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.

Supporting self-care for eczema: protocol for two randomised controlled trials of ECO (Eczema Care Online) interventions for young people and parents/carers.

INTRODUCTION: Eczema care requires management of triggers and various treatments. We developed two online behavioural interventions to support eczema care called ECO (Eczema Care Online) for young people and ECO for families. This protocol describes two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to evaluate clinical and cost-effectiveness of the two interventions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Design: Two independent, pragmatic, unmasked, parallel group RCTs with internal pilots and nested health economic and process evaluation studies. Setting: Participants will be recruited from general practitioner practices in England. Participants: Young people aged 13-25 years with eczema and parents and carers of children aged 0-12 years with eczema, excluding inactive or very mild eczema (five or less on Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM)). Interventions: Participants will be randomised to online intervention plus usual care or to usual eczema care alone. Outcome measures: Primary outcome is eczema severity over 24 weeks measured by POEM. Secondary outcomes include POEM 4-weekly for 52 weeks, quality of life, eczema control, itch intensity (young people only), patient enablement, health service and treatment use. Process measures include treatment adherence, barriers to adherence and intervention usage. Our sample sizes of 303 participants per trial are powered to detect a group difference of 2.5 (SD 6.5) in monthly POEM scores over 24 weeks (significance 0.05, power 0.9), allowing for 20% loss to follow-up. Cost-effectiveness analysis will be from a National Health Service and personal social service perspective. Qualitative and quantitative process evaluation will help understand the mechanisms of action and participant experiences and inform implementation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by South Central Oxford A Research Ethics Committee (19/SC/0351). Recruitment is ongoing, and follow-up will be completed by mid-2022. Findings will be disseminated to participants, the public, dermatology and primary care journals, and policy makers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN79282252.

