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.

Emollients for prevention of atopic dermatitis: 5-year findings from the BEEP randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of emollients for preventing atopic dermatitis/eczema is controversial. The Barrier Enhancement for Eczema Prevention trial evaluated the effects of daily emollients during the first year of life on atopic dermatitis and atopic conditions to age 5 years. METHODS: 1394 term infants with a family history of atopic disease were randomized (1:1) to daily emollient plus standard skin-care advice (693 emollient group) or standard skin-care advice alone (701 controls). Long-term follow-up at ages 3, 4 and 5 years was via parental questionnaires. Main outcomes were parental report of a clinical diagnosis of atopic dermatitis and food allergy. RESULTS: Parents reported more frequent moisturizer application in the emollient group through to 5 years. A clinical diagnosis of atopic dermatitis between 12 and 60 months was reported for 188/608 (31%) in the emollient group and 178/631 (28%) in the control group (adjusted relative risk 1.10, 95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.30). Although more parents in the emollient group reported food reactions in the previous year at 3 and 4 years, cumulative incidence of doctor-diagnosed food allergy by 5 years was similar between groups (92/609 [15%] emollients and 87/632 [14%] controls, adjusted relative risk 1.11, 95% confidence interval 0.84 to 1.45). Findings were similar for cumulative incidence of asthma and hay fever. CONCLUSIONS: Daily emollient application during the first year of life does not prevent atopic dermatitis, food allergy, asthma or hay fever.

'Eczema shouldn't control you; you should control eczema': qualitative process evaluation of online behavioural interventions to support young people and parents/carers of children with eczema.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of well-conducted randomized controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of theory-based online interventions for eczema. To address these deficiencies, we previously developed and demonstrated the effectiveness of two online behavioural interventions: Eczema Care Online for parents/carers of children with eczema, and Eczema Care Online for young people with eczema. OBJECTIVES: To explore the views and experiences of people who have used the Eczema Care Online interventions to provide insights into how the interventions worked and identify contextual factors that may impede users' engagement with the interventions. METHODS: Qualitative semistructured interviews were conducted with 17 parents/carers of children with eczema and 17 young people with eczema. Participants were purposively sampled from two randomized controlled trials of the interventions and recruited from GP surgeries in England. Transcripts were analysed using inductive thematic analysis, and intervention modifications were identified using the person-based approach table of changes method. RESULTS: Both young people and parents/carers found the interventions easy to use, relatable and trustworthy, and perceived that they helped them to manage their eczema, thus suggesting that Eczema Care Online may be acceptable to its target groups. Our analysis suggested that the interventions may reduce eczema severity by facilitating empowerment among its users, specifically through improved understanding of, and confidence in, eczema management, reduced treatment concerns, and improved treatment adherence and management of irritants/triggers. Reading about the experiences of others with eczema helped people to feel 'normal' and less alone. Some (mainly young people) expressed firmly held negative beliefs about topical corticosteroids, views that were not influenced by the intervention. Minor improvements to the design and navigation of the Eczema Care Online interventions and content changes were identified and made, ready for wider implementation. CONCLUSIONS: People with eczema and their families can benefit from reliable information, specifically information on the best and safest ways to use their eczema treatments early in their eczema journey. Together, our findings from this study and the corresponding trials suggest wider implementation of Eczema Care Online (EczemaCareOnline.org.uk) is justified.

