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).

"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.

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

BACKGROUND: The main determinant of emollient effectiveness is whether it is used, which in turn is linked with user satisfaction. OBJECTIVES: To compare parental satisfaction with emollient type for the treatment of childhood eczema. METHODS: Secondary analysis of data from the Best Emollients for Eczema (BEE) trial was undertaken. In total, 550 children aged between 6 months and 12 years were recruited from primary care in England and randomized 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 χ2 test, t-test calculations and one-way Anova as appropriate. RESULTS: Data on 378 participants (68.7% of those randomized) were analysed. Mean ESQ scores were gel 20.9 (SD 5.3), lotion 20.4 (SD 5.6), cream 18.8 (SD 6.3) and ointment 15.2 (SD 6.8) (P < 0.001). In pairwise comparisons, there was a statistically significant difference in mean ESQ scores between ointment and lotion (P < 0.001), ointment and cream (P < 0.001) and ointment and gel (P < 0.001) 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 to find the right emollient(s) for them.

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

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

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

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

'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 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.

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.

Frequency of guideline-defined cow's milk allergy symptoms in infants: Secondary analysis of EAT trial data.

BACKGROUND: Non-IgE-mediated Cow's Milk Allergy (CMA) has a prevalence of less than 1% in children. Guidelines developed to help non-specialists diagnose CMA may lead to misattribution of normal symptoms and contribute to overdiagnosis of CMA. We sought to establish the frequency of symptoms during infancy associated with non-IgE-mediated CMA, using the international Milk Allergy in Primary Care (iMAP) guideline as representative of CMA guidelines more generally. METHOD: Secondary analysis of the Enquiring About Tolerance (EAT) randomized controlled trial (ISRCTN 14254740; 1303 exclusively breastfed 3-month-old healthy infants). Key outcomes were ≥2 iMAP symptoms associated with 'mild-moderate' and 'severe' non-IgE-mediated CMA. RESULTS: Whilst breastfeeding and parental atopy rates were higher than the general population, participants were otherwise similar to the population of England and Wales. Two or more non-IgE CMA symptoms were reported by 25% families for mild-moderate and 1.4% for severe symptoms each month between ages 3 and 12 months, peaking at 38% with ≥2 mild-moderate and 4.3% ≥2 severe symptoms at three months, when participants were not directly consuming cow's milk. 74% of participants reported ≥2 mild-moderate symptoms and 9% ≥2 severe symptoms in at least one month during this period. At six months there was no evidence of difference in the proportion of children with ≥2 symptoms between those consuming (29.5% mild-moderate, 1.8% severe) and not consuming cow's milk (35.3% mild-moderate, 2.2% severe). Mean monthly reporting of ≥2 symptoms was also no different between those with (15.8% mild-moderate, 1.1% severe) or without eczema at baseline (16.7% mild-moderate, 1.3% severe). CONCLUSIONS: Guideline-defined symptoms of non-IgE-mediated CMA are very common in infants. Guidelines may promote milk allergy overdiagnosis by labelling normal infant symptoms as possible milk allergy.

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

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

Emollient satisfaction questionnaire: validation study in children with eczema.

BACKGROUND: Emollients are used as maintenance therapy for all severities of eczema but there is a lack of head-to-head comparisons of effectiveness and acceptability. AIM: To determine the validity of a self-report questionnaire designed to assess user satisfaction with a given emollient and to report the findings. METHODS: Data were analysed from the Choice of Moisturiser for Eczema Treatment trial, which compared four emollient types (Aveeno® lotion, Diprobase® cream, Doublebase® gel and Hydromol® ointment) in children aged < 5 years with clinically diagnosed eczema. An emollient satisfaction questionnaire was completed after 12 weeks. Responses for individual items were scored from 0 to 4. Total scores ranged from 0 to 28 (low to high satisfaction). Completion rates and distributions of responses for individual items and total scores, categorized by emollient type, were assessed, and two hypotheses were tested to determine the questionnaire's construct validity. RESULTS: Data from 77.2% (152 of 197) of participants were analysed. One item was rejected because of a high rate (44.7%) of 'don't know' responses, leaving seven items with high completion rates (98.7%) and weak evidence of floor or ceiling effects. A positive association was observed between total score and overall emollient satisfaction (Spearman correlation 0.78; P < 0.001). Total scores were highest (mean ± SD 23.5 ± 3.9) in the lotion group and lowest (18.4 ± 4.6) in the ointment group. CONCLUSION: The emollient satisfaction questionnaire appears to have good validity. Further work is required to validate the questionnaire in other settings and to assess its reliability.