Home-based narrowband UVB, topical corticosteroid or combination for children and adults with vitiligo: HI-Light Vitiligo three-arm RCT.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews suggest that narrowband ultraviolet B light combined with treatments such as topical corticosteroids may be more effective than monotherapy for vitiligo. OBJECTIVE: To explore the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of topical corticosteroid monotherapy compared with (1) hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B light monotherapy and (2) hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B light/topical corticosteroid combination treatment for localised vitiligo. DESIGN: Pragmatic, three-arm, randomised controlled trial with 9 months of treatment and a 12-month follow-up. SETTING: Sixteen UK hospitals - participants were recruited from primary and secondary care and the community. PARTICIPANTS: Adults and children (aged ≥ 5 years) with active non-segmental vitiligo affecting ≤ 10% of their body area. INTERVENTIONS: Topical corticosteroids [mometasone furoate 0.1% (Elocon®, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Merck & Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA) plus dummy narrowband ultraviolet B light]; narrowband ultraviolet B light (narrowband ultraviolet B light plus placebo topical corticosteroids); or combination (topical corticosteroids plus narrowband ultraviolet B light). Topical corticosteroids were applied once daily on alternate weeks and narrowband ultraviolet B light was administered every other day in escalating doses, with a dose adjustment for erythema. All treatments were home based. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was self-assessed treatment success for a chosen target patch after 9 months of treatment ('a lot less noticeable' or 'no longer noticeable' on the Vitiligo Noticeability Scale). Secondary outcomes included blinded assessment of primary outcome and percentage repigmentation, onset and maintenance of treatment response, quality of life, side effects, treatment burden and cost-effectiveness (cost per additional successful treatment). RESULTS: In total, 517 participants were randomised (adults, n = 398; and children, n = 119; 52% male; 57% paler skin types I-III, 43% darker skin types IV-VI). At the end of 9 months of treatment, 370 (72%) participants provided primary outcome data. The median percentage of narrowband ultraviolet B light treatment-days (actual/allocated) was 81% for topical corticosteroids, 77% for narrowband ultraviolet B light and 74% for combination groups; and for ointment was 79% for topical corticosteroids, 83% for narrowband ultraviolet B light and 77% for combination. Target patch location was head and neck (31%), hands and feet (32%), and rest of the body (37%). Target patch treatment 'success' was 20 out of 119 (17%) for topical corticosteroids, 27 out of 123 (22%) for narrowband ultraviolet B light and 34 out of 128 (27%) for combination. Combination treatment was superior to topical corticosteroids (adjusted risk difference 10.9%, 95% confidence interval 1.0% to 20.9%; p = 0.032; number needed to treat = 10). Narrowband ultraviolet B light was not superior to topical corticosteroids (adjusted risk difference 5.2%, 95% confidence interval -4.4% to 14.9%; p = 0.290; number needed to treat = 19). The secondary outcomes supported the primary analysis. Quality of life did not differ between the groups. Participants who adhered to the interventions for > 75% of the expected treatment protocol were more likely to achieve treatment success. Over 40% of participants had lost treatment response after 1 year with no treatment. Grade 3 or 4 erythema was experienced by 62 participants (12%) (three of whom were using the dummy) and transient skin thinning by 13 participants (2.5%) (two of whom were using the placebo). We observed no serious adverse treatment effects. For combination treatment compared with topical corticosteroids, the unadjusted incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £2328.56 (adjusted £1932) per additional successful treatment (from an NHS perspective). LIMITATIONS: Relatively high loss to follow-up limits the interpretation of the trial findings, especially during the post-intervention follow-up phase. CONCLUSION: Hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B light plus topical corticosteroid combination treatment is superior to topical corticosteroids alone for treatment of localised vitiligo. Combination treatment was relatively safe and well tolerated, but was effective in around one-quarter of participants only. Whether or not combination treatment is cost-effective depends on how much decision-makers are willing to pay for the benefits observed. FUTURE WORK: Development and testing of new vitiligo treatments with a greater treatment response and longer-lasting effects are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN17160087. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 64. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The Home Interventions and Light therapy for the treatment of vitiligo (HI-Light Vitiligo) trial aimed to find out whether or not treating vitiligo at home with a narrowband ultraviolet B light, either by itself or with a steroid ointment, is better than treatment using a steroid ointment only. We enrolled 517 children (aged ≥ 5 years) and adults who had small, active (i.e. recently changing) patches of vitiligo into the study. Participants received one of three possible treatment options: steroid ointment (plus dummy light), hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B light therapy (plus placebo ointment) or both treatments used together. We asked participants to judge how noticeable their target vitiligo patch was after 9 months of treatment. We considered the treatment to be successful if the participants' responses were either 'a lot less noticeable' or 'no longer noticeable'. The results showed that using both treatments together was better than using a steroid ointment on its own. Around one-quarter of participants (27%) who used both treatments together said that their vitiligo was either 'no longer noticeable' or 'a lot less noticeable' after 9 months of treatment. This was compared with 17% of those using steroid ointment on its own and 22% of those using narrowband ultraviolet B light on its own. All treatments were able to stop the vitiligo from spreading. Patches on the hands and feet were less likely to respond to treatment than patches on other parts of the body. The trial found that the vitiligo tended to return once treatments were stopped, so ongoing intermittent treatment may be needed to maintain the treatment response. The treatments were found to be relatively safe and easy to use, but light treatment required a considerable time commitment (approximately 20 minutes per session, two or three times per week). This trial showed that using steroid ointment and narrowband ultraviolet B light together is likely to be better than steroid ointment alone for people with small patches of vitiligo. Steroid ointment alone can still be effective for some people and remains a useful treatment that is able to stop vitiligo from spreading. The challenge is to make hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B light treatment available as normal care in the NHS for people with vitiligo.

