the topic and to clarify the study question and design. Step 2 is a thorough slower read, using an appropriate EQUATOR checklist. Step 3 is to organise your comments to authors into major and minor points in a constructive way, focusing on clarity of question, internal validity, external validity and whether interpretation fits with the results. Finally, make a recommendation to the editor, indicating whether the study is publishable with suitable revision or whether it contains some fatal flaws. We hope that this practical guide will encourage and help new reviewers to take on this rewarding and important scientific task for patient benefit.

Enhanced early skin treatment for atopic dermatitis in infants reduces food allergy.

BACKGROUND: Early-onset atopic dermatitis is a strong risk factor for food allergy, suggesting that early effective treatment may prevent transcutaneous sensitization. OBJECTIVES: This study tested whether enhanced treatment of atopic dermatitis to clinically affected and unaffected skin is more effective in preventing hen's egg allergy than reactive treatment to clinically affected skin only. METHODS: This was a multicenter, parallel-group, open-label, assessor-blind, randomized controlled trial (PACI [Prevention of Allergy via Cutaneous Intervention] study). This study enrolled infants 7-13 weeks old with atopic dermatitis and randomly assigned infants in a 1:1 ratio to enhanced early skin treatment or conventional reactive treatment using topical corticosteroids (TCSs). The primary outcome was the proportion of immediate hen's egg allergy confirmed by oral food challenge at 28 weeks of age. RESULTS: This study enrolled 650 infants and analyzed 640 infants (enhanced [n = 318] or conventional [n = 322] treatment). Enhanced treatment significantly reduced hen's egg allergy compared with the conventional treatment (31.4% vs 41.9%, P = .0028; risk difference: -10.5%, upper bound of a 1-sided CI: -3.0%), while it lowered body weight (mean difference: -422 g, 95% CI: -553 to -292 g) and height (mean difference: -0.8 cm, 95% CI: -1.22 to -0.33 cm) at 28 weeks of age. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlighted the potential of well-controlled atopic dermatitis management as a component of a hen's egg allergy prevention strategy. The enhanced treatment protocol of this trial should be modified before it can be considered as an approach to prevent hen's egg allergy in daily practice to avoid the adverse effects of TCSs. After remission induction by TCSs, maintenance therapy with lower potency TCSs or other topical therapies might be considered as alternative proactive treatments to overcome the safety concerns of TCSs.

Is Vaccination Against COVID-19 Associated With Inflammatory Bowel Disease Flare? Self-Controlled Case Series Analysis Using the UK CPRD.

INTRODUCTION: To investigate the association between vaccination against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) flare. METHODS: Patients with IBD vaccinated against COVID-19 who consulted for disease flare between December 1, 2020, and December 31, 2021, were ascertained from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. IBD flares were identified using consultation and corticosteroid prescription records. Vaccinations were identified using product codes and vaccination dates. The study period was partitioned into vaccine-exposed (vaccination date and 21 days immediately after), prevaccination (7 days immediately before vaccination), and the remaining vaccine-unexposed periods. Participants contributed data with multiple vaccinations and IBD flares. Season-adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using self-controlled case series analysis. RESULTS: Data for 1911 cases with IBD were included; 52% of them were female, and their mean age was 49 years. Approximately 63% of participants had ulcerative colitis (UC). COVID-19 vaccination was not associated with increased IBD flares in the vaccine-exposed period when all vaccinations were considered (aIRR [95% CI] 0.89 [0.77-1.02], 0.79 [0.66-0.95], and 1.00 [0.79-1.27] in IBD overall, UC, and Crohn's disease, respectively). Analyses stratified to include only first, second, or third COVID-19 vaccinations found no significant association between vaccination and IBD flares in the vaccine-exposed period (aIRR [95% CI] 0.87 [0.71-1.06], 0.93 [0.75-1.15], and 0.86 [0.63-1.17], respectively). Similarly, stratification by COVID-19 before vaccination and by vaccination with vectored DNA or messenger RNA vaccine did not reveal an increased risk of flare in any of these subgroups. DISCUSSION: Vaccination against COVID-19 was not associated with IBD flares regardless of prior COVID-19 infection and whether messenger RNA or DNA vaccines were used.

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.

Is vaccination against COVID-19 associated with autoimmune rheumatic disease flare? A self-controlled case series analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the association between vaccination against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and autoimmune rheumatic disease (AIRD) flare. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients with AIRDs vaccinated against COVID-19 who consulted for disease flare between 1 December 2020 and 31 December 2021 were ascertained in Clinical Practice Research Datalink (Aurum). AIRD flare was defined as consultation for AIRD with CS prescription on the same day or the next day. Vaccination was defined using date of vaccination and product code. The observation period was partitioned into vaccine-exposed (21 days after vaccination), pre-vaccination (7 days before vaccination) and remaining vaccine-unexposed periods. Participants contributed data with multiple vaccinations and outcomes. Season adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRR) and 95% CI were calculated using self-controlled case series analysis. RESULTS: Data for 3554 AIRD cases, 72% female, mean age 65 years and 68.3% with RA, were included. COVID-19 vaccination was associated with significantly fewer AIRD flares in the 21-day vaccine-exposed period when all vaccinations were considered [aIRR (95% CI) 0.89 (0.80, 0.98)]. Using dose-stratified analyses there was a statistically significant negative association in the 21 days after first COVID-19 vaccination but no association after the second or third COVID-19 vaccinations [aIRR (95% CI) 0.76 (0.66, 0.89), 0.94 (0.79, 1.11) and 1.01 (0.85, 1.20), respectively]. On AIRD-type stratified analyses, vaccination was not associated with disease flares. Vaccination without or after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection, and with vectored DNA or mRNA vaccines, associated with comparable reduced risk of AIRD flares in the vaccine-exposed period after first COVID-19 vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Vaccination against COVID-19 was not associated with increased AIRD flares regardless of prior COVID-19, AIRD type, and whether mRNA or DNA vaccination technology were used.