Efficacy and safety of ciclosporin versus methotrexate in the treatment of severe atopic dermatitis in children and young people (TREAT): a multicentre parallel group assessor-blinded clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Conventional systemic drugs are used to treat children and young people (CYP) with severe atopic dermatitis (AD) worldwide, but no robust randomized controlled trial (RCT) evidence exists regarding their efficacy and safety in this population. While novel therapies have expanded therapeutic options, their high cost means traditional agents remain important, especially in lower-resource settings. OBJECTIVES: To compare the safety and efficacy of ciclosporin (CyA) with methotrexate (MTX) in CYP with severe AD in the TREatment of severe Atopic Eczema Trial (TREAT) trial. METHODS: We conducted a parallel group assessor-blinded RCT in 13 UK and Irish centres. Eligible participants aged 2-16 years and unresponsive to potent topical treatment were randomized to either oral CyA (4 mg kg-1 daily) or MTX (0.4 mg kg-1 weekly) for 36 weeks and followed-up for 24 weeks. Co-primary outcomes were change from baseline to 12 weeks in Objective Severity Scoring of Atopic Dermatitis (o-SCORAD) and time to first significant flare (relapse) after treatment cessation. Secondary outcomes included change in quality of life (QoL) from baseline to 60 weeks; number of participant-reported flares following treatment cessation; proportion of participants achieving ≥ 50% improvement in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI 50) and ≥ 75% improvement in EASI (EASI 75); and stratification of outcomes by filaggrin status. RESULTS: In total, 103 participants were randomized (May 2016-February 2019): 52 to CyA and 51 to MTX. CyA showed greater improvement in disease severity by 12 weeks [mean difference in o-SCORAD -5.69, 97.5% confidence interval (CI) -10.81 to -0.57 (P = 0.01)]. More participants achieved ≥ 50% improvement in o-SCORAD (o-SCORAD 50) at 12 weeks in the CyA arm vs. the MTX arm [odds ratio (OR) 2.60, 95% CI 1.23-5.49; P = 0.01]. By 60 weeks MTX was superior (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.13-0.85; P = 0.02), a trend also seen for ≥ 75% improvement in o-SCORAD (o-SCORAD 75), EASI 50 and EASI 75. Participant-reported flares post-treatment were higher in the CyA arm (OR 3.22, 95% CI 0.42-6.01; P = 0.02). QoL improved with both treatments and was sustained after treatment cessation. Filaggrin status did not affect outcomes. The frequency of adverse events (AEs) was comparable between both treatments. Five (10%) participants on CyA and seven (14%) on MTX experienced a serious AE. CONCLUSIONS: Both CyA and MTX proved effective in CYP with severe AD over 36 weeks. Participants who received CyA showed a more rapid response to treatment, while MTX induced more sustained disease control after discontinuation.

Prescribing and using vitiligo treatments: lessons from a nested process evaluation within the HI-Light vitiligo randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The HI-Light Trial demonstrated that for active, limited vitiligo, combination treatment with potent topical corticosteroid (TCS) and handheld narrowband ultraviolet B offers a better treatment response than potent TCS alone. However, it is unclear how to implement these findings. AIM: We sought to answer three questions: (i) Can combination treatment be used safely and effectively by people with vitiligo?; (ii) Should combination treatment be made available as routine clinical care?; and (iii) Can combination treatment be integrated within current healthcare provision? METHODS: This was a mixed-methods process evaluation, including semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of trial participants, structured interviews with commissioners, and an online survey and focus groups with trial staff. Transcripts were coded by framework analysis, with thematic development by multiple researchers. RESULTS: Participants found individual treatments easy to use, but the combination treatment was complicated and required nurse support. Both participants and site investigators felt that combination treatment should be made available, although commissioners were less certain. There was support for the development of services offering combination treatment, although this might not be prioritized above treatment for other conditions. A 'mixed economy' model was suggested, involving patients purchasing their own devices, although concerns regarding the safe use of treatments mean that training, monitoring and ongoing support are essential. The need for medical physics support may mean that a regional service is more practical. CONCLUSION: Combination treatment should be made available for people seeking treatment for vitiligo, but services require partnership with medical physics and ongoing training and support for patients.

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.

Content of Health Economics Analysis Plans (HEAPs) for Trial-Based Economic Evaluations: Expert Delphi Consensus Survey.

OBJECTIVES: Health economics analysis plans (HEAPs) currently lack consistency, with uncertainty surrounding appropriate content. We aimed to develop a list of essential items that should be included in HEAPs for economic evaluations conducted alongside randomized trials. METHODS: A list of potential items for inclusion was developed by examining existing HEAPs. An electronic Delphi survey was conducted among professional health economists. Respondents were asked to rate potential items from 1 (least important) to 9 (most important), suggest additional items, and comment on proposed items (round 1). A second survey (round 2) was emailed to participants, including the participant's own scores from round 1 along with summary results from the whole panel; participants were asked to rerate each item. Consensus criteria for inclusion in the final list were predefined as >70% of participants rating an item 7-9 and <15% rating it 1-3 after round 2. A final item selection meeting was held to scrutinize the results and adjudicate on items lacking consensus. RESULTS: 62 participants completed round 1 of the survey. The initial list included 72 potential items; all 72 were carried forward to round 2, and no new items were added. 48 round 1 respondents (77.4%) completed round 2 and reached consensus on 53 items. At the final meeting, the expert panel (n = 9) agreed that 58 items should be included in the essential list, moved 9 items to an optional list, and dropped 5 items. CONCLUSIONS: Via expert consensus opinion, this study identified 58 items that are considered essential in a HEAP.