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 (Trial of Eczema allergy Screening Tests): protocol for feasibility randomised controlled trial of allergy tests in children with eczema, including economic scoping and nested qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Early onset eczema is associated with food allergy, and allergic reactions to foods can cause acute exacerbations of eczema. Parents often pursue dietary restrictions as a way of managing eczema and seek allergy testing for their children to guide dietary management. However, it is unclear whether test-guided dietary management improves eczema symptoms, and whether the practice causes harm through reduced use of conventional eczema treatment or unnecessary dietary restrictions. The aim of the Trial of Eczema allergy Screening Tests Study is to determine the feasibility of conducting a trial comparing food allergy testing and dietary advice versus usual care, for the management of eczema in children. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Design: A single centre, two-group, individually randomised, feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) with economic scoping and a nested qualitative study. SETTING: General Practioner (GP) surgeries in the west of England. PARTICIPANTS: children aged over 3 months and less than 5 years with mild to severe eczema. INTERVENTIONS: allergy testing (structured allergy history and skin prick tests) or usual care. Sample size and outcome measures: we aim to recruit 80 participants and follow them up using 4-weekly questionnaires for 24 weeks. Nested qualitative study: We will conduct ~20 interviews with parents of participating children, 5-8 interviews with parents who decline or withdraw from the trial and ~10 interviews with participating GPs. Economic scoping: We will gather data on key costs and outcomes to assess the feasibility of carrying out a cost-effectiveness analysis in a future definitive trial. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been reviewed by the Health Research Authority and given a favourable opinion by the NHS REC (West Midlands - South Birmingham Research Ethics Committee, Reference Number 18/WM/0124). Findings will be submitted for presentation at conferences and written up for publication in peer-reviewed journals, which may include mixed-method triangulation and integration of the quantitative and qualitative findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN15397185; Pre-results.

The Burden of Childhood Atopic Dermatitis in the Primary Care Setting: A Report from the Meta-LARC Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the burden of atopic dermatitis (AD) encountered in US primary care practices and the frequency and type of skin care practices routinely used in children. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of AD in children 0 to 5 years attending primary care practices in the United States and to describe routine skin care practices used in this population. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey study of a convenience sample of children under the age of 5 attending primary care practices for any reason. SETTING: Ten primary care practices in 5 US states. RESULTS: Among 652 children attending primary care practices, the estimated prevalence of ever having AD was 24% (95% CI, 21-28) ranging from 15% among those under the age of 1 to 38% among those aged 4 to 5 years. The prevalence of comorbid asthma was higher among AD participants compared to those with no AD, namely, 12% and 4%, respectively (P < .001). Moisturizers with high water:oil ratios were most commonly used (ie, lotions) in the non-AD population, whereas moisturizers with low water:oil content (ie, ointments) were most common when AD was present. CONCLUSIONS: Our study found a large burden of AD in the primary care practice setting in the US. The majority of households reported skin care practices that may be detrimental to the skin barrier, such as frequent bathing and the routine use of moisturizers with high water: oil ratios. Clinical trials are needed to identify which skin care practices are optimal for reducing the significant burden of AD in the community.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of daily all-over-body application of emollient during the first year of life for preventing atopic eczema in high-risk children (The BEEP trial): protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Atopic eczema (AE) is a common skin problem that impairs quality of life and is associated with the development of other atopic diseases including asthma, food allergy and allergic rhinitis. AE treatment is a significant cost burden for health care providers. The purpose of the trial is to investigate whether daily application of emollients for the first year of life can prevent AE developing in high-risk infants (first-degree relative with asthma, AE or allergic rhinitis). METHODS: This is a protocol for a pragmatic, two-arm, randomised controlled, multicentre trial. Up to 1400 term infants at high risk of developing AE will be recruited through the community, primary and secondary care in England. Participating families will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive general infant skin-care advice, or general skin-care advice plus emollients with advice to apply daily to the infant for the first year of life. Families will not be blinded to treatment allocation. The primary outcome will be a blinded assessment of AE at 24 months of age using the UK Working Party Diagnostic Criteria for Atopic Eczema. Secondary outcomes are other definitions of AE, time to AE onset, severity of AE (EASI and POEM), presence of other allergic diseases including food allergy, asthma and hay fever, allergic sensitisation, quality of life, cost-effectiveness and safety of the emollients. Subgroup analyses are planned for the primary outcome according to filaggrin genotype and the number of first-degree relatives with AE and other atopic diseases. Families will be followed up by online and postal questionnaire at 3, 6, 12 and 18 months with a face-to-face visit at 24 months. Long-term follow-up until 60 months will be via annual questionnaires. DISCUSSION: This trial will demonstrate whether skin-barrier enhancement through daily emollient for the first year of life can prevent AE from developing in high-risk infants. If effective, this simple and cheap intervention has the potential to result in significant cost savings for health care providers throughout the world by preventing AE and possibly other associated allergic diseases. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry; ID: ISRCTN21528841 . Registered on 25 July 2014.

