Online survey to identify current challenges in atopic dermatitis management and guideline implementation in German-speaking countries.

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a relapsing chronic inflammatory skin disease with a significant public health burden. OBJECTIVES: To conduct a survey in order to gain information on current problems on the care and treatment of AD patients from a wide range of care providers, as well as information on ways of improving AD guidelines. MATERIALS & METHODS: An online survey was conducted via professional associations, focussing on AD health care professionals with regards to current gaps in knowledge of AD management and experience based on the German guidelines (GL). RESULTS: In total, 542 respondents treated a median of 200 AD patients yearly. The most frequent problems in the management of AD concerned emollients (50%), largely due to patient costs and the inability to prescribe emollients/moisturizers. Barriers to prescribing biologics included cost. Respondents stated that the GL lacks information regarding patient education (27%) and use of basic emollients (27%). Consideration should be given to feasibility issues (32%) and the addition of care pathways (41%) to improve the GL. CONCLUSION: In this survey, we identified inadequate basic AD care mainly due to patient costs and lack of time for counselling as real-life challenges. These issues remain to be addressed in future guidelines.

A Community-based Assessment of Skin Care, Allergies, and Eczema (CASCADE): an atopic dermatitis primary prevention study using emollients-protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common, chronic skin disorder often beginning in infancy. Skin barrier dysfunction early in life serves as a central event in the pathogenesis of AD. In infants at high risk of developing AD, preventative application of lipid-rich emollients may reduce the risk of developing AD. This study aims to measure the effectiveness of this intervention in a population not selected for risk via a pragmatic, randomized, physician-blinded trial in the primary care setting. METHODS: Infant-parent dyads are recruited from a primary care practice participating through one of four practice-based research networks in Oregon, Colorado, Wisconsin, and North Carolina. Eligible dyads are randomized to the intervention (daily use of lipid-rich emollient) or the control (no emollient) group (n = 625 infants in each) and are followed for 24 months. The primary outcome is the cumulative incidence of physician-diagnosed AD and secondary outcomes include caregiver-reported measures of AD and development of other atopic diseases. Data collection occurs via chart review and surveys, with no study visits required. Data will be analyzed utilizing intention-to-treat principles. DISCUSSION: AD is a common skin condition in infants that affects quality of life and is associated with the development of other atopic diseases. If a safe intervention, such as application of lipid-rich emollients, in the general population effectively decreases AD prevalence, this could alter the guidance given by providers regarding routine skin care of infants. Because of the pragmatic design, we anticipate that this trial will yield generalizable results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03409367. Registered on 11 February 2018.

Economic burden of eczema in a middle-income country: A public hospital-based retrospective study in 2016-2017 in Vietnam.

OBJECTIVES: Eczema, which is synonymous with atopic eczema, is classified as a complex, chronic, and relapsing inflammatory skin condition, affecting both adults and children. However, there has not been any research into health-care expenditure to evaluate the medical cost of eczema from patients' perspective in Vietnam. This retrospective study aimed to fill in the gap concerning the medical cost of eczema treatment from patients' perspective. METHODS: Data from Ho Chi Minh City Hospital of Dermato Venereology's electronic medical database on demographics and drug therapy from June 2016 to May 2017 were collected. The patients who met the study's criteria were included in the study and were then categorized as mild, moderate, and severe according to received treatment level. Bootstrapping methods were used to evaluate average and emphasized the difference of cost burden adjusted by factors. RESULTS: A total of 6,212 patients (52.1% women and 85% urban residents) participated in the study; they were divided into three groups according to treatment stage: mild (n = 3,159, 50.9%), moderate (n = 599, 9.6%), and severe (n = 2,454, 39.5%). The evaluated total cost for the three groups was 5,255.82, 1,064.03, and 5,8154.60 US dollars, respectively; the average expenditure per patient per year was around $12.11 ($11.63-12.59). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggested that the estimated direct medical cost of eczema treatment was much lower than that in the Western countries, mostly because of insurance coverage. The findings provide useful insights into health economic evaluations and treatment costs of eczema in Vietnam.

Economic burden and productivity loss related to eczema: A prevalence-based follow-up study in Vietnam.