The construct validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D-5L, AQL-5D and a bespoke TTO in acute asthmatics.

PURPOSE: Measuring quality of life in acute asthmatics is challenging, especially when asthma attacks can occur sporadically. Several questionnaires can be used to measure quality of life in this patient group; however, psychometric testing is limited on questionnaires that can be used to estimate Quality Adjusted Life years. The objective of this study is to assess the construct validity (convergent and discriminative validity) and responsiveness of the EuroQol-5-Dimensions 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L), Asthma Quality of Life Utility Index-5 Dimensions (AQL-5D) and Time Trade-Off (TTO) in acute asthma patients. METHODS: Data from a prospective cohort study were used to test the validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D-5L, AQL-5D and TTO in asthma patients who were recruited from UK accident & emergency departments or hospital wards. The spearman's rank correlation coefficient, the Kruskal-Wallis test statistic and the standardized response mean were used to test for convergent validity, discriminative validity and responsiveness, respectively. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-one participants were included in the available case analysis. The EQ-5D-5L and AQL-5D showed moderate to strong correlations for convergent validity at baseline, week 4 and week 8. The AQL-5D and TTO showed moderate correlations at week 4 and week 8. No statistical significance was observed for discriminative validity at baseline. Both the EQ-5D-5L and the AQL-5D also showed that they were sensitive to change for the recovery responses. CONCLUSIONS: The EQ-5D-5L and AQL-5D showed stronger construct validity and responsiveness compared to the TTO. Therefore, both the EQ-5D-5L and AQL-5D should be considered for use in future economic evaluations.

Barriers and Facilitators to Model Replication Within Health Economics.

BACKGROUND: Model replication is important because it enables researchers to check research integrity and transparency and, potentially, to inform the model conceptualization process when developing a new or updated model. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the replicability of published decision analytic models and to identify the barriers and facilitators to replication. METHODS: Replication attempts of 5 published economic modeling studies were made. The replications were conducted using only publicly available information within the manuscripts and supplementary materials. The replicator attempted to reproduce the key results detailed in the paper, for example, the total cost, total outcomes, and if applicable, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio reported. Although a replication attempt was not explicitly defined as a success or failure, the replicated results were compared for percentage difference to the original results. RESULTS: In conducting the replication attempts, common barriers and facilitators emerged. For most case studies, the replicator needed to make additional assumptions when recreating the model. This was often exacerbated by conflicting information being presented in the text and the tables. Across the case studies, the variation between original and replicated results ranged from -4.54% to 108.00% for costs and -3.81% to 0.40% for outcomes. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that although models may appear to be comprehensively reported, it is often not enough to facilitate a precise replication. Further work is needed to understand how to improve model transparency and in turn increase the chances of replication, thus ensuring future usability.

Estimating loss in quality of life associated with asthma-related crisis events (ESQUARE): a cohort, observational study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence of quality of life implications of asthma attacks are limited, particularly when measured on a utility scale, which enables calculating Quality-Adjusted Life-Years (QALYs) and comparisons with other health conditions and services. Therefore, this study sought to estimate the utility loss associated with an asthma-related crisis event (accident and emergency (A&E) attendance or hospital admission). METHODS: Participants were recruited in a cohort study from A&E and hospital admissions at three UK hospitals. They completed the EuroQol-5 Dimensions 5-Level (EQ-5D-5 L), Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ), Time trade-off (TTO), and peak flow and symptom diary over 8 weeks, where three different methods (EQ-5D-5 L, AQLQ, and TTO), were used to estimate utilities. The mean difference between two time points were estimated using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. RESULTS: From baseline to week 8, mean increases (95% CI) were estimated to be 0.086 (0.019-0.153), 0.154 (0.112-0.196) and 0.132 (0.063-0.201) for EQ-5D-5 L, AQL-5D (preference-based measure derived from AQLQ), and TTO respectively over 8 weeks (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Asthma crisis events are estimated to be associated with a mean utility loss of between 0.086 and 0.132. The utility decrement can be used to assign values to asthma-related crisis events, which can enhance economic evaluations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02771678 . Registered 13 May 2016.