A randomised controlled trial to compare the safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of doxycycline (200 mg/day) with that of oral prednisolone (0.5 mg/kg/day) for initial treatment of bullous pemphigoid: the Bullous Pemphigoid Steroids and Tetracyclines (BLISTER) trial.

BACKGROUND: Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is an autoimmune blistering skin disorder with increased morbidity and mortality in the elderly. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of a strategy of initiating BP treatment with oral doxycycline or oral prednisolone. We hypothesised that starting treatment with doxycycline gives acceptable short-term blister control while conferring long-term safety advantages over starting treatment with oral prednisolone. DESIGN: Pragmatic multicentre two-armed parallel-group randomised controlled trial with an economic evaluation. SETTING: A total of 54 dermatology secondary care centres in the UK and seven in Germany. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with BP [three or more blisters at two sites and positive direct and/or indirect immunofluorescence (immunoglobulin G and/or complement component 3 immunofluorescence at the dermal-epidermal junction)] and able to give informed consent. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were allocated using online randomisation to initial doxycycline treatment (200 mg/day) or prednisolone (0.5 mg/kg/day). Up to 30 g/week of potent topical corticosteroids was permitted for weeks 1-3. After 6 weeks, clinicians could switch treatments or alter the prednisolone dose as per normal practice. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes: (1) the proportion of participants with three or fewer blisters at 6 weeks (investigator blinded) and (2) the proportion with severe, life-threatening and fatal treatment-related events at 52 weeks. A regression model was used in the analysis adjusting for baseline disease severity, age and Karnofsky score, with missing data imputed. Secondary outcomes included the effectiveness of blister control after 6 weeks, relapses, related adverse events and quality of life. The economic evaluation involved bivariate regression of costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) from a NHS perspective. RESULTS: In total, 132 patients were randomised to doxycycline and 121 to prednisolone. The mean patient age was 77.7 years and baseline severity was as follows: mild 31.6% (three to nine blisters), moderate 39.1% (10-30 blisters) and severe 29.3% (> 30 blisters). For those starting on doxycycline, 83 out of 112 (74.1%) had three or fewer blisters at 6 weeks, whereas for those starting on prednisolone 92 out of 101 (91.1%) had three or fewer blisters at 6 weeks, an adjusted difference of 18.6% in favour of prednisolone [90% confidence interval (CI) 11.1% to 26.1%], using a modified intention-to-treat (mITT) analysis. Per-protocol analysis showed similar results: 74.4% compared with 92.3%, an adjusted difference of 18.7% (90% CI 9.8% to 27.6%). The rate of related severe, life-threatening and fatal events at 52 weeks was 18.2% for those started on doxycycline and 36.6% for those started on prednisolone (mITT analysis), an adjusted difference of 19.0% (95% CI 7.9% to 30.1%; p = 0.001) in favour of doxycycline. Secondary outcomes showed consistent findings. There was no significant difference in costs or QALYs per patient at 1 year between doxycycline-initiated therapy and prednisolone-initiated therapy (incremental cost of doxycycline-initiated therapy £959, 95% CI -£24 to £1941; incremental QALYs of doxycycline-initiated therapy -0.024, 95% CI -0.088 to 0.041). Using a willingness-to-pay