OBJECTIVE: Eczema, a chronic dermatologic disease, has been recognized as an economic burden in publications all over the word but only minimally as such in Vietnam. The aim of this prospective study was to quantify the financial hardships and impairments suffered by eczema patients. METHODS: This cross-sectional prevalence-based study involved 136 patients, whose conditions were classified into three severity levels on the basis of the medications that they were prescribed. Prescription therapy was administered for a month, after which there was patient-oriented assessment of effectiveness. The work productivity and activity impairment (WPAI) questionnaire was used to evaluate productivity loss, which was expressed in percentage form. Bootstrapping was conducted to determine continuous variables and demographybased differences in cost values among the patient groups. RESULTS: For the month-long treatment, each eczema patient needed an average of US$68.1 (range: US$56.2- US$81.5) with the highest proportion being spent on cosmetic treatments. There is noticeable difference between groups among which patients' symptoms demonstrated in distinct levels. The estimates indicated that eczema resulted in 27.8% and 23.1% impairments in work and daily activities, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The aggravation of disease symptoms can increase the direct costs borne by eczema patients. A decrease in productivity, which is one of the most serious consequences of the condition, should be paid adequate attention to minimize burdens to society.

Importance of out-of-pocket costs for adult patients with atopic dermatitis in France.

BACKGROUND: Currently, few studies investigated the economic burden of atopic dermatitis (AD) in adult patients and specifically the estimation of out-of-pocket costs. Patients with skin disorders primarily use comfort care to ease dryness, itch or pain, and the costs of comfort care are not subject to any reimbursement from mandatory or complementary insurance. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to measure the medical and non-medical expenses paid by the patient. METHODS: Eczema Cohort Longitudinal Adults was a non-interventional study that aimed to assess the burden of AD in terms of quality of life and financial consequences. A self-assessment questionnaire was distributed to adult patients who were cared in four French hospitals. Patients were asked to list the resources consumed for the treatment of AD during the last 12 months and to estimate the corresponding amount of money they had to pay out of their own pockets. The severity of AD was subjected to a stratification based on the PO-SCORAD score. RESULTS: A total of 1024 patients answered the questionnaire: 31.9% with severe AD, 40.4% with moderate AD and 27.6% with mild AD. The mean annual out-of-pocket cost was €462.1 for severe AD and €247.4 for moderate AD. Emollients were the most commonly used product: 74.4% for an average out-of-pocket cost of €151.4. The out-of-pocket costs increased significantly with the severity: 27% of patients with severe AD declared having bought specially textured clothes, while 19% of patients with moderate AD reported the same. The corresponding mean out-of-pocket costs were €162 and €91, respectively. CONCLUSION: The amount of out-of-pocket costs for patients with AD for essential medical and non-medical expenses is relatively high, compared to the average out-of-pocket cost for French households. Integration of these essential resources into the list of reimbursed products and services appears necessary for a better coverage of AD.

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.

Cost and effectiveness of prescribing emollient therapy for atopic eczema in UK primary care in children and adults: a large retrospective analysis of the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

BACKGROUND: The Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) was used to evaluate the overall costs to the National Health Service, including healthcare utilisation, of prescribing emollients in UK primary care for dry skin and atopic eczema (DS&E). METHODS: Primary care patients in the UK were identified using the CPRD and their records were interrogated for the 2 years following first diagnosis of DS&E. Data from patients with (n = 45,218) and without emollient prescriptions (n = 9780) were evaluated. Multivariate regression models were used to compare healthcare utilisation and cost in the two matched groups (age, sex, diagnosis). Two sub-analyses of the Emollient group were performed between matched groups receiving (1) a colloidal oatmeal emollient (Aveeno-First) versus non-colloidal oatmeal emollients (Aveeno-Never) and (2) Aveeno prescribed first-line (Aveeno-First) versus prescribed Aveeno later (Aveeno-Subsequently). Logistic regression models calculated the odds of prescription with either potent / very potent topical corticosteroids (TCS) or skin-related antimicrobials. RESULTS: Costs per patient were £125.80 in Emollient (n = 7846) versus £128.13 in Non-Emollient (n = 7846) matched groups (p = 0.08). The Emollient group had fewer visits/patient (2.44 vs. 2.66; p < 0.0001) and lower mean per-visit costs (£104.15 vs. £113.25; p < 0.0001), compared with the Non-Emollient group. Non-Emollient patients had 18% greater odds of being prescribed TCS and 13% greater odds of being prescribed an antimicrobial than Emollient patients. In the Aveeno-First (n = 1943) versus Aveeno-Never (n = 1943) sub-analysis, costs per patient were lower in the Aveeno-First compared with the Aveeno-Never groups (£133.46 vs. £141.11; p = 0.0069). The Aveeno-Never group had ≥21% greater odds of being prescribed TCS or antimicrobial than the Aveeno-First group. In the Aveeno-First (n = 1357) versus Aveeno-Subsequently (n = 1357) sub-analysis, total costs were lower in the Aveeno-First group (£140.35 vs. £206.43; p < 0.001). Patients in the Aveeno-Subsequently group had 91% greater odds of being prescribed TCS and 75% greater odds of being prescribed an antimicrobial than the Aveeno-First group. CONCLUSIONS: Acknowledging limitations from unknown disease severity in the CRPD, the prescription of emollients to treat DS&E was associated with fewer primary care visits, reduced healthcare utilisation and reduced cost. Prescribing emollients, especially those containing colloidal oatmeal, was associated with fewer TCS and antimicrobial prescriptions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered at http://isrctn.com/ISRCTN91126037 .

