Lower urinary tract symptoms in men: the TRIUMPH cluster RCT.

Background: Conservative therapies are recommended as initial treatment for male lower urinary tract symptoms. However, there is a lack of evidence on effectiveness and uncertainty regarding approaches to delivery. Objective: The objective was to determine whether or not a standardised and manualised care intervention delivered in primary care achieves superior symptomatic outcome for lower urinary tract symptoms to usual care. Design: This was a two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial. Setting: The trial was set in 30 NHS general practice sites in England. Participants: Participants were adult men (aged ≥ 18 years) with bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms. Interventions: Sites were randomised 1 : 1 to deliver the TReatIng Urinary symptoms in Men in Primary Health care using non-pharmacological and non-surgical interventions trial intervention or usual care to all participants. The TReatIng Urinary symptoms in Men in Primary Health care using non-pharmacological and non-surgical interventions intervention comprised a standardised advice booklet developed for the trial from the British Association of Urological Surgeons' patient information sheets, with patient and expert input. Patients were directed to relevant sections by general practice or research nurses/healthcare assistants following urinary symptom assessment, providing the manualised element. The healthcare professional provided follow-up contacts over 12 weeks to support adherence to the intervention. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the validated patient-reported International Prostate Symptom Score 12 months post consent. Rather than the minimal clinically important difference of 3.0 points for overall International Prostate Symptom Score, the sample size aimed to detect a difference of 2.0 points, owing to the recognised clinical impact of individual symptoms. Results: A total of 1077 men consented to the study: 524 in sites randomised to the intervention arm (n = 17) and 553 in sites randomised to the control arm (n = 13). A difference in mean International Prostate Symptom Score at 12 months was found (adjusted mean difference of -1.81 points, 95% confidence interval -2.66 to -0.95 points), with a lower score in the intervention arm, indicating less severe symptoms. Secondary outcomes of patient-reported urinary symptoms, quality of life specific to lower urinary tract symptoms and perception of lower urinary tract symptoms all showed evidence of a difference between the arms favouring the intervention. No difference was seen between the arms in the proportion of urology referrals or adverse events. In qualitative interviews, participants welcomed the intervention, describing positive effects on their symptoms, as well as on their understanding of conservative care and their attitude towards the experience of lower urinary tract symptoms. The interviews highlighted that structured, in-depth self-management is insufficiently embedded within general practitioner consultations. From an NHS perspective, mean costs and quality-adjusted life-years were similar between trial arms. The intervention arm had slightly lower mean costs (adjusted mean difference of -£29.99, 95% confidence interval -£109.84 to £22.63) than the usual-care arm, and a small gain in quality-adjusted life-years (adjusted mean difference of 0.001, 95% confidence interval -0.011 to 0.014). Conclusions: The intervention showed a small, sustained benefit for men's lower urinary tract symptoms and quality of life across a range of outcome measures in a UK primary care setting. Qualitative data showed that men highly valued the intervention. Intervention costs were marginally lower than usual-care costs. Limitations of the study included that trial participants were unmasked, with limited diversity in ethnicity and deprivation level. Additional research is needed to assess the applicability of the intervention for a more ethnically diverse population.. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN11669964. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/90/03) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 13. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Urinary problems among men become more common with age. Nearly one-third of all men aged > 65 years experience some urinary symptoms, which can have a substantial effect on their daily lives. Symptoms include needing to pass urine more often, urgently or during the night, and difficulties in passing urine. Men are usually diagnosed and treated by their general practitioner, and should be offered advice on controlling their symptoms themselves (e.g. lifestyle changes and exercises) before trying tablets or surgery. However, it is not known how helpful such advice is, and how general practices can effectively provide it. Thirty general practices in the West of England and Wessex took part in the study. Practices were split into two groups, with each practice providing either the TReatIng Urinary symptoms in Men in Primary Health care using non-pharmacological and non-surgical interventions care package or the practice's usual care to all of its patients in the trial. The TReatIng Urinary symptoms in Men in Primary Healthcare using nonpharmacological and non-surgical interventions care package included a booklet of advice to help control urinary symptoms, with a nurse or healthcare assistant directing men to relevant sections according to their symptoms, and providing follow-up contacts. We mainly assessed the benefits of the TReatIng Urinary symptoms in Men in Primary Healthcare using nonpharmacological and non-surgical interventions care package, compared with usual care, by using a questionnaire on urinary symptoms completed by participants. A total of 1077 men with urinary symptoms that bothered them joined the study. The main result was that men reported greater improvement in urinary symptoms with the TRIUMPH care package than with usual care, 12 months after joining the study. We also found that men receiving the TRIUMPH care package had a slight improvement in quality of life and outlook on their urinary symptoms. There was no difference between the two groups in the number of patients referred to hospital for treatment, the type, number and severity of side effects or cost to the NHS. Overall, the TRIUMPH care package was more effective in treating men with urinary symptoms than usual care by their general practice.