criterion of < £20,000 per QALY gained, the net monetary benefit associated with doxycycline-initiated therapy was negative but imprecise (-£1432, 95% CI -£3094 to £230). CONCLUSIONS: A strategy of starting BP patients on doxycycline is non-inferior to standard treatment with oral prednisolone for short-term blister control and considerably safer in the long term. The limitations of the trial were the wide non-inferiority margin, the moderate dropout rate and that serious adverse event collection was unblinded. Future work might include inducing remission with topical or oral corticosteroids and then randomising to doxycycline or prednisolone for maintenance. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN13704604. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Doxycycline versus prednisolone as an initial treatment strategy for bullous pemphigoid: a pragmatic, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Bullous pemphigoid is a blistering skin disorder with increased mortality. We tested whether a strategy of starting treatment with doxycycline gives acceptable short-term blister control while conferring long-term safety advantages over starting treatment with oral corticosteroids. METHODS: We did a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel-group randomised controlled trial of adults with bullous pemphigoid (three or more blisters at two or more sites and linear basement membrane IgG or C3). Participants were randomly assigned to doxycycline (200 mg per day) or prednisolone (0·5 mg/kg per day) using random permuted blocks of randomly varying size, and stratified by baseline severity (3-9, 10-30, and >30 blisters for mild, moderate, and severe disease, respectively). Localised adjuvant potent topical corticosteroids (<30 g per week) were permitted during weeks 1-3. The non-inferiority primary effectiveness outcome was the proportion of participants with three or fewer blisters at 6 weeks. We assumed that doxycycline would be 25% less effective than corticosteroids with a 37% acceptable margin of non-inferiority. The primary safety outcome was the proportion with severe, life-threatening, or fatal (grade 3-5) treatment-related adverse events by 52 weeks. Analysis (modified intention to treat [mITT] for the superiority safety analysis and mITT and per protocol for non-inferiority effectiveness analysis) used a regression model adjusting for baseline disease severity, age, and Karnofsky score, with missing data imputed. The trial is registered at ISRCTN, number ISRCTN13704604. FINDINGS: Between March 1, 2009, and Oct 31, 2013, 132 patients were randomly assigned to doxycycline and 121 to prednisolone from 54 UK and seven German dermatology centres. Mean age was 77·7 years (SD 9·7) and 173 (68%) of 253 patients had moderate-to-severe baseline disease. For those starting doxycycline, 83 (74%) of 112 patients had three or fewer blisters at 6 weeks compared with 92 (91%) of 101 patients on prednisolone, an adjusted difference of 18·6% (90% CI 11·1-26·1) favouring prednisolone (upper limit of 90% CI, 26·1%, within the predefined 37% margin). Related severe, life-threatening, and fatal events at 52 weeks were 18% (22 of 121) for those starting doxycycline and 36% (41 of 113) for prednisolone (mITT), an adjusted difference of 19·0% (95% CI 7·9-30·1), p=0·001. INTERPRETATION: Starting patients on doxycycline is non-inferior to standard treatment with oral prednisolone for short-term blister control in bullous pemphigoid and significantly safer in the long-term. FUNDING: NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Prophylactic antibiotics to prevent cellulitis of the leg: economic analysis of the PATCH I & II trials.