Economic Evaluation of Dupilumab for Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis: A Cost-Utility Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis can be difficult and costly to treat. The long-term health and economic outcomes of a new therapy, dupilumab, have yet to be evaluated. We aimed to identify the cost-effectiveness of dupilumab compared to usual care in moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. METHODS: We compared dupilumab to usual care with emollients for adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis inadequately controlled with topical therapy, or for whom topical therapies were medically inadvisable. Subpopulations of moderate and severe patients were examined separately. We used a lifetime Markov model from a US payer perspective with health states categorized by the percent decrease in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score after a patient began an intervention: at least a 50% decrease (EASI 50), 75% decrease (EASI 75), 90% decrease (EASI 90), or no response. RESULTS: The expected lifetime cost for patients treated with dupilumab was $509,600, including $267,800 in dupilumab drug costs and $241,800 in other healthcare costs. Average lifetime cost for usual care was $271,500. Dupilumab provided an additional 1.91 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over the remaining lifetime of a patient, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $124,500. The ICER was lower for patients with severe atopic dermatitis ($95,800) than those with moderate atopic dermatitis ($160,000). Key drivers of the model were utility values for quality-of-life for non-responders, and the price of dupilumab. CONCLUSIONS: This study was limited by data for health outcomes and costs over long time periods, particularly stratified by severity. We estimated that dupilumab improved health outcomes compared to usual care but with additional costs, with an ICER below commonly cited thresholds for cost-effectiveness. Dupilumab was projected to be more cost-effective in patients with severe atopic dermatitis, but even in patients with moderate atopic dermatitis, the ICER remained below the upper range of commonly cited thresholds. J Drugs Dermatol. 2018;17(7):750-756.

Individuals with filaggrin-related eczema and asthma have increased long-term medication and hospital admission costs.

BACKGROUND: Eczema and asthma are chronic diseases with onset usually before the age of 5 years. More than 50% of individuals with eczema will develop asthma and/or other allergic diseases. Several loss-of-function mutations in filaggrin (FLG) have been identified in patients with eczema. However, the association of FLG with healthcare use is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether FLG mutations are associated with increased prescribing for eczema and asthma and whether increased prescribing is associated with increased healthcare costs. METHODS: A secondary analysis of BREATHE, a cross-sectional study of gene-environment associations with asthma severity, was undertaken. BREATHE data was collected for 1100 participants with asthma, in Tayside and Fife, Scotland during the period 2003-2005. Through collaboration with the Health Informatics Centre in Dundee, BREATHE was linked to accident and emergency, community prescribing and Scottish morbidity records. The data linkage allowed longitudinal exploration of associations between genetic variation and prescribing. RESULTS: An association was found between FLG mutations and increased prescribing for mild and moderate eczema, asthma-reliever medicine and asthma exacerbations. A strong association was found between FLG mutations and prescribing of emollients [incidence rate ratio (IRR) 2·19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1·36-3·52], treatment for severe eczema (IRR 2·18, 95% CI 1·22-3·91) and a combination of a long-acting ß2 -agonist and corticosteroids (IRR 3·29, 95% CI 1·68-6·43). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of FLG mutations in this cohort is associated with increased prescribing for eczema and asthma. Randomized controlled trials are required to determine if these individuals could benefit from management strategies to reduce morbidity and treatment costs.