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.

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.

'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 to do digital Advice and Guidance well.

The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated a rapid expansion of digital Advice and Guidance (A&G) across UK medical and surgical specialties. Dermatology A&G requests have increased by over 400% since the onset of the pandemic in 2020, with rapid expansion of teledermatology A&G services across England. Dermatology A&G is usually carried out asynchronously through dedicated digital platforms such as the National Health Service e-referral service, with streamlined conversion to referral if clinically indicated. A&G with images is advocated as the main referral pathway to dermatology specialist services in England (excluding the 2-week wait suspected skin cancer pathway). Providing dermatological care through A&G requires specific clinical skill sets to ensure rapid, safe and collaborative delivery, and optimization of educational benefit. Little published guidance is available to signpost clinicians to what constitutes a high-quality A&G request and response. This educational article discusses good clinical practice based on extensive local and national experience from primary and secondary care doctors. We cover digital communication skills, shared decision making, clinical competency and building collaborative links between patients, referrers and specialists. High-quality A&G, with agreed turn-around times and optimization of technology, can significantly streamline patient care and strengthen links between clinicians, providing it is appropriately resourced within the wider planning of elective care and outpatient activity.

Predator and Alien: the threat of predatory journals and conferences.

Predatory journals, first recognized in the early 2000s, are fraudulent publications characterized by aggressive marketing solicitations and deviation from best publishing practices. These journals claim to be legitimate scholarly publications, and accept articles with no or poor peer review processes or quality checks, with rapid publication on payment by authors. They are a global threat as they are dishonest, lack transparency and seek only financial gain. More recently, predatory conferences have emerged and are expanding rapidly. Although they appear to be legitimate scientific conferences, they are also characterized by an overriding profit motive, with no concern for academic values. Predatory journals and conferences are on the rise; dermatology trainees, readers and those new to publishing and conferences are vulnerable to predatory exploitation. The consequences of falling victim to such predation include damage to the external reputation of the authors and their institution, and heightened concerns about the legitimacy of the research. This educational review defines predatory journals and conferences, and summarizes their distinguishing features such as a poor or no peer review process, rapid acceptance, flattering language and lack of meeting. It highlights the consequences of publishing in a predatory journal or attending a predatory conference, and outlines several tools available that dermatology researchers can use to recognize and reduce the likelihood of falling prey to a predatory journal or conference.

How to critically appraise a systematic review: an aide for the reader and reviewer.

The number of published systematic reviews has soared rapidly in recent years. Sadly, the quality of most systematic reviews in dermatology is substandard. With the continued increase in exposure to systematic reviews, and their potential to influence clinical practice, we sought to describe a sequence of useful tips for the busy clinician reader to determine study quality and clinical utility. Important factors to consider when assessing systematic reviews include: determining the motivation to performing the study, establishing if the study protocol was prepublished, assessing quality of reporting using the PRISMA checklist, assessing study quality using the AMSTAR 2 critical appraisal checklist, assessing for evidence of spin, and summarizing the main strengths and limitations of the study to determine if it could change clinical practice. Having a set of heuristics to consider when reading systematic reviews serves to save time, enabling assessment of quality in a structured way, and come to a prompt conclusion of the merits of a review article in order to inform the care of dermatology patients.

Determining the clinical applicability of machine learning models through assessment of reporting across skin phototypes and rarer skin cancer types: A systematic review.

Machine learning (ML) models for skin cancer recognition may have variable performance across different skin phototypes and skin cancer types. Overall performance metrics alone are insufficient to detect poor subgroup performance. We aimed (1) to assess whether studies of ML models reported results separately for different skin phototypes and rarer skin cancers, and (2) to graphically represent the skin cancer training datasets used by current ML models. In this systematic review, we searched PubMed, Embase and CENTRAL. We included all studies in medical journals assessing an ML technique for skin cancer diagnosis that used clinical or dermoscopic images from 1 January 2012 to 22 September 2021. No language restrictions were applied. We considered rarer skin cancers to be skin cancers other than pigmented melanoma, basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma. We identified 114 studies for inclusion. Rarer skin cancers were included by 8/114 studies (7.0%), and results for a rarer skin cancer were reported separately in 1/114 studies (0.9%). Performance was reported across all skin phototypes in 1/114 studies (0.9%), but performance was uncertain in skin phototypes I and VI from minimal representation of the skin phototypes in the test dataset (9/3756 and 1/3756, respectively). For training datasets, although public datasets were most frequently used, with the most widely used being the International Skin Imaging Collaboration (ISIC) archive (65/114 studies, 57.0%), the largest datasets were private. Our review identified that most ML models did not report performance separately for rarer skin cancers and different skin phototypes. A degree of variability in ML model performance across subgroups is expected, but the current lack of transparency is not justifiable and risks models being used inappropriately in populations in whom accuracy is low.