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.

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.

Intervention fidelity in a school-based diet and physical activity intervention in the UK: Active for Life Year 5.

BACKGROUND: Active for Life Year 5 (AFLY5) is an educational programme for Year 5 children (aged 9-10) designed to increase children's physical activity, decrease sedentary behaviour and increase fruit and vegetable intake. This paper reports findings from a process evaluation embedded within a randomised controlled trial evaluating the programme's effectiveness. It considers the fidelity of implementation of AFLY5 with a focus on three research questions: 1. To what extent was the intervention delivered as planned? 2. In what ways, if any, did the teachers amend the programme? and 3. What were the reasons for any amendments? METHODS: Mixed methods were used including data collection via observation of the intervention delivery, questionnaire, teacher's intervention delivery log and semi-structured interviews with teachers and parents. Qualitative data were analysed thematically and quantitative data were summarised using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Following training, 42 of the 43 intervention school teachers/teaching staff (98%) were confident they could deliver the nutrition and physical activity lessons according to plan. The mean number of lessons taught was 12.3 (s.d. 3.7), equating to 77% of the intervention. Reach was high with 95% of children in intervention schools receiving lessons. A mean of 6.2 (s.d. 2.6) out of 10 homeworks were delivered. Median lesson preparation time was 10 min (IQR 10-20) and 28% of lessons were reported as having been amended. Qualitative findings revealed that those who amended the lessons did so to differentiate for student ability, update them for use with new technologies and to enhance teacher and student engagement. Teachers endorsed the aims of the intervention, but some were frustrated with having to adapt the lesson materials. Teachers also a reported tendency to delegate the physical activity lessons to other staff not trained in the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Fidelity of intervention implementation was good but teachers' enthusiasm for the AFLY5 programme was mixed despite them believing that the messages behind the lessons were important. This may have meant that the intervention messages were not delivered as anticipated and explain why the intervention was found not to be effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN50133740.

Coronary artery bypass grafting in high-RISk patients randomised to off- or on-Pump surgery: a randomised controlled trial (the CRISP trial).

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is the treatment of choice for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD). Evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in low-risk populations shows that 'off-pump' CABG is at least as safe as 'on-pump' CABG, but high-quality trial data in high-risk populations are lacking. OBJECTIVES: To test the hypothesis that, in high-risk patients, off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCABG) reduces mortality and morbidity without causing a higher risk of reintervention compared with on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (ONCABG). DESIGN: Open parallel-group RCT with a 1 : 1 allocation ratio and expertise-based randomisation. SETTING: Eight specialist cardiac surgery centres in the UK and one specialist centre in Kolkata, India. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with an additive European system for cardiac operative risk evaluation score (EuroSCORE) of ≥ 5, undergoing non-emergency isolated CABG via a median sternotomy. INTERVENTIONS: CABG without cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), i.e. OPCABG on the beating heart, or CABG with CPB, i.e. ONCABG on a chemically arrested heart. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome - a composite of death or serious morbidity [all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, prolonged initial ventilation, sternal wound dehiscence] within 30 days of surgery. Secondary outcomes - quality of life (QoL) [Rose Angina Questionnaire, Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) angina class, European QoL-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), Coronary Revascularisation Outcome Questionnaire (CROQ)] and resource utilisation. RESULTS: The organisation of a tertiary cardiac surgery service in the UK presented several barriers to recruitment. Referral information was often inadequate to confirm eligibility. Limited surgeon participation at a centre, the need to meet referral-to-treatment performance targets and complex referral pathways did not support an expertise-based allocation. Urgent patients waiting for surgery in local 'feeder' hospitals were often not transferred until late the night before surgery, which limited the time available to take consent and organise the surgery on an expertise basis. Several elective patients declined to take part because they wanted the surgeon they had met when the surgery was first discussed in clinic to operate. Several initiatives were explored to boost recruitment. After 10 months of recruitment, the trial design was modified to permit both within-surgeon and expertise-based randomisation within a centre. However, this did not have sufficient impact and the trial was stopped on the grounds of futility after 106 patients (< 2% of the target sample size) had been recruited in 18 months. Ninety-eight patients were included in the trial analyses, six patients were withdrawn and two died before surgery. In both groups, 6% of patients experienced the primary outcome [adjusted odds ratio (OR) (OPCABG to ONCABG) 1.07; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 4.14]. QoL scores at 4-8 weeks post surgery were similar in the two groups. Patients randomised to OPCABG had a shorter stay in the intensive care unit and in hospital after surgery (median 26.0 vs. 27.7 hours in intensive care and 7 vs. 8 days in hospital). CONCLUSIONS: The Coronary artery bypass grafting in high-RISk patients randomised to off- or on-Pump surgery (CRISP) trial was not successful for a range of logistical reasons. However, the experience gained is of value for the design and conduct of future trials. The surgical community have polarised views. A qualitative evaluation of the reasons behind the views held by the advocates of the two techniques is an area for future research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN29161170. FUNDING: This project was funded by the Medical Research Council/National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 18, No. 44. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.