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.

Consumer Preferences, Product Characteristics, and Potentially Allergenic Ingredients in Best-selling Moisturizers.

Importance: Because moisturizer use is critical for the prevention and treatment of numerous dermatological conditions, patients frequently request product recommendations from dermatologists. Objective: To determine the product performance characteristics and ingredients of best-selling moisturizers. Design and Setting: This cohort study involved publicly available data of the top 100 best-selling whole-body moisturizing products at 3 major online retailers (Amazon, Target, and Walmart). Products marketed for use on a specific body part (eg, face, hands, eyelids) were excluded. Main Outcomes and Measures: Pairwise comparisons of median price per ounce on the basis of marketing claims (eg, dermatologist recommended, fragrance free, hypoallergenic) and presence of ingredients represented in the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) series were conducted using Wilcoxon rank sum tests. The effect of vehicle type (eg, ointment, lotion, cream, butter) was assessed using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Cross-reactors and botanicals for fragrances were derived from the American Contact Dermatitis Society's Contact Allergen Management Program database. Results: A total of 174 unique best-selling moisturizer products were identified, constituting 109 713 reviews as of August 2016. The median price per ounce was $0.59 (range, $0.10-$9.51 per ounce) with a wide range (9400%). The most popular vehicles were lotions (102 [59%]), followed by creams (22 [13%]), oils (21 [12%]), butters (14 [8%]), and ointments (3 [2%]). Only 12% (n = 21) of best-selling moisturizer products were free of NACDG allergens. The 3 most common allergens were fragrance mix (n = 87), paraben mix (n = 75), and tocopherol (n = 74). Products with the claim "dermatologist recommended" had higher median price per ounce ($0.79; interquartile range [IQR], $0.56-$1.27) than products without the claim ($0.59; IQR, $0.34-$0.92). Products with the claim "phthalate free" had higher median price per ounce ($1.38; IQR, $0.86-$1.63) than products without the claim ($0.59; IQR, $0.35-$0.91). Lotions (median, $0.49; IQR, $0.31-0.68) were statistically less expensive per ounce than butters (median, $1.20; IQR, $0.76-$1.63), creams (median, $0.80; IQR, $0.69-$1.25) and oils (median, $1.30; IQR, $0.64-$2.43). For products with a claim of "fragrance free," 18 (45%) had at least 1 fragrance cross-reactor or botanical ingredient. Products without any ingredients in the NACDG (median, $0.83; IQR, $0.47-$1.69) were not statistically more expensive per ounce than products with 1 or more allergens (median, $0.60; IQR, $0.35-$1.06). Conclusions and Relevance: Best-selling moisturizers vary widely by price and product characteristics. Given the lack of readily available comparison data on moisturizer efficacy, dermatologists should balance consumer preference, price, and allergenicity in their recommendations.

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

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

Cost-effectiveness of Prophylactic Moisturization for Atopic Dermatitis.

Importance: Emerging evidence suggests that the use of moisturizers on newborns and infants (ie, from birth to 6 months of age) is potentially helpful in preventing the development of atopic dermatitis. Objective: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of using a daily moisturizer as prevention against atopic dermatitis among high-risk newborns. Design, Setting, and Participants: In a cost-effectiveness analysis, the average cost of total-body moisturization using 7 common moisturizers from birth to 6 months of age was determined for male and female infants. We assumed the same unit of weight per moisturizer used for a given body surface area. Based on previously reported data (relative risk reduction of 50%), the incremental gain in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) was determined using a 6-month time window. The cost-effectiveness of each moisturizer was determined by assuming equal efficacy. A sensitivity analysis was conducted by varying the relative risk from 0.28 to 0.90. Interventions: Use of prophylactic moisturizing compounds. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were the incremental cost-effectiveness values ($/QALY) for each moisturizer in preventing atopic dermatitis during a 6-month time window. Results: The calculated amount of daily all-body moisturizer needed at birth was 3.6 g (0.12 oz) per application, which increased to 6.6 g (0.22 oz) at 6 months of age. Of the 7 products evaluated, the average price was $1.07/oz (range, $0.13/oz-$2.96/oz). For a 6-month time window, the average incremental QALY benefit was 0.021. The sensitivity analysis showed that the incremental gain of QALY ranged from 0.0041 to 0.030. Petrolatum was the most cost-effective ($353/QALY [95% CI, $244-$1769/QALY) moisturizer in the cohort. Even assuming the lowest incremental QALYs for the most expensive moisturizer, the intervention was still less than $45 000/QALY. Conclusions and Relevance: Overall, atopic dermatitis represents a major health expenditure and has been associated with multiple comorbidities. Daily moisturization may represent a cost-effective, preventative strategy to reduce the burden of atopic dermatitis.