Emollient prescribing formularies and guidelines in England, 2021: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Emollients are a mainstay of treatment for dry skin conditions. In the UK, prescribers are usually expected to follow local National Health Service (NHS) formularies. A previous study in 2018 showed that the recommended emollients across England and Wales varied widely. Evidence has since emerged that bath additives provide no additional clinical benefit in eczema. AIM: To compare emollient formularies and guidelines in England. METHODS: Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) formularies and guidelines were identified in April-May 2021, compiled and then analysed descriptively. RESULTS: In total, 105 CCGs, 72 emollient formularies and 47 emollient prescribing guidelines were identified. There were internal inconsistencies between formularies and their accompanying guidelines in 19% of cases. The majority (68%) of formularies/guidelines were organized using a ranking system. In total, 126 different leave-on emollients were named. Creams and ointments were universally available and were the most recommended first-line types. Cost was more likely than patient choice to be recommended as a criterion for selecting which emollient to prescribe. Aqueous cream was the leave-on emollient most commonly not recommended. Nearly three-quarters (74%) of formularies stated that bath additives should not be prescribed. CONCLUSION: All CCGs in England have an emollient formulary/guideline, but there is still great variability between them in their recommendations. Although the number of formularies/guidelines has reduced since 2017, there has been an increase in the total number of unique recommended leave-on emollients. Most CCGs are no longer recommending bath emollients for eczema.

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

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

Test-guided dietary management of eczema in children: A randomized controlled feasibility trial (TEST).

BACKGROUND: Parents commonly ask about food allergy tests, to find a cause for their child's eczema, yet the value of routine testing is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a clinical trial comparing test-guided dietary advice versus usual care, for the management of eczema, is feasible. METHODS: Children (>3 months and <5 years) with mild-to-severe eczema, recruited via primary care, were individually randomized (1:1) to intervention or usual care. Intervention participants underwent structured allergy history and skin prick tests (SPT) with dietary advice for cow's milk, hen's egg, wheat, peanut, cashew and codfish. All participants were followed up for 24 weeks. A sample of doctors and parents was interviewed. Registration ISRCTN15397185. RESULTS: From 1059 invitation letters sent to carers of potentially eligible children, 84 were randomized (42 per group) with mean age of 32.4 months (SD 13.9) and POEM of 8.7 (4.8). Of the 42, 6 (14%) intervention participants were advised to exclude one or more foods, most commonly egg, peanut or milk. By participant, 1/6 had an oral food challenge (negative); 3/6 were told to exclude until review in allergy clinic; and 6/6 advised a home dietary trial (exclusion and reintroduction of food over 4-6 weeks) - with 1/6 partially completing it. Participant retention (four withdrawals) and data completeness (74%-100%) were acceptable and contamination low (two usual care participants had allergy tests). There were three minor SPT-related adverse events. During follow-up, 12 intervention and 8 usual care participants had minor, unrelated adverse events plus one unrelated hospital admission. CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to recruit, randomize and retain children with eczema from primary care into a trial of food allergy screening and to collect the outcomes of interest. Changes to recruitment and inclusion criteria are needed in a definitive trial, to ensure inclusion of younger children from more diverse backgrounds.