Silk garments plus standard care compared with standard care for treating eczema in children: A randomised, controlled, observer-blind, pragmatic trial (CLOTHES Trial).

BACKGROUND: The role of clothing in the management of eczema (also called atopic dermatitis or atopic eczema) is poorly understood. This trial evaluated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of silk garments (in addition to standard care) for the management of eczema in children with moderate to severe disease. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This was a parallel-group, randomised, controlled, observer-blind trial. Children aged 1 to 15 y with moderate to severe eczema were recruited from secondary care and the community at five UK medical centres. Participants were allocated using online randomisation (1:1) to standard care or to standard care plus silk garments, stratified by age and recruiting centre. Silk garments were worn for 6 mo. Primary outcome (eczema severity) was assessed at baseline, 2, 4, and 6 mo, by nurses blinded to treatment allocation, using the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), which was log-transformed for analysis (intention-to-treat analysis). A safety outcome was number of skin infections. Three hundred children were randomised (26 November 2013 to 5 May 2015): 42% girls, 79% white, mean age 5 y. Primary analysis included 282/300 (94%) children (n = 141 in each group). The garments were worn more often at night than in the day (median of 81% of nights [25th to 75th centile 57% to 96%] and 34% of days [25th to 75th centile 10% to 76%]). Geometric mean EASI scores at baseline, 2, 4, and 6 mo were, respectively, 9.2, 6.4, 5.8, and 5.4 for silk clothing and 8.4, 6.6, 6.0, and 5.4 for standard care. There was no evidence of any difference between the groups in EASI score averaged over all follow-up visits adjusted for baseline EASI score, age, and centre: adjusted ratio of geometric means 0.95, 95% CI 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 units, which is not clinically important. Skin infections occurred in 36/142 (25%) and 39/141 (28%) of children in the silk clothing and standard care groups, respectively. Even if the small observed treatment effect was genuine, the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year was £56,811 in the base case analysis from a National Health Service perspective, suggesting that silk garments are unlikely to be cost-effective using currently accepted thresholds. The main limitation of the study is that use of an objective primary outcome, whilst minimising detection bias, may have underestimated treatment effects. CONCLUSIONS: Silk clothing is unlikely to provide additional benefit over standard care in children with moderate to severe eczema. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN77261365.

The Community In-reach Rehabilitation and Care Transition (CIRACT) clinical and cost-effectiveness randomisation controlled trial in older people admitted to hospital as an acute medical emergency.

Objective: To compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a Community In-reach Rehabilitation and Care Transition (CIRACT) service with the traditional hospital-based rehabilitation (THB-Rehab) service. Design: Pragmatic randomised controlled trial with an integral health economic study. Settings: Large UK teaching hospital, with community follow-up. Subjects: Frail older people aged 70 years and older admitted to hospital as an acute medical emergency. Measurements: Primary outcome: hospital length of stay; secondary outcomes: readmission, day 91-super spell bed days, functional ability, co-morbidity and health-related quality of life; cost-effectiveness analysis. Results: A total of 250 participants were randomised. There was no significant difference in length of stay between the CIRACT and THB-Rehab service (median 8 versus 9 days; geometric mean 7.8 versus 8.7 days, mean ratio 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74­1.10). Of the participants who were discharged from hospital, 17% and 13% were readmitted within 28 days from the CIRACT and THB-Rehab services, respectively (risk difference 3.8%, 95% CI −5.8% to 13.4%). There were no other significant differences in any of the other secondary outcomes between the two groups. The mean costs (including NHS and personal social service) of the CIRACT and THB-Rehab service were £3,744 and £3,603, respectively (mean cost difference £144; 95% CI −1,645 to 1,934). Conclusion: The CIRACT service does not reduce major hospital length of stay nor reduce short-term readmission rates, compared to the standard THB-Rehab service; however, a modest (<2.3 days) effect cannot be excluded. Further studies are necessary powered with larger sample sizes and cluster randomisation. Trial registration: ISRCTN 94393315, 25th April 2013

PRIORITIES FOR HEALTH ECONOMIC METHODOLOGICAL RESEARCH: RESULTS OF AN EXPERT CONSULTATION.