Cost-effectiveness of Maintenance Treatment with a Barrier-strengthening Moisturizing Cream in Patients with Atopic Dermatitis in Finland, Norway and Sweden.

Atopic dermatitis is a chronic skin disorder with high prevalence, especially in the Nordic countries. Effective maintenance therapy during symptom-free episodes may prolong the time to eczema relapse according to a previously published clinical trial. The present study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of a barrier-strengthening moisturizer containing 5% urea, compared with a moisturizer with no active ingredients during eczema-free periods. A health economic microsimulation model, based on efficacy data from the randomized clinical trial, analysed the cost-effectiveness of the barrier-strengthening treatment in Finland, Norway and Sweden. The barrier-strengthening moisturizer was cost-saving compared with the moisturizer with no active ingredients in all 3 countries. The result was confirmed in all but one sensitivity analysis. In conclusion, the barrier-strengthening moisturizer is cost-effective as maintenance therapy for patients with atopic dermatitis compared with a moisturizer with no active ingredients.

Choice of Moisturiser for Eczema Treatment (COMET): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Eczema is common in children and in the UK most cases are managed in primary care. The foundation of all treatment is the regular use of leave-on emollients to preserve and restore moisture to the skin. This not only improves comfort but may also reduce the need for rescue treatment for 'flares', such as topical corticosteroids. However, clinicians can prescribe many different types of emollient and there is a paucity of evidence to guide this choice. One reason for this may be the challenges of conducting a clinical trial: are parents or carers of young children willing to be randomly allocated an emollient and followed up for a meaningful amount of time? DESIGN: This is a single-centre feasibility study of a pragmatic, four-arm, single-masked, randomized trial. Children with eczema who are eligible (from 1 month to less than 5 years of age, not known to be sensitive or allergic to any of study emollients or their constituents) are recruited via their general practices. Participants are allocated Aveeno® lotion, Diprobase® cream, Doublebase® gel or Hydromol® ointment via a web-based system, using a simple randomization process in a 1:1:1:1 fashion. Researchers are masked to the study emollient. Participants are assessed at baseline and followed up for 3 months. Data are collected by daily diaries, monthly researcher visits and review of electronic medical records. Because this is a feasibility study, a formal sample size calculation for the estimation of treatment effectiveness has not be made but we aim to recruit 160 participants. DISCUSSION: Recruitment is on-going. At the end of the study, as well as being able to answer the question, 'Is it is possible to recruit and retain children with eczema from primary care into a four-arm randomized trial of emollients?', we will also have collected important data on the acceptability and effectiveness of four commonly used emollients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN21828118 and Clinical Trials Register EudraCT2013-003001-26.

Cost-effectiveness study of pediatric atopic dermatitis in Asia: atopiclair vs. regular emollient (AD-ATOP).

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a highly prevalent, chronic relapsing condition in childhood with significant financial burden and impact on the quality of life of patients and caregivers. Proactive maintenance treatment with moisturizing agents is the mainstay AD therapy. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of a non-steroidal barrier cream (Atopiclair), compared to regular emollient in pediatric patients with mild-to-moderate AD. METHODS: A Markov decision model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Atopiclair versus regular emollient in 12 Asia-Pacific countries, grouped by income categories based on gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. Data was obtained from structured literature review, expert opinion, fee schedules, and findings from a 2012 survey of 12 Asia-Pacific countries. Analysis was performed a societal perspective. RESULTS: In the base case analysis, Atopiclair was cost-effective against regular emollient, with USD786, USD499, and USD289 in cost savings per year for high, middle, and low-income countries, respectively. Sensitivity analyses showed that Atopiclair remained cost-effective versus regular emollient. CONCLUSIONS: Modelling analysis showed that Atopiclair is a cost-effective treatment compared to regular emollient for mild-to-moderate pediatric AD in the countries included in the study.