Incidence, healthcare-seeking behaviours, antibiotic use and natural history of common infection syndromes in England: results from the Bug Watch community cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Better information on the typical course and management of acute common infections in the community could inform antibiotic stewardship campaigns. We aimed to investigate the incidence, management, and natural history of a range of infection syndromes (respiratory, gastrointestinal, mouth/dental, skin/soft tissue, urinary tract, and eye). METHODS: Bug Watch was an online prospective community cohort study of the general population in England (2018-2019) with weekly symptom reporting for 6 months. We combined symptom reports into infection syndromes, calculated incidence rates, described the proportion leading to healthcare-seeking behaviours and antibiotic use, and estimated duration and severity. RESULTS: The cohort comprised 873 individuals with 23,111 person-weeks follow-up. The mean age was 54 years and 528 (60%) were female. We identified 1422 infection syndromes, comprising 40,590 symptom reports. The incidence of respiratory tract infection syndromes was two per person year; for all other categories it was less than one. 194/1422 (14%) syndromes led to GP (or dentist) consultation and 136/1422 (10%) to antibiotic use. Symptoms usually resolved within a week and the third day was the most severe. CONCLUSIONS: Most people reported managing their symptoms without medical consultation. Interventions encouraging safe self-management across a range of acute infection syndromes could decrease pressure on primary healthcare services and support targets for reducing antibiotic prescribing.

Adaption and validation of the Working Alliance Inventory for General Practice: qualitative review and cross-sectional surveys.

BACKGROUND: Relational aspects of primary care are important, but we have no standard measure for assessment. The 'working alliance' incorporates elements of the therapeutic relationship, shared decision-making, goal setting and communication skills. The Working Alliance Inventory (short form) (WAI-SF) has been used in adult psychology, and a high score on the survey is associated with improved outcomes for clients. OBJECTIVE: To adapt the WAI-SF for use between GPs and patients and to test its concurrent validity with measures of shared decision-making and the doctor-patient relationship and discriminant validity with measures of social desirability. METHODS: Two rounds of online survey feedback from 55 GPs and 47 patients were used to adapt the WAI-SF-the WAI-GP. The tool was then completed by 142 patients in waiting rooms after seeing their GP and by 16 GPs at the end of their session. Concurrent validity with measures of shared decision-making and patient-doctor depth of relationship was determined using Spearman Rho correlations. Patients also completed two social desirability surveys, and discriminant validity with WAI-GP was assessed. RESULTS: Following feedback, the survey was re-worded to remove phrases that were perceived as judgmental or irrelevant. The patient measure of the WAI-GP was strongly correlated with Dyadic OPTION (rho = 0.705, P = 0.0001) and Patient-Doctor Depth of Relationship scale (rho = 0.591, P = 0.0001) and not with measures of social desirability. CONCLUSION: The psychometric properties of the WAI-GP support its use for measuring GP-patient alliance. Possibilities for use include assessing the influence of therapeutic alliance on the effectiveness of interventions.

Written action plans for children with long-term conditions: A systematic review and synthesis of qualitative data.

BACKGROUND: Long-term conditions (LTCs) in children require a high level of self-management. Written action plans (WAPs) have been advocated to guide decision-making and support self-management but there is uncertainty about how WAPs "work" and what aspects are important for successful implementation. OBJECTIVE: To review and synthesize existing qualitative evidence about the design and use of WAPs across childhood LTCs. METHOD: We undertook a systematic search of the literature (Medline, EMBASE, CiNAHL, PsycInfo, Web of science) from inception to May 2015; critically appraised included studies; and synthesized the findings, drawing on normalisation process theory. RESULTS: 3473 titles were screened and 53 papers read in full. Nine studies (four key, two minor and three of poor quality) contributed to our analysis, predominantly work on asthma from the USA and in specialist settings. WAPs may help to alleviate user worry and boost confidence. Confidence to act was closely linked to feelings of responsibility and authority. The value and use of WAPs are determined by multiple factors, and varies between different user groups. Logistical challenges include sharing a WAP between different stakeholders and keeping it up to date. Colour coding and pictures may enhance the appeal and usability of WAPS. CONCLUSION: WAPs are complex interventions but our understanding of their use and value in children with LTCs is limited. WAPs need to meet the needs of users who have different requirements/levels of understanding and confidence according to their different roles. Future research into WAPs needs to be both disease and context-specific.