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.

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.

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

BACKGROUND: Autofluorescence (AF) - Raman spectroscopy 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 minutes. OBJECTIVES: To determine the accuracy of the AF-Raman instrument to detect incomplete excisions of BCC during Mohs micrographic surgery, using histology as reference standard. METHODS: Skin layers from 130 patients undergoing Mohs surgery at the Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust (September 2022 to July 2023) were investigated with the AF-Raman instrument. The layers were measured fresh, immediately after excision. The AF-Raman results and the intra-operative assessment by Mohs surgeons were compared to a post-operative consensus-derived reference produced by three dermatopathologists. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were calculated. RESULTS: The AF-Raman analysis was successfully completed for 125 out of the 130 layers. The AF-Raman analysis covered 91% of the specimen surface area on average, with the lowest being 87% for eyelid and the highest being 94% for forehead specimens. The AF-Raman instrument identified positive margins in 24 out of 36 BCC-positive cases, resulting in a 67% sensitivity (95% confidence intervals (CI): 49%-82%) and negative margins in 65 out of 89 BCC-negative cases, resulting in a 73% specificity (95% CI 63%-82%). Only one out of the 12 false negative cases was caused by misclassification by the AF-Raman algorithm. The other 11 false negatives cases were produced because no valid Raman signal was recorded at the location of the residual BCC due to either occlusion by blood or poor contact between tissue and cassette window. The intra-operative diagnosis by Mohs surgeons identified positive margins in 31 out of 36 BCC-positive cases, 86% sensitivity (95% CI: 70%-95%), and negative margins in 79 out of 89 BCC-negative cases, 89% specificity (95% CI: 81%-95%). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that the AF-Raman instrument has potential for intra-operative microscopic assessment of surgical margins in surgery of BCC. Further improvements are required for tissue processing to ensure complete coverage of the surgical specimens. ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT03482622.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Frequency of newborn bathing in the first 9 weeks of life and related factors: An observational study in a community-based sample from Meta-LARC.

PURPOSE: Environmental factors such as bathing may play a role in atopic dermatitis (AD) development. This analysis utilized data from the Community Assessment of Skin Care, Allergies, and Eczema (CASCADE) Trial (NCT03409367), a randomized controlled trial of emollient therapy for AD prevention in the general population, to estimate bathing frequency and associated factors within the first 9 weeks of life. METHODS: Data were collected from 909 parent/newborn dyads recruited from 25 pediatric and family medicine clinics from the Meta-network Learning and Research Center (Meta-LARC) practice-based research network (PBRN) consortium in Oregon, North Carolina, Colorado, and Wisconsin for the CASCADE trial. Ordinal logistic regression was used to conduct a cross-sectional analysis of the association between bathing frequency (measured in baths per week) and demographic, medical, and lifestyle information about the infant, their family, and their household. Variables were selected using a backwards-stepwise method and estimates from the reduced model are reported in the text. RESULTS: Moisturizer use (OR = 2.03, 95% CI: 1.54-2.68), Hispanic or Latino ethnicity (OR = 1.97, 95% CI: 1.42-2.72), a parental education level lower than a 4-year college degree (OR = 2.48, 95% CI: 1.70-3.62), living in North Carolina or Wisconsin (compared to Oregon; OR = 2.12 and 1.47, 95% CI: 1.53-2.93 and 1.04-2.08, respectively), and increasing child age (in days; OR = 1.02, 95% CI: 1.01-1.02) were significantly associated with more frequent bathing, while pet ownership (OR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.52-0.87) was significantly associated with less frequent bathing. CONCLUSIONS: We found significant ethnic, geographic, and socioeconomic variation in bathing frequency before 9 weeks of age that may be of relevance to AD prevention studies.

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

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

Individual participant data meta-analysis versus aggregate data meta-analysis: A case study in eczema and food allergy prevention.

INTRODUCTION: Meta-analysis traditionally uses aggregate data from published reports. Individual Participant Data (IPD) meta-analysis, which obtains and synthesizes participant-level data, is potentially more informative, but resource-intensive. The impact on the findings of meta-analyses using IPD in comparison with aggregate data has rarely been formally evaluated. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of a Cochrane systematic review of skincare interventions for preventing eczema and food allergy in infants to identify the impact of the analytical choice on the review's findings. We used aggregate data meta-analysis only and contrasted the results against those of the originally published IPD meta-analysis. All meta-analysis used random effects inverse variance models. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE. RESULTS: The pooled treatment effects for the Cochrane systematic review's co-primary outcomes of eczema and food allergy were similar in IPD meta-analysis (eczema RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.81, 1.31; I2 41%, 7 studies 3075 participants), and aggregate meta-analysis (eczema RR 1.01 95% CI 0.77, 1.33; I2 53%, 7 studies, 3089 participants). In aggregate meta-analysis, the statistical heterogeneity could not be explained but using IPD it was explained by one trial which used a different, bathing intervention. For IPD meta-analysis, risk of bias was assessed as lower and more adverse event data were available compared with aggregate meta-analysis. This resulted in higher certainty of evidence, especially for adverse events. IPD meta-analysis enabled analysis of treatment interactions by age and hereditary eczema risk; and analysis of the effect of treatment adherence using pooled complier-adjusted-causal-effect analysis, none of which was possible in aggregate meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: For this systematic review, IPD did not significantly change primary outcome risk ratios compared with aggregate data meta-analysis. However, certainty of evidence, safety outcomes, subgroup and adherence analyses were significantly different using IPD. This demonstrates benefits of adopting an IPD approach to meta-analysis.

Detection and management of milk allergy: Delphi consensus study.

BACKGROUND: There is significant overdiagnosis of milk allergy in young children in some countries, leading to unnecessary use of specialized formula. This guidance, developed by experts without commercial ties to the formula industry, aims to reduce milk allergy overdiagnosis and support carers of children with suspected milk allergy. METHODS: Delphi study involving two rounds of anonymous consensus building and an open meeting between January and July 2021. Seventeen experts in general practice, nutrition, midwifery, health visiting, lactation support and relevant areas of paediatrics participated, located in Europe, North America, Middle East, Africa, Australia and Asia. Five authors of previous milk allergy guidelines and seven parents provided feedback. FINDINGS: Participants agreed on 38 essential recommendations through consensus. Recommendations highlighted the importance of reproducibility and specificity for diagnosing milk allergy in children with acute or delayed symptoms temporally related to milk protein ingestion; and distinguished between children directly consuming milk protein and exclusively breastfed infants. Consensus was reached that maternal dietary restriction is not usually necessary to manage milk allergy, and that for exclusively breastfed infants with chronic symptoms, milk allergy diagnosis should only be considered in specific, rare circumstances. Consensus was reached that milk allergy diagnosis does not need to be considered for stool changes, aversive feeding or occasional spots of blood in stool, if there is no temporal relationship with milk protein ingestion. When compared with previous guidelines, these consensus recommendations resulted in more restrictive criteria for detecting milk allergy and a more limited role for maternal dietary exclusions and specialized formula. INTERPRETATION: These new milk allergy recommendations from non-conflicted, multidisciplinary experts advise narrower criteria, more prominent support for breastfeeding and less use of specialized formula, compared with current guidelines.