Talking in primary care (TIP): protocol for a cluster-randomised controlled trial in UK primary care to assess clinical and cost-effectiveness of communication skills e-learning for practitioners on patients' musculoskeletal pain and enablement.

INTRODUCTION: Effective communication can help optimise healthcare interactions and patient outcomes. However, few interventions have been tested clinically, subjected to cost-effectiveness analysis or are sufficiently brief and well-described for implementation in primary care. This paper presents the protocol for determining the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a rigorously developed brief eLearning tool, EMPathicO, among patients with and without musculoskeletal pain. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A cluster randomised controlled trial in general practitioner (GP) surgeries in England and Wales serving patients from diverse geographic, socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds. GP surgeries are randomised (1:1) to receive EMPathicO e-learning immediately, or at trial end. Eligible practitioners (eg, GPs, physiotherapists and nurse practitioners) are involved in managing primary care patients with musculoskeletal pain. Patient recruitment is managed by practice staff and researchers. Target recruitment is 840 adults with and 840 without musculoskeletal pain consulting face-to-face, by telephone or video. Patients complete web-based questionnaires at preconsultation baseline, 1 week and 1, 3 and 6 months later. There are two patient-reported primary outcomes: pain intensity and patient enablement. Cost-effectiveness is considered from the National Health Service and societal perspectives. Secondary and process measures include practitioner patterns of use of EMPathicO, practitioner-reported self-efficacy and intentions, patient-reported symptom severity, quality of life, satisfaction, perceptions of practitioner empathy and optimism, treatment expectancies, anxiety, depression and continuity of care. Purposive subsamples of patients, practitioners and practice staff take part in up to two qualitative, semistructured interviews. ETHICS APPROVAL AND DISSEMINATION: Approved by the South Central Hampshire B Research Ethics Committee on 1 July 2022 and the Health Research Authority and Health and Care Research Wales on 6 July 2022 (REC reference 22/SC/0145; IRAS project ID 312208). Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed academic publications, conference presentations and patient and practitioner outlets. If successful, EMPathicO could quickly be made available at a low cost to primary care practices across the country. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN18010240.

Cost-effectiveness of two online interventions supporting self-care for eczema for parents/carers and young people.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of online behavioral interventions (EczemaCareOnline.org.uk) designed to support eczema self-care management for parents/carers and young people from an NHS perspective. METHODS: Two within-trial economic evaluations, using regression-based approaches, adjusting for baseline and pre-specified confounder variables, were undertaken alongside two independent, pragmatic, parallel group, unmasked randomized controlled trials, recruiting through primary care. Trial 1 recruited 340 parents/carers of children aged 0-12 years and Trial 2 337 young people aged 13-25 years with eczema scored ≥ 5 on Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM). Participants were randomized (1:1) to online intervention plus usual care or usual care alone. Resource use, collected via medical notes review, was valued using published unit costs in UK £Sterling 2021. Quality-of-life was elicited using proxy CHU-9D in Trial 1 and self-report EQ-5D-5L in Trial 2. RESULTS: The intervention was dominant (cost saving and more effective) with a high probability of cost-effectiveness (> 68%) in most analyses. The exception was the complete case cost-utility analysis for Trial 1 (omitting participants with children aged < 2), with adjusted incremental cost savings of -£34.15 (95% CI - 104.54 to 36.24) and incremental QALYs of - 0.003 (95% CI - 0.021 to 0.015) producing an incremental cost per QALY of £12,466. In the secondary combined (Trials 1 and 2) cost-effectiveness analysis, the adjusted incremental cost was -£20.35 (95% CI - 55.41 to 14.70) with incremental success (≥ 2-point change on POEM) of 10.3% (95% CI 2.3-18.1%). CONCLUSION: The free at point of use online eczema self-management intervention was low cost to run and cost-effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered prospectively with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN79282252). URL www.EczemaCareOnline.org.uk .

Cost-effectiveness of a primary healthcare intervention to treat male lower urinary tract symptoms: the TRIUMPH cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of a primary care intervention for male lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) compared with usual care. DESIGN: Economic evaluation alongside a cluster randomised controlled trial from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective with a 12-month time horizon. SETTING: Thirty NHS general practice sites in England. PARTICIPANTS: 1077 men aged 18 or older identified in primary care with bothersome LUTS. INTERVENTIONS: A standardised and manualised intervention for the treatment of bothersome LUTS was compared with usual care. The intervention group (n=524) received a standardised information booklet with guidance on conservative treatment for LUTS, urinary symptom assessment and follow-up contacts for 12 weeks. The usual care group (n=553) followed local guidelines between general practice sites. MEASURES: Resource use was obtained from electronic health records, trial staff and participants, and valued using UK reference costs. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated from the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. Adjusted mean differences in costs and QALYs and incremental net monetary benefit were estimated. RESULTS: 866 of 1077 (80.4%) participants had complete data and were included in the base-case analysis. Over the 12-month follow-up period, intervention and usual care arms had similar mean adjusted costs and QALYs. Mean differences were lower in the intervention arm for adjusted costs -£29.99 (95% CI -£109.84 to £22.63) while higher in the intervention arm for adjusted QALYs 0.001 (95% CI -0.011 to 0.014). The incremental net monetary benefit statistic was £48.01 (95% CI -£225.83 to £321.85) at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence UK threshold of £20 000 per QALY. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve showed a 63% probability of the intervention arm being cost-effective at this threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Costs and QALYs were similar between the two arms at 12 months follow-up. This indicates that the intervention can be implemented in general practice at neutral cost. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN11669964.

