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.

Effectiveness and cost effectiveness of digital hearing aids in patients with tinnitus and hearing loss: a randomised feasibility trial (THE HUSH Trial).

BACKGROUND: Education and advice is provided for tinnitus management in all UK audiology clinics. Sound therapy, including provision of hearing aids may be offered, but this is often dependent on a clinician's decision rather than UK policy. This inconsistent management reflects a lack of evidence around the effectiveness of hearing aids for tinnitus. This open-label, two-arm multicentre randomised controlled feasibility trial gathered data around recruitment, acceptability and outcome assessments to determine the feasibility of conducting a large randomised controlled trial investigating the effectiveness of hearing aids for tinnitus management. METHODS: Adults referred to audiology for tinnitus, with an aidable hearing loss were recruited at five UK audiology clinics. They were randomised 1:1 to either education and advice (treatment as usual (TAU), n = 41) or TAU plus hearing aids (n = 42). Outcomes were collected by questionnaires 12 weeks after randomisation. After participation, interviews were conducted with a subset of both participants and clinicians from each trial centre. RESULTS: Eighty three participants from five sites were randomised. Non-aidable hearing loss was the main reason for ineligibility to participate in the trial reported by the sites. Seventy three percent of participants returned the 12-week questionnaires, with return rates by site ranging from 61 to 100%. Fifteen out of 33 participants (45%) reported using hearing aids for the clinician-recommended time, or longer, during the day. The Tinnitus Functional Index (TFI) was the outcome measure most responsive to change. The majority of participants also agreed it was relevant to their tinnitus and hearing loss. Qualitative data demonstrated that the trial was acceptable to participants. Feedback from clinicians revealed a potential lack of equipoise. It also highlighted the differences in referral and treatment pathways between departments and differences in audiometric criteria for fitting hearing aids. Health economic measures were well completed for those returned. No change in health-related quality of life was observed. Costs were higher in the intervention arm, but self-reports of healthcare service use indicated participant confusion in treatment pathways. CONCLUSIONS: This feasibility trial is the first step towards obtaining high quality evidence to determine potential clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of hearing aids for tinnitus versus usual care. A definitive trial was deemed to be feasible, with some modifications based on feasibility findings and using the TFI as the primary outcome. This trial was funded by the National Institute for Health Research, Research for Patient Benefit Programme (PB-PG-0816-20,014) and registered with ISRCTN (ISRCTN14218416).

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.

Protocol for a multi-centre randomised controlled stand-alone feasibility trial to assess potential effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of digital hearing aids in patients with tinnitus and hearing loss (the HUSH trial).

BACKGROUND: The most common management strategy for tinnitus provided in the UK audiology clinics is education and advice. This may also be combined with some form of sound therapy (e.g. digital hearing aids). While education and advice is generally provided by all clinics, there is a marked variability in provision of hearing aids that depends very much on clinical decisions. A recent Cochrane review concluded a lack of evidence to support or refute hearing aid use as a routine intervention for people with tinnitus and hearing loss. This lack of evidence is reflected in the inconsistency of tinnitus management in the UK. The aim of the HUSH trial is to determine the feasibility of conducting a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of hearing aids for adults with tinnitus and hearing loss. METHODS: This is a multicentre randomised controlled feasibility trial. Up to 100 adults, aged 18 and over, presenting to 5 UK audiology clinics with a complaint of tinnitus and measurable hearing loss are being randomised to receive either (i) education and advice (treatment as usual) or (ii) education and advice with digital hearing aids. Feasibility outcomes are being collected around recruitment, retention, patient and healthcare professional acceptability and clinical outcome assessment. Outcomes are being collected via postal questionnaire at 12 weeks post baseline. A nested interview study will supplement clinical and other outcome data, providing a detailed understanding of participants' and audiologists' experience of both tinnitus management and the research processes. DISCUSSION: This feasibility trial will help us to (i) determine if it is feasible to conduct a multicentre RCT comparing treatment as usual and treatment as usual plus digital hearing aids; (ii) optimise the design of a future definitive, multicentre RCT; and (iii) inform which outcome(s) is/are relevant for patients. This work presents an important first step in determining the effectiveness of hearing aids as a tinnitus management strategy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN14218416. Registered on 30 July 2018.

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.

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.

Randomised controlled trial of silk therapeutic garments for the management of atopic eczema in children: the CLOTHES trial.

BACKGROUND: Atopic eczema (AE) is a chronic, itchy, inflammatory skin condition that affects the quality of life of children and their families. The role of specialist clothing in the management of AE is poorly understood. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of silk garments for the management of AE in children with moderate to severe disease. DESIGN: Parallel-group, observer-blind, randomised controlled trial of 6 months' duration, followed by a 2-month observational period. A nested qualitative study evaluated the beliefs of trial participants, health-care professionals and health-care commissioners about the use of silk garments for AE. SETTING: Secondary care and the community in five UK centres. PARTICIPANTS: Children aged 1-15 years with moderate or severe AE. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised (1 : 1 using online randomisation) to standard care or standard care plus 100% silk garments made from antimicrobially protected knitted sericin-free silk [DermaSilkTM (AlPreTec Srl, San Donà di Piave, Italy) or DreamSkinTM (DreamSkin Health Ltd, Hatfield, UK)]. Three sets of garments were supplied per participant, to be worn for up to 6 months (day and night). At 6 months the standard care group received the garments to use for the remaining 2-month observational period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome - AE severity using the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) assessed at 2, 4 and 6 months, by nurses blinded to treatment allocation. EASI scores were log-transformed for analysis. Secondary outcomes - patient-reported eczema symptoms (Patient Oriented Eczema Measure); global assessment of severity (Investigator Global Assessment); quality of life of the child (Atopic Dermatitis Quality of Life, Child Health Utility - 9 Dimensions), family (Dermatitis Family Impact Questionnaire) and main carer (EuroQoL-5 Dimensions-3 Levels); use of standard eczema treatments (e.g. emollients, topical corticosteroids); and cost-effectiveness. The acceptability and durability of the clothing, and adherence to wearing the garments, were assessed by parental/carer self-report. Safety outcomes - number of skin infections and hospitalisations for AE. RESULTS: A total of 300 children were randomised (26 November 2013 to 5 May 2015): 42% female, 79% white, mean age 5 years. The primary analysis included 282 out of 300 (94%) children (n = 141 in each group). Garments were worn for at least 50% of the time by 82% of participants. Geometric mean EASI scores at baseline, 2, 4 and 6 months were 8.4, 6.6, 6.0, 5.4 for standard care and 9.2, 6.4, 5.8, 5.4 for silk clothing, respectively. There was no evidence of difference between the groups in EASI score averaged over all follow-up visits adjusted for baseline EASI score, age and centre (ratio of geometric means 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.07; p = 0.43). This confidence interval is equivalent to a difference of -1.5 to 0.5 in the original EASI scale units. Skin infections occurred in 39 out of 141 (28%) and 36 out of 142 (25%) participants for standard care and silk clothing groups, respectively. The incremental cost per QALY of silk garments for children with moderate to severe eczema was £56,811 from a NHS perspective in the base case. Sensitivity analyses supported the finding that silk garments do not appear to be cost-effective within currently accepted thresholds. LIMITATIONS: Knowledge of treatment allocation may have affected behaviour and outcome reporting for some of the patient-reported outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of silk garments to standard AE care is unlikely to improve AE severity, or to be cost-effective compared with standard care alone, for children with moderate or severe AE. This trial adds to the evidence base to guide clinical decision-making. FUTURE WORK: Non-pharmacological interventions for the management of AE remain a research priority among patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN77261365. 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. 16. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.