BACKGROUND: Cellulitis (erysipelas) is a recurring and debilitating bacterial infection of the skin and underlying tissue. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of prophylactic antibiotic treatment to prevent the recurrence of cellulitis using low dose penicillin V in patients following a first episode (6 months prophylaxis) and more recurrent cellulitis (12 months prophylaxis, or 6 months in those declining 12 months). METHODS: Within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using the findings of two randomised placebo-controlled multicentre trials (PATCH I and PATCH II), in which patients recruited in the UK and Ireland were followed-up for up to 3 years. Incremental cost, reduction in recurrence, cost per recurrence prevented and cost/QALY were estimated. National unit and reference costs for England in 2010 were applied to resource use, exploring NHS and societal perspectives. A total of 397 patients from the two trials contributed to the analysis. RESULTS: There was a 29% reduction in the number of recurrences occurring within the trial (IRR: 0.71 95%CI: 0.53 to 0.90, p = 0.02), corresponding to an absolute reduction of recurrence of 0.31 recurrences/patient (95%CI: 0.05 to 0.59, p = 0.02). Incremental costs of prophylaxis suggested a small cost saving but were not statistically significant, comparing the two groups. If a decision-maker is willing to pay up to £25,000/QALY then there is a 66% probability of antibiotic prophylaxis being cost-effective from an NHS perspective, rising to 76% probability from a secondary, societal perspective. CONCLUSION: Following first episode or recurrent cellulitis of the leg, prophylactic low dose penicillin is a very low cost intervention which, on balance, is effective and cost-effective at preventing subsequent attacks. Antibiotic prophylaxis reduces cellulitis recurrence by nearly a third but is not associated with a significant increase in costs.

Penicillin to prevent recurrent leg cellulitis.

BACKGROUND: Cellulitis of the leg is a common bacterial infection of the skin and underlying tissue. We compared prophylactic low-dose penicillin with placebo for the prevention of recurrent cellulitis. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial involving patients with two or more episodes of cellulitis of the leg who were recruited in 28 hospitals in the United Kingdom and Ireland. Randomization was performed according to a computer-generated code, and study medications (penicillin [250 mg twice a day] or placebo for 12 months) were dispensed by a central pharmacy. The primary outcome was the time to a first recurrence. Participants were followed for up to 3 years. Because the risk of recurrence was not constant over the 3-year period, the primary hypothesis was tested during prophylaxis only. RESULTS: A total of 274 patients were recruited. Baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups. The median time to a first recurrence of cellulitis was 626 days in the penicillin group and 532 days in the placebo group. During the prophylaxis phase, 30 of 136 participants in the penicillin group (22%) had a recurrence, as compared with 51 of 138 participants in the placebo group (37%) (hazard ratio, 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35 to 0.86; P=0.01), yielding a number needed to treat to prevent one recurrent cellulitis episode of 5 (95% CI, 4 to 9). During the no-intervention follow-up period, there was no difference between groups in the rate of a first recurrence (27% in both groups). Overall, participants in the penicillin group had fewer repeat episodes than those in the placebo group (119 vs. 164, P=0.02 for trend). There was no significant between-group difference in the number of participants with adverse events (37 in the penicillin group and 48 in the placebo group, P=0.50). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with recurrent cellulitis of the leg, penicillin was effective in preventing subsequent attacks during prophylaxis, but the protective effect diminished progressively once drug therapy was stopped. (Funded by Action Medical Research; PATCH I Controlled-Trials.com number, ISRCTN34716921.).

The UK clinical research network--has it been a success for dermatology clinical trials?

BACKGROUND: Following the successful introduction of five topic-specific research networks in the UK, the Comprehensive Local Research Network (CLRN) was established in 2008 in order to provide a blanket level of support across the whole country regardless of the clinical discipline. The role of the CLRN was to facilitate recruitment into clinical trials, and to encourage greater engagement in research throughout the National Health Service (NHS). METHODS: This report evaluates the impact of clinical research networks in supporting clinical trials in the UK, with particular reference to our experiences from two non-commercial dermatology trials. It covers our experience of engaging with the CLRN (and other research networks) using two non-commercial dermatology trials as case studies. We present the circumstances that led to our approach to the research networks for support, and the impact that this support had on the delivery of these trials. RESULTS: In both cases, recruitment was boosted considerably following the provision of additional support, although other factors such as the availability of experienced personnel, and the role of advertising and media coverage in promoting the trials were also important in translating this additional resource into increased recruitment. CONCLUSIONS: Recruitment into clinical trials is a complex task that can be influenced by many factors. A world-class clinical research infrastructure is now in place in England (with similar support available in Scotland and Wales), and it is the responsibility of the research community to ensure that this unique resource is used effectively and responsibly.