"not one size fits all" The challenges of measuring paediatric health-related quality of life and the potential role of digital ecological momentary assessment: a qualitative study.

PURPOSE: To explore the views of clinicians and researchers about the challenges of measuring health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in children (5-11 years) and to explore whether digital ecological momentary assessment (EMA) could enhance HRQoL measurement. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews with 18 professionals (10 academics/researchers, four clinicians, four with both professional backgrounds) experienced in child HRQoL measurement. We analysed data thematically. RESULTS: Theme One describes the uncertainty around conceptualising HRQoL for children and which domains to include; the greater immediacy and sensitivity of children's reflections on their HRQoL, leading to high variability of the construct; and the wide individual differences across childhood, incongruent with fixed HRQoL measures. Theme Two describes the challenges of proxy reporting, questioning whether proxies can meaningfully report a child's HRQoL and reflecting on discrepancies between child and proxy reporting. Theme Three covers the challenge of interpreting change in HRQoL over time; does a change in HRQoL reflect a change in health, or does this reflect developmental changes in how children report HRQoL. Theme Four discusses digital EMA for HRQoL data capture. In-the-moment, repeated measurement could provide rich data and address challenges of recall, ecological validity and variability; passive data could provide objective markers to supplement subjective responses; and technology could enable personalisation and child-centred design. However, participants also raised methodological, practical and ethical challenges of digital approaches. CONCLUSION: Digital EMA may address some of the challenges of HRQoL data collection with children. We conclude by discussing potential future research to explore and develop this approach.

Cost-effectiveness of Spironolactone for Adult Female Acne (SAFA): economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to estimate the cost-effectiveness of oral spironolactone plus routine topical treatment compared with routine topical treatment alone for persistent acne in adult women from a British NHS perspective over 24 weeks. DESIGN: Economic evaluation undertaken alongside a pragmatic, parallel, double-blind, randomised trial. SETTING: Primary and secondary healthcare, community and social media advertising. PARTICIPANTS: Women ≥18 years with persistent facial acne judged to warrant oral antibiotic treatment. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised 1:1 to 50 mg/day spironolactone (increasing to 100 mg/day after 6 weeks) or matched placebo until week 24. Participants in both groups could continue topical treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost-utility analysis assessed incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) using the EQ-5D-5L. Cost-effectiveness analysis estimated incremental cost per unit change on the Acne-QoL symptom subscale. Adjusted analysis included randomisation stratification variables (centre, baseline severity (investigator's global assessment, IGA <3 vs ≥3)) and baseline variables (Acne-QoL symptom subscale score, resource use costs, EQ-5D score and use of topical treatments). RESULTS: Spironolactone did not appear cost-effective in the complete case analysis (n=126 spironolactone, n=109 control), compared with no active systemic treatment (adjusted incremental cost per QALY £67 191; unadjusted £34 770). Incremental cost per QALY was £27 879 (adjusted), just below the upper National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's threshold value of £30 000, where multiple imputation took account of missing data. Incremental cost per QALY for other sensitivity analyses varied around the base-case, highlighting the degree of uncertainty. The adjusted incremental cost per point change on the Acne-QoL symptom subscale for spironolactone compared with no active systemic treatment was £38.21 (complete case analysis). CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate a high level of uncertainty, particularly with respect to estimates of incremental QALYs. Compared with no active systemic treatment, spironolactone was estimated to be marginally cost-effective where multiple imputation was performed but was not cost-effective in complete case analysis. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN12892056).

Treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men in primary care using a conservative intervention: cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a standardised and manualised care intervention in men in primary care could achieve superior improvement of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) compared with usual care. DESIGN: Cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 30 National Health Service general practice sites in England. PARTICIPANTS: Sites were randomised 1:1 to the intervention and control arms. 1077 men (≥18 years) with bothersome LUTS recruited between June 2018 and August 2019: 524 were assigned to the intervention arm (n=17 sites) and 553 were assigned to the usual care arm (n=13 sites). INTERVENTION: Standardised information booklet developed with patient and expert input, providing guidance on conservative and lifestyle interventions for LUTS in men. After assessment of urinary symptoms (manualised element), general practice nurses and healthcare assistants or research nurses directed participants to relevant sections of the manual and provided contact over 12 weeks to assist with adherence. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was patient reported International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) measured 12 months after participants had consented to take part in the study. The target reduction of 2.0 points on which the study was powered reflects the minimal clinically important difference where baseline IPSS is <20. Secondary outcomes were patient reported quality of life, urinary symptoms and perception of LUTS, hospital referrals, and adverse events. The primary intention-to-treat analysis included 887 participants (82% of those recruited) and used a mixed effects multilevel linear regression model adjusted for site level variables used in the randomisation and baseline scores. RESULTS: Participants in the intervention arm had a lower mean IPSS at 12 months (adjusted mean difference -1.81 points, 95% confidence interval -2.66 to -0.95) indicating less severe urinary symptoms than those in the usual care arm. LUTS specific quality of life, incontinence, and perception of LUTS also improved more in the intervention arm than usual care arm at 12 months. The proportion of urology referrals (intervention 7.3%, usual care 7.9%) and adverse events (intervention seven events, usual care eight events) were comparable between the arms. CONCLUSIONS: A standardised and manualised intervention in primary care showed a sustained reduction in LUTS in men at 12 months. The mean difference of -1.81 points (95% confidence interval -0.95 to -2.66) on the IPSS was less than the predefined target reduction of 2.0 points. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN11669964.

Comparison of lotions, creams, gels and ointments for the treatment of childhood eczema: the BEE RCT.

Background: Emollients are recommended for children with eczema (atopic eczema/dermatitis). A lack of head-to-head comparisons of the effectiveness and acceptability of the different types of emollients has resulted in a 'trial and error' approach to prescribing. Objective: To compare the effectiveness and acceptability of four commonly used types of emollients for the treatment of childhood eczema. Design: Four group, parallel, individually randomised, superiority randomised clinical trials with a nested qualitative study, completed in 2021. A purposeful sample of parents/children was interviewed at ≈ 4 and ≈ 16 weeks. Setting: Primary care (78 general practitioner surgeries) in England. Participants: Children aged between 6 months and 12 years with eczema, of at least mild severity, and with no known sensitivity to the study emollients or their constituents. Interventions: Study emollients sharing the same characteristics in the four types of lotion, cream, gel or ointment, alongside usual care, and allocated using a web-based randomisation system. Participants were unmasked and the researcher assessing the Eczema Area Severity Index scores was masked. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure scores over 16 weeks. The secondary outcomes were Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure scores over 52 weeks, Eczema Area Severity Index score at 16 weeks, quality of life (Atopic Dermatitis Quality of Life, Child Health Utility-9 Dimensions and EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, scores), Dermatitis Family Impact and satisfaction levels at 16 weeks. Results: A total of 550 children were randomised to receive lotion (analysed for primary outcome 131/allocated 137), cream (137/140), gel (130/135) or ointment (126/138). At baseline, 86.0% of participants were white and 46.4% were female. The median (interquartile range) age was 4 (2-8) years and the median Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure score was 9.3 (SD 5.5). There was no evidence of a difference in mean Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure scores over the first 16 weeks between emollient types (global p = 0.765): adjusted Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure pairwise differences - cream-lotion 0.42 (95% confidence interval -0.48 to 1.32), gel-lotion 0.17 (95% confidence interval -0.75 to 1.09), ointment-lotion -0.01 (95% confidence interval -0.93 to 0.91), gel-cream -0.25 (95% confidence interval -1.15 to 0.65), ointment-cream -0.43 (95% confidence interval -1.34 to 0.48) and ointment-gel -0.18 (95% confidence interval -1.11 to 0.75). There was no effect modification by parent expectation, age, disease severity or the application of UK diagnostic criteria, and no differences between groups in any of the secondary outcomes. Median weekly use of allocated emollient, non-allocated emollient and topical corticosteroids was similar across groups. Overall satisfaction was highest for lotions and gels. There was no difference in the number of adverse reactions and there were no significant adverse events. In the nested qualitative study (n = 44 parents, n = 25 children), opinions about the acceptability of creams and ointments varied most, yet problems with all types were reported. Effectiveness may be favoured over acceptability. Parents preferred pumps and bottles over tubs and reported improved knowledge about, and use of, emollients as a result of taking part in the trial. Limitations: Parents and clinicians were unmasked to allocation. The findings may not apply to non-study emollients of the same type or to children from more ethnically diverse backgrounds. Conclusions: The four emollient types were equally effective. Satisfaction with the same emollient types varies, with different parents/children favouring different ones. Users need to be able to choose from a range of emollient types to find one that suits them. Future work: Future work could focus on how best to support shared decision-making of different emollient types and evaluations of other paraffin-based, non-paraffin and 'novel' emollients. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN84540529 and EudraCT 2017-000688-34. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (HTA 15/130/07) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 19. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