BACKGROUND: The importance of economic evaluation in decision making is growing with increasing budgetary pressures on health systems. Diverse economic evidence is available for a range of interventions across national contexts within Europe, but little attention has been given to identifying evidence gaps that, if filled, could contribute to more efficient allocation of resources. One objective of the Research Agenda for Health Economic Evaluation project is to determine the most important methodological evidence gaps for the ten highest burden conditions in the European Union (EU), and to suggest ways of filling these gaps. METHODS: The highest burden conditions in the EU by Disability Adjusted Life Years were determined using the Global Burden of Disease study. Clinical interventions were identified for each condition based on published guidelines, and economic evaluations indexed in MEDLINE were mapped to each intervention. A panel of public health and health economics experts discussed the evidence during a workshop and identified evidence gaps. RESULTS: The literature analysis contributed to identifying cross-cutting methodological and technical issues, which were considered by the expert panel to derive methodological research priorities. CONCLUSIONS: The panel suggests a research agenda for health economics which incorporates the use of real-world evidence in the assessment of new and existing interventions; increased understanding of cost-effectiveness according to patient characteristics beyond the "-omics" approach to inform both investment and disinvestment decisions; methods for assessment of complex interventions; improved cross-talk between economic evaluations from health and other sectors; early health technology assessment; and standardized, transferable approaches to economic modeling.

REFINE (REducing Falls in In-patieNt Elderly) using bed and bedside chair pressure sensors linked to radio-pagers in acute hospital care: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: falls in hospitals are a major problem and contribute to substantial healthcare burden. Advances in sensor technology afford innovative approaches to reducing falls in acute hospital care. However, whether these are clinically effective and cost effective in the UK setting has not been evaluated. METHODS: pragmatic, parallel-arm, individual randomised controlled trial of bed and bedside chair pressure sensors using radio-pagers (intervention group) compared with standard care (control group) in elderly patients admitted to acute, general medical wards, in a large UK teaching hospital. Primary outcome measure number of in-patient bedside falls per 1,000 bed days. RESULTS: 1,839 participants were randomised (918 to the intervention group and 921 to the control group). There were 85 bedside falls (65 fallers) in the intervention group, falls rate 8.71 per 1,000 bed days compared with 83 bedside falls (64 fallers) in the control group, falls rate 9.84 per 1,000 bed days (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66-1.22; P = 0.51). There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to time to first bedside fall (adjusted hazard ratio (HR), 0.95; 95% CI: 0.67-1.34; P= 0.12). The mean cost per patient in the intervention group was £7199 compared with £6400 in the control group, mean difference in QALYs per patient, 0.0001 (95% CI: -0.0006-0.0004, P= 0.67). CONCLUSIONS: bed and bedside chair pressure sensors as a single intervention strategy do not reduce in-patient bedside falls, time to first bedside fall and are not cost-effective in elderly patients in acute, general medical wards in the UK. TRIAL REGISTRATION: isrctn.org identifier: ISRCTN44972300.

Online behavioural interventions for children and young people with eczema: a quantitative evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Two online behavioural interventions (one website for parents/carers of children with eczema; and one for young people with eczema) have been shown in randomised controlled trials to facilitate a sustained improvement in eczema severity. AIM: To describe intervention use and examine potential mediators of intervention outcomes and contextual factors that may influence intervention delivery and outcomes. DESIGN AND SETTING: Quantitative process evaluation in UK primary care. METHOD: Parents/carers and young people were recruited through primary care. Intervention use was recorded and summarised descriptively. Logistic regression explored sociodemographic and other factors associated with intervention engagement. Mediation analysis investigated whether patient enablement (ability to understand and cope with health issues), treatment use, and barriers to adherence were mediators of intervention effect. Subgroup analysis compared intervention effects among pre-specified participant subsets. RESULTS: A total of 340 parents/carers and 337 young people were recruited. Most parents/carers (87%, n = 148/171) and young people (91%, n = 153/168) in the intervention group viewed the core introduction by 24 weeks. At 24 weeks, users had spent approximately 20 minutes on average on the interventions. Among parents/carers, greater intervention engagement was associated with higher education levels, uncertainty about carrying out treatments, and doubts about treatment efficacy at baseline. Among young people, higher intervention use was associated with higher baseline eczema severity. Patient enablement (the ability to understand and cope with health issues) accounted for approximately 30% of the intervention effect among parents/carers and 50% among young people. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that positive intervention outcomes depended on a modest time commitment from users. This provides further support that the wider implementation of Eczema Care Online is justified.