Atopic dermatitis - all you can do from the outside.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) affects both the epidermal barrier and the immune system and, as such, therapy needs to address both. Skin cleansing supported by emollients and moisturizers is the primary topical therapy when treating patients with AD. However, it should be remembered that the direct use of emollients on inflamed skin is poorly tolerated and that the flares need to be treated effectively, usually by topical corticosteroids (TCS) and/or topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCI). This contribution outlines a number of strategies for effectively managing AD, from reactive therapy using TCS and TCI to proactive therapy. Proactive therapy is an alternative, evidence-based, immunologically founded treatment approach, based on the fact that normal-looking, nonlesional skin of patients with AD is not normal. The advantage of the proactive approach is that the patients are in control of their disease and are actively involved in its management. The avoidance of external irritants is recommended wherever possible.

Improved emollient use reduces atopic eczema symptoms and is cost neutral in infants: before-and-after evaluation of a multifaceted educational support programme.

BACKGROUND: Parents and carers of children with eczema often underuse emollient therapy, essential to repairing and protecting the defective skin barrier in atopic eczema. Educational interventions delivered by specialist dermatology nurses in hospital settings have been shown to improve emollient use and reduce symptoms of atopic eczema, but benefits of community-based interventions are uncertain. Support and information about appropriate care may often be inadequate for patients and carers in the community. METHODS: A multifaceted educational support programme was evaluated as a method of increasing emollient use and reducing atopic eczema in children. Support provided for parents and carers included an educational DVD, online daily diary and telephone helpline. The before and after study included 136 British children and their parents, providing baseline and 12 week follow-up data while receiving the programme. Measures included emollient use, POEM and PEST scores, and cost of care. RESULTS: Average emollient use increased by 87.6 g (95% CI: 81.9 to 119.5 g, p = 0.001) from baseline with the change being immediate and persistent. The POEM score reduced on average by 5.38 (95% CI: 4.36 to 6.41, p = 0.001), a 47% reduction from baseline. Similarly the PEST score reduced on average by 0.61 (95% CI: 0.47 to 0.75, p = 0.001), a 48% reduction from baseline. Sleep disturbance was reduced by 1.27 nights per week (95% CI: 0.85 to 1.68, p = 0.001) and parental feeling of control improved by 1.32 points (95% CI: 1.16 to 1.48, p = 0.001). From the NHS perspective, the programme was cost neutral overall within the study period. CONCLUSION: A community-based multifaceted educational support programme greatly increased emollient use, reducing symptoms of atopic eczema and general practitioner contacts, without increasing cost. Significant benefits may accrue to the families and carers of children with atopic eczema due to improved sleep patterns and greater feeling of control. PEST, a new simple measure of acute and remitting atopic eczema severity designed to help parents and children to monitor and manage eczema, merits further evaluation.

Topical therapy for scalp psoriasis in adults.

An estimated 2% of the UK population has psoriasis. For many patients this affects the scalp. Particular challenges in managing scalp psoriasis include choosing an appropriate treatment option, difficulties of applying topical treatments and deciding how to treat severe disease. Moreover, there is a lack of good-quality evidence on which to base treatment decisions. Here, we offer some practical advice, taking into account the available evidence.

Use of emollients in the treatment of dry skin conditions.

Dry skin conditions are often not considered important by health professionals, and as a consequence treatments are frequently under-prescribed. As a result of this, problems with untreated dry skin can lead to a variety of issues. Conditions such as pruritus and ichthyosis vulgaris can be distressing, while ezcema and psoriasis can lead to more serious consequences such as fissures and infections and can result in a reduced quality of life and social isolation. However, with appropriate treatments such as emollient therapy, the incidences of these conditions occurring can be reduced. Despite a wide range of choice available on the market, choosing an effective emollient which will help aid concordance is often difficult. In order to achieve this, several factors need to be considered in conjunction with the product selection. This article discusses the various factors that nurses need to consider when advising patients on which emollient to use as part of their skin care regimen, in order to improve concordance and patient outcomes.