One in five children in the UK have eczema, a long-term, itchy, dry skin condition. It can significantly affect both the child and their family. Most children are diagnosed and looked after by their family doctor (general practitioner) and are prescribed moisturisers (also called emollients) to relieve skin dryness and other creams (topical corticosteroids) to control flare-ups. However, there are many different types of emollients and, to our knowledge, limited research to show which is better. In the Best Emollients for Eczema clinical trial, we compared the four main types of moisturisers ­ lotions, creams, gels and ointments. These types vary in their consistency, from thin to thick. We recruited 550 children (most of whom were white and had moderate eczema) and randomly assigned them to use one of the four different types as their main moisturiser for 16 weeks. We found no difference in effectiveness. Parent-reported eczema symptoms, eczema severity and quality of life were the same for all the four types of moisturisers. However, overall satisfaction was highest for lotions and gels. Ointments may need to be used less and cause less stinging. We interviewed 44 parents and 25 children who took part. Opinions of all four types of moisturisers varied. What one family liked about a moisturiser was not necessarily the same for another and preferences were individual to each user. Sometimes there was a tension between how well a moisturiser worked (effectiveness) and how easy it was to use (acceptability). In these cases, effectiveness tended to decide whether or not parents kept using it. People found moisturisers in pumps and bottles easier to use than those in tubs. A number of participants valued the information they were given about how to use moisturisers. Our results suggest that the type of moisturiser matters less than finding one that suits the child and family.

Amitriptyline at Low-Dose and Titrated for Irritable Bowel Syndrome as Second-Line Treatment in primary care (ATLANTIS): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) are managed in primary care. When first-line therapies for IBS are ineffective, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline suggests considering low- dose tricyclic antidepressants as second-line treatment, but their effectiveness in primary care is unknown, and they are infrequently prescribed in this setting. METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (Amitriptyline at Low-Dose and Titrated for Irritable Bowel Syndrome as Second-Line Treatment [ATLANTIS]) was conducted at 55 general practices in England. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, with Rome IV IBS of any subtype, and ongoing symptoms (IBS Severity Scoring System [IBS-SSS] score ≥75 points) despite dietary changes and first-line therapies, a normal full blood count and C-reactive protein, negative coeliac serology, and no evidence of suicidal ideation. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to low-dose oral amitriptyline (10 mg once daily) or placebo for 6 months, with dose titration over 3 weeks (up to 30 mg once daily), according to symptoms and tolerability. Participants, their general practitioners, investigators, and the analysis team were all masked to allocation throughout the trial. The primary outcome was the IBS-SSS score at 6 months. Effectiveness analyses were according to intention-to-treat; safety analyses were on all participants who took at least one dose of the trial medication. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN48075063) and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between Oct 18, 2019, and April 11, 2022, 463 participants (mean age 48·5 years [SD 16·1], 315 [68%] female to 148 [32%] male) were randomly allocated to receive low-dose amitriptyline (232) or placebo (231). Intention-to-treat analysis of the primary outcome showed a significant difference in favour of low-dose amitriptyline in IBS-SSS score between groups at 6 months (-27·0, 95% CI -46·9 to -7·10; p=0·0079). 46 (20%) participants discontinued low-dose amitriptyline (30 [13%] due to adverse events), and 59 (26%) discontinued placebo (20 [9%] due to adverse events) before 6 months. There were five serious adverse reactions (two in the amitriptyline group and three in the placebo group), and five serious adverse events unrelated to trial medication. INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, this is the largest trial of a tricyclic antidepressant in IBS ever conducted. Titrated low-dose amitriptyline was superior to placebo as a second-line treatment for IBS in primary care across multiple outcomes, and was safe and well tolerated. General practitioners should offer low-dose amitriptyline to patients with IBS whose symptoms do not improve with first-line therapies, with appropriate support to guide patient-led dose titration, such as the self-titration document developed for this trial. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Programme (grant reference 16/162/01).

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.