Nasal sprays and behavioural interventions compared with usual care for acute respiratory illness in primary care: a randomised, controlled, open-label, parallel-group trial.

BACKGROUND: A small amount of evidence suggests that nasal sprays, or physical activity and stress management, could shorten the duration of respiratory infections. This study aimed to assess the effect of nasal sprays or a behavioural intervention promoting physical activity and stress management on respiratory illnesses, compared with usual care. METHODS: This randomised, controlled, open-label, parallel-group trial was done at 332 general practitioner practices in the UK. Eligible adults (aged ≥18 years) had at least one comorbidity or risk factor increasing their risk of adverse outcomes due to respiratory illness (eg, immune compromise due to serious illness or medication; heart disease; asthma or lung disease; diabetes; mild hepatic impairment; stroke or severe neurological problem; obesity [BMI ≥30 kg/m2]; or age ≥65 years) or at least three self-reported respiratory tract infections in a normal year (ie, any year before the COVID-19 pandemic). Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) using a computerised system to: usual care (brief advice about managing illness); gel-based spray (two sprays per nostril at the first sign of an infection or after potential exposure to infection, up to 6 times per day); saline spray (two sprays per nostril at the first sign of an infection or after potential exposure to infection, up to 6 times per day); or a brief behavioural intervention in which participants were given access to a website promoting physical activity and stress management. The study was partially masked: neither investigators nor medical staff were aware of treatment allocation, and investigators who did the statistical analysis were unaware of treatment allocation. The sprays were relabelled to maintain participant masking. Outcomes were assessed using data from participants' completed monthly surveys and a survey at 6 months. The primary outcome was total number of days of illness due to self-reported respiratory tract illnesses (coughs, colds, sore throat, sinus or ear infections, influenza, or COVID-19) in the previous 6 months, assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, which included all randomly assigned participants who had primary outcome data available. Key secondary outcomes were possible harms, including headache or facial pain, and antibiotic use, assessed in all randomly assigned participants. This trial was registered with ISRCTN, 17936080, and is closed to recruitment. FINDINGS: Between Dec 12, 2020, and April 7, 2023, of 19 475 individuals screened for eligibility, 13 799 participants were randomly assigned to usual care (n=3451), gel-based nasal spray (n=3448), saline nasal spray (n=3450), or the digital intervention promoting physical activity and stress management (n=3450). 11 612 participants had complete data for the primary outcome and were included in the primary outcome analysis (usual care group, n=2983; gel-based spray group, n=2935; saline spray group, n=2967; behavioural website group, n=2727). Compared with participants in the usual care group, who had a mean of 8·2 (SD 16·1) days of illness, the number of days of illness was significantly lower in the gel-based spray group (mean 6·5 days [SD 12·8]; adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0·82 [99% CI 0·76-0·90]; p<0·0001) and the saline spray group (6·4 days [12·4]; 0·81 [0·74-0·88]; p<0·0001), but not in the group allocated to the behavioural website (7·4 days [14·7]; 0·97 [0·89-1·06]; p=0·46). The most common adverse event was headache or sinus pain in the gel-based group: 123 (4·8%) of 2556 participants in the usual care group; 199 (7·8%) of 2498 participants in the gel-based group (risk ratio 1·61 [95% CI 1·30-1·99]; p<0·0001); 101 (4·5%) of 2377 participants in the saline group (0·81 [0·63-1·05]; p=0·11); and 101 (4·5%) of 2091 participants in the behavioural intervention group (0·95 [0·74-1·22]; p=0·69). Compared with usual care, antibiotic use was lower for all interventions: IRR 0·65 (95% CI 0·50-0·84; p=0·001) for the gel-based spray group; 0·69 (0·45-0·88; p=0·003) for the saline spray group; and 0·74 (0·57-0·94; p=0·02) for the behavioural website group. INTERPRETATION: Advice to use either nasal spray reduced illness duration and both sprays and the behavioural website reduced antibiotic use. Future research should aim to address the impact of the widespread implementation of these simple interventions. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Emollient application from birth to prevent eczema in high-risk children: the BEEP RCT.