Qualitative Assessment of the Conservative Management of Nocturia with Standardised Written Materials for Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms in Men Treated in Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: Many men prefer conservative treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) but education and self-help guidance are limited in primary care. OBJECTIVE: To report qualitative interview findings for men reporting nocturia in a primary care setting for LUTS. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: TRIUMPH (Treating Urinary Symptoms in Men in Primary Healthcare) is a multicentre cluster randomised trial of standardised manualised care (a booklet delivered by a health care professional) versus usual care for LUTS. The participants (524 in the intervention arm and 553 in the usual care arm) were men presenting for primary care for LUTS at 30 general practice (GP) sites in the UK. INTERVENTION: Delivery of a LUTS self-management booklet by health care staff in comparison to usual care for men with LUTS. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The qualitative component included 58 early-stage (0-3 mo after study enrolment) and 33 late-stage (3-9 mo later) interviews with participants to assess their experience of LUTS and conservative treatment in primary care. Purposive sampling was used to select participants for interview. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Nocturia is a common driver for seeking health care and is perceived by men as relatively acceptable to discuss. Information and self-help guidance were largely absent from descriptions of GP consultations, other than reducing evening caffeine and fluid intake. The TRIUMPH LUTS intervention booklet offers explanations and self-management guidance. Men with long-term disruptive symptoms, a perception that the booklet content was novel or worthwhile, and a belief that self-management might help, were more receptive to the intervention. In follow-up, improvements in nocturia were related to successful implementation of several aspects of the guidance. Most men were willing to complete a bladder diary, but some found it inconvenient, especially men in employment. The characteristics of the trial population mean that the findings may not apply to all men. CONCLUSIONS: Reassuring men that nocturia is part of ageing without offering them information and support risks reinforcing the tendency to discount problematic LUTS. The trial booklet and the training of health care professionals support guidance on nocturia self-management, which is most effective for men receptive to this approach. However, the nature of the trial population means that the findings may not apply to all men. PATIENT SUMMARY: Men are more comfortable in discussing waking at night to urinate than talking about other urinary symptoms with their GP. This problem should lead to a detailed discussion of all urinary symptoms rather than being thought of as a sign of ageing. An information booklet and nurse consultation helped many men to improve this symptom.

Eczema Care Online behavioural interventions to support self-care for children and young people: two independent, pragmatic, randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of two online behavioural interventions, one for parents and carers and one for young people, to support eczema self-management. DESIGN: Two independent, pragmatic, parallel group, unmasked, randomised controlled trials. SETTING: 98 general practices in England. PARTICIPANTS: Parents and carers of children (0-12 years) with eczema (trial 1) and young people (13-25 years) with eczema (trial 2), excluding people with inactive or very mild eczema (≤5 on POEM, the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure). INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised (1:1) using online software to receive usual eczema care or an online (www.EczemaCareOnline.org.uk) behavioural intervention for eczema plus usual care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was eczema symptoms rated using POEM (range 0-28, with 28 being very severe) every four weeks over 24 weeks. Outcomes were reported by parents or carers for children and by self-report for young people. Secondary outcomes included POEM score every four weeks over 52 weeks, quality of life, eczema control, itch intensity (young people only), patient enablement, treatment use, perceived barriers to treatment use, and intervention use. Analyses were carried out separately for the two trials and according to intention-to-treat principles. RESULTS: 340 parents or carers of children (169 usual care; 171 intervention) and 337 young people (169 usual care; 168 intervention) were randomised. The mean baseline POEM score was 12.8 (standard deviation 5.3) for parents and carers and 15.2 (5.4) for young people. Three young people withdrew from follow-up but did not withdraw their data. All randomised participants were included in the analyses. At 24 weeks, follow-up rates were 91.5% (311/340) for parents or carers and 90.2% (304/337) for young people. After controlling for baseline eczema severity and confounders, compared with usual care groups over 24 weeks, eczema severity improved in the intervention groups: mean difference in POEM score -1.5 (95% confidence interval -2.5 to -0.6; P=0.002) for parents or carers and -1.9 (-3.0 to -0.8; P<0.001) for young people. The number needed to treat to achieve a 2.5 difference in POEM score at 24 weeks was 6 in both trials. Improvements were sustained to 52 weeks in both trials. Enablement showed a statistically significant difference favouring the intervention group in both trials: adjusted mean difference at 24 weeks -0.7 (95% confidence interval -1.0 to -0.4) for parents or carers and -0.9 (-1.3 to -0.6) for young people. No harms were identified in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Two online interventions for self-management of eczema aimed at parents or carers of children with eczema and at young people with eczema provide a useful, sustained benefit in managing eczema severity in children and young people when offered in addition to usual eczema care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN79282252.

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.

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.

Best emollients for eczema (BEE) - comparing four types of emollients in children with eczema: protocol for randomised trial and nested qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Atopic dermatitis/eczema affects around 20% of children and is characterised by inflamed, dry, itchy skin. Guidelines recommend 'leave-on' emollients that are applied directly to the skin to add or trap moisture and used regularly, they can soothe, enhance the skin barrier and may prevent disease 'flares'. However, the suitability of the many different emollients varies between people and there is little evidence to help prescribers and parents and carers decide which type to try first. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Design: pragmatic, multicentre, individually randomised, parallel group superiority trial of four types of emollient (lotions, creams, gel or ointments). SETTING: general practitioner surgeries in England. PARTICIPANTS: children aged over 6 months and less than 12 years with mild-to-severe eczema and no known sensitivity to study emollients. INTERVENTIONS: study-approved lotion, cream, gel or ointment as the only leave-on emollient for 16 weeks, with directions to apply twice daily and as required. Other treatments, such as topical corticosteroids, used as standard care. FOLLOW-UP: 52 weeks. PRIMARY OUTCOME: validated patient-orientated eczema measure measured weekly for 16 weeks. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: eczema signs (Eczema Area Severity Index) by masked researcher, treatment use, parent satisfaction, adverse events, child and family quality of life (Atopic Dermatitis Quality of Life, Child Health Utility 9D and Dermatitis Family Impact). SAMPLE SIZE: 520 participants (130 per group). ANALYSIS: intention-to-treat using linear mixed models for repeated measures.Nested qualitative study: audio-recording of sample of baseline appointments and up to 60 interviews with participants at 4 and 16 weeks, interviews to be transcribed and analysed thematically. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval granted by the NHS REC (South West - Central Bristol Research Ethics Committee 17/SW/0089). Findings will be presented at conferences, published in open-access peer-reviewed journals and the study website; and summaries shared with key stakeholders. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN84540529.

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.

Efficiency versus thoroughness in medication review: a qualitative interview study in UK primary care.

BACKGROUND: Medication reviews may improve the safety of prescribing and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) highlights the importance of involving patients in this process. AIM: To explore GP and pharmacist perspectives on how medication reviews were conducted in general practice in the UK. DESIGN AND SETTING: Analysis of semi-structured interviews with GPs and pharmacists working in the South West of England, Northern England, and Scotland, sampled for heterogeneity. Interviews took place between January and October 2017. METHOD: Interviews focused on experience of medication review. Data saturation was achieved when no new insights arose from later interviews. Interviews were analysed thematically. RESULTS: In total, 13 GPs and 10 pharmacists were interviewed. GPs and pharmacists perceived medication review as an opportunity to improve prescribing safety. Although interviewees thought patients should be involved in decisions about their medicines, high workload pressures meant that most medication reviews were conducted with limited or no patient input. For some GPs, a medication review was done 'in the quickest way possible to say that it was done'. Pharmacists were perceived by both professions as being more thorough but less time efficient than GPs, and few pharmacists were routinely involved in medication reviews even in practices employing a pharmacist. Interviewees argued that it was easier to continue medicines than it was to stop them, particularly because stopping medicines required involving the patient and this generated extra work. CONCLUSION: Practices tended to prioritise being efficient (getting the work done) rather than being thorough (doing it well), so that most medication reviews were carried out with little or no patient involvement, and medicines were rarely stopped or reduced. Time and resource constraints are an important barrier to implementing NICE guidance.

Adding emollient bath additives to standard eczema management for children with eczema: the BATHE RCT.