Background: Atopic eczema is a common childhood skin problem linked with asthma, food allergy and allergic rhinitis that impairs quality of life. Objectives: To determine whether advising parents to apply daily emollients in the first year can prevent eczema and/or other atopic diseases in high-risk children. Design: A United Kingdom, multicentre, pragmatic, two-arm, parallel-group randomised controlled prevention trial with follow-up to 5 years. Setting: Twelve secondary and four primary care centres. Participants: Healthy infants (at least 37 weeks' gestation) at high risk of developing eczema, screened and consented during the third trimester or post delivery. Interventions: Infants were randomised (1 : 1) within 21 days of birth to apply emollient (Doublebase Gel®; Dermal Laboratories Ltd, Hitchin, UK or Diprobase Cream®) daily to the whole body (excluding scalp) for the first year, plus standard skin-care advice (emollient group) or standard skin-care advice only (control group). Families were not blinded to allocation. Main outcome measures: Primary outcome was eczema diagnosis in the last year at age 2 years, as defined by the UK Working Party refinement of the Hanifin and Rajka diagnostic criteria, assessed by research nurses blinded to allocation. Secondary outcomes up to age 2 years included other eczema definitions, time to onset and severity of eczema, allergic rhinitis, wheezing, allergic sensitisation, food allergy, safety (skin infections and slippages) and cost-effectiveness. Results: One thousand three hundred and ninety-four newborns were randomised between November 2014 and November 2016; 693 emollient and 701 control. Adherence in the emollient group was 88% (466/532), 82% (427/519) and 74% (375/506) at 3, 6 and 12 months. At 2 years, eczema was present in 139/598 (23%) in the emollient group and 150/612 (25%) in controls (adjusted relative risk 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 1.16; p = 0.61 and adjusted risk difference -1.2%, 95% confidence interval -5.9% to 3.6%). Other eczema definitions supported the primary analysis. Food allergy (milk, egg, peanut) was present in 41/547 (7.5%) in the emollient group versus 29/568 (5.1%) in controls (adjusted relative risk 1.47, 95% confidence interval 0.93 to 2.33). Mean number of skin infections per child in the first year was 0.23 (standard deviation 0.68) in the emollient group versus 0.15 (standard deviation 0.46) in controls; adjusted incidence rate ratio 1.55, 95% confidence interval 1.15 to 2.09. The adjusted incremental cost per percentage decrease in risk of eczema at 2 years was £5337 (£7281 unadjusted). No difference between the groups in eczema or other atopic diseases was observed during follow-up to age 5 years via parental questionnaires. Limitations: Two emollient types were used which could have had different effects. The median time for starting emollients was 11 days after birth. Some contamination occurred in the control group (< 20%). Participating families were unblinded and reported on some outcomes. Conclusions: We found no evidence that daily emollient during the first year of life prevents eczema in high-risk children. Emollient use was associated with a higher risk of skin infections and a possible increase in food allergy. Emollient use is unlikely to be considered cost-effective in this context. Future research: To pool similar studies in an individual patient data meta-analysis. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN21528841. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 12/67/12) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 29. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Eczema is a troublesome itchy skin condition affecting 1 in 5 children and 1 in 10 UK adults. There is no cure and affected children are more likely to develop food allergies. We wanted to see if we could prevent eczema by protecting the skin of babies at higher risk of developing eczema (with an immediate relative with eczema, asthma or hay fever) with moisturisers used to treat dry skin. Previous research suggested that protecting the skin barrier might also prevent food allergy. One thousand three hundred and ninety-four families took part in a study; half of them were asked to apply moisturiser every day to their newborn baby for the first year and half to look after their baby's skin in the normal way. At the age of 2 years, we did not see any difference in how common eczema was between the two groups: 23% had eczema in the moisturiser group and 25% in the normal care group. It did not matter how we defined eczema ­ whether examined by a researcher or parent report. We did not find any differences in related conditions like asthma or hay fever either. We found that children using moisturisers had seen their doctor slightly more often for mild skin infections. There was a hint that food allergy might have been increased in the moisturiser group, but there was not enough data to be sure. We followed up the children to age 5 years, but we still did not find any benefits from using moisturisers in early life. Since this study, other similar research has been done using newer types of moisturisers, but their results are the same. This study shows that using daily moisturisers on healthy babies with a high risk of eczema does not prevent eczema. It is one less thing for busy families to worry about.

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 .