BACKGROUND: Childhood eczema is very common. Treatment often includes emollient bath additives, despite there being little evidence of their effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of emollient bath additives in the management of childhood eczema. DESIGN: Pragmatic, randomised, open-label, multicentre superiority trial with two parallel groups. SETTING: Ninety-six general practices in Wales, the west of England and southern England. Invitation by personal letter or opportunistically. PARTICIPANTS: Children aged between 12 months and 12 years fulfilling the UK Diagnostic Criteria for Atopic Eczema. Children with inactive or very mild eczema (a score of ≤ 5 on the Nottingham Eczema Severity Scale) were excluded, as were children who bathed less than once per week or whose parents/carers were not prepared to accept randomisation. INTERVENTIONS: The intervention group were prescribed bath additives by their usual clinical team and were asked to use them regularly for 12 months. The control group were asked to use no bath additives for 12 months. Both groups continued standard eczema management, including regular leave-on emollients and topical corticosteroids (TCSs) when required. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was eczema control measured by Patient Oriented Eczema Measure [POEM, 0 (clear) to 28 (severe)] weekly for 16 weeks. The secondary outcomes were eczema severity over 1 year (4-weekly POEM), number of eczema exacerbations, disease-specific quality of life (QoL) (Dermatitis Family Impact Questionnaire), generic QoL (Child Health Utility-9 Dimensions) and type and quantity of topical steroid/calcineurin inhibitors prescribed. Children were randomised (1 : 1) using online software to either bath additives plus standard eczema care or standard eczema care alone, stratified by recruiting centre, and there was open-label blinding. RESULTS: From December 2014 to May 2016, 482 children were randomised: 51% were female, 84% were white and the mean age was 5 years (n = 264 in the intervention group, n = 218 in the control group). Reported adherence to randomised treatment allocation was > 92% in both groups, with 76.7% of participants completing at least 12 (80%) of the first 16 weekly questionnaires for the primary outcome. Baseline POEM score was 9.5 [standard deviation (SD) 5.7] in the bath additives group and 10.1 (SD 5.8) in the no bath additives group. Average POEM score over the first 16 weeks was 7.5 (SD 6.0) in the bath additives group and 8.4 (SD 6.0) in the no bath additives group, with no statistically significant difference between the groups. After controlling for baseline severity and confounders (ethnicity, TCS use, soap substitute use) and allowing for clustering of participants within centres and responses within participants over time, POEM scores in the no bath additive group were 0.41 points higher than in the bath additive group (95% confidence interval -0.27 to 1.10), which is well below the published minimal clinically important difference of 3 points. There was no difference between groups in secondary outcomes or in adverse effects such as redness, stinging or slipping. LIMITATIONS: Simple randomisation resulted in an imbalance in baseline group size, although baseline characteristics were well balanced between groups. CONCLUSION: This trial found no evidence of clinical benefit of including emollient bath additives in the standard management of childhood eczema. FUTURE WORK: Further research is required on optimal regimens of leave-on emollients and the use of emollients as soap substitutes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN84102309. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 57. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Emollient prescribing formularies in England and Wales: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To identify and compare emollient formularies across all clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) and local health boards (LHBs) in England and Wales. DESIGN: Formularies were retrieved via CCG/LHB websites or Google search (October 2016-February 2017). Data on structure and content were extracted, and descriptive analyses were undertaken. SETTING: 209 English CCGs and 7 Welsh LHBs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number and structure of formularies; number, type and name of emollients and bath additive recommendedandnot recommended; and any rationale given. RESULTS: 102formularies were identified, which named 109 emollients and 24 bath additives. Most were structured in an 'order of preference' (63%) and/or formulation (51%) format. Creams and ointments were the most commonly recommended types of emollients, and three ointments were the most commonly recommended specific emollients (71%-79% of formularies). However, there was poor consensus over which emollient should be used first line and 4 out of 10 of the most recommended lotions and creams contained antimicrobials or urea. Patient preference (60%) and/or cost (58%) were the most common reasons given for the recommendations. Of the 82% of formularies that recommend the use of bath additives, 75% did not give any reasons for their recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: Emollient formularies in England and Wales vary widely in their structure, recommendations and rationale. The reasons for such inconsistencies are unclear, risk confusion and make for inequitable regional variation. There is poor justification for multiple different, conflicting formularies.

Emollient bath additives for the treatment of childhood eczema (BATHE): multicentre pragmatic parallel group randomised controlled trial of clinical and cost effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of including emollient bath additives in the management of eczema in children. DESIGN: Pragmatic randomised open label superiority trial with two parallel groups. SETTING: 96 general practices in Wales and western and southern England. PARTICIPANTS: 483 children aged 1 to 11 years, fulfilling UK diagnostic criteria for atopic dermatitis. Children with very mild eczema and children who bathed less than once weekly were excluded. INTERVENTIONS: Participants in the intervention group were prescribed emollient bath additives by their usual clinical team to be used regularly for 12 months. The control group were asked to use no bath additives for 12 months. Both groups continued with standard eczema management, including leave-on emollients, and caregivers were given standardised advice on how to wash participants. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was eczema control measured by the patient oriented eczema measure (POEM, scores 0-7 mild, 8-16 moderate, 17-28 severe) weekly for 16 weeks. Secondary outcomes were eczema severity over one year (monthly POEM score from baseline to 52 weeks), number of eczema exacerbations resulting in primary healthcare consultation, disease specific quality of life (dermatitis family impact), generic quality of life (child health utility-9D), utilisation of resources, and type and quantity of topical corticosteroid or topical calcineurin inhibitors prescribed. RESULTS: 483 children were randomised and one child was withdrawn, leaving 482 children in the trial: 51% were girls (244/482), 84% were of white ethnicity (447/470), and the mean age was 5 years. 96% (461/482) of participants completed at least one post-baseline POEM, so were included in the analysis, and 77% (370/482) completed questionnaires for more than 80% of the time points for the primary outcome (12/16 weekly questionnaires to 16 weeks). The mean baseline POEM score was 9.5 (SD 5.7) in the bath additives group and 10.1 (SD 5.8) in the no bath additives group. The mean POEM score over the 16 week period was 7.5 (SD. 6.0) in the bath additives group and 8.4 (SD 6.0) in the no bath additives group. No statistically significant difference was found in weekly POEM scores between groups over 16 weeks. After controlling for baseline severity and confounders (ethnicity, topical corticosteroid use, soap substitute use) and allowing for clustering of participants within centres and responses within participants over time, POEM scores in the no bath additives group were 0.41 points higher than in the bath additives group (95% confidence interval -0.27 to 1.10), below the published minimal clinically important difference for POEM of 3 points. The groups did not differ in secondary outcomes, economic outcomes, or adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: This trial found no evidence of clinical benefit from including emollient bath additives in the standard management of eczema in children. Further research is needed into optimal regimens for leave-on emollient and soap substitutes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN84102309.