Clinical and cost-effectiveness of spironolactone in treating persistent facial acne in women: SAFA double-blinded RCT.

Background: Acne is common, can cause significant impact on quality of life and is a frequent reason for long-term antibiotic use. Spironolactone has been prescribed for acne in women for many years, but robust evidence is lacking. Objective: To evaluate whether spironolactone is clinically effective and cost-effective in treating acne in women. Design: Pragmatic, parallel, double-blind, randomised superiority trial. Setting: Primary and secondary healthcare and community settings (community and social media advertising). Participants: Women aged 18 years and older with facial acne persisting for at least 6 months, judged to potentially warrant oral antibiotic treatment. Interventions: Participants were randomised 1 : 1, using an independent web-based procedure, to either 50 mg/day spironolactone or matched placebo until week 6, increasing to 100 mg/day spironolactone or matched placebo until week 24. Participants continued usual topical treatment. Main outcome measures: Primary outcome was the adjusted mean difference in Acne-Specific Quality of Life symptom subscale score at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included Acne-Specific Quality of Life total and subscales; participant self-assessed improvement; Investigator's Global Assessment; Participant's Global Assessment; satisfaction; adverse effects and cost-effectiveness. Results: Of 1267 women assessed for eligibility, 410 were randomised (201 intervention, 209 control), 342 in the primary analysis (176 intervention, 166 control). Mean age was 29.2 years (standard deviation 7.2) and 7.9% (28/356) were from non-white backgrounds. At baseline, Investigator's Global Assessment classified acne as mild in 46%, moderate in 40% and severe in 13%. At baseline, 82.9% were using topical treatments. Over 95% of participants in both groups tolerated the treatment and increased their dose. Mean baseline Acne-Specific Quality of Life symptom subscale was 13.0 (standard deviation 4.7) across both groups. Mean scores at week 12 were 19.2 (standard deviation 6.1) for spironolactone and 17.8 (standard deviation 5.6) for placebo [difference favouring spironolactone 1.27 (95% confidence interval 0.07 to 2.46) adjusting for baseline variables]. Mean scores at week 24 were 21.2 (standard deviation 5.9) in spironolactone group and 17.4 (standard deviation 5.8) in placebo group [adjusted difference 3.77 (95% confidence interval 2.50 to 5.03) adjusted]. Secondary outcomes also favoured spironolactone at 12 weeks with greater differences at 24 weeks. Participants taking spironolactone were more likely than those taking placebo to report overall acne improvement at 12 weeks {72.2% vs. 67.9% [adjusted odds ratio 1.16 (95% confidence interval 0.70 to 1.91)]} and at 24 weeks {81.9% vs. 63.3% [adjusted odds ratio 2.72 (95% confidence interval 1.50 to 4.93)]}. Investigator's Global Assessment was judged successful at week 12 for 31/201 (18.5%) taking spironolactone and 9/209 (5.6%) taking placebo [adjusted odds ratio 5.18 (95% confidence interval 2.18 to 12.28)]. Satisfaction with treatment improved in 70.6% of participants taking spironolactone compared with 43.1% taking placebo [adjusted odds ratio 3.12 (95% confidence interval 1.80 to 5.41)]. Adverse reactions were similar between groups, but headaches were reported more commonly on spironolactone (20.4% vs. 12.0%). No serious adverse reactions were reported. Taking account for missing data through multiple imputation gave an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year of £27,879 (adjusted) compared to placebo or £2683 per quality-adjusted life-year compared to oral antibiotics. Conclusions: Spironolactone resulted in better participant-reported and investigator-reported outcomes than placebo, with greater differences at week 24 than week 12. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN12892056 and EudraCT (2018-003630-33). Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/13/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 56. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Acne (or spots) is common and often persists into adulthood. Many people take long courses of antibiotic tablets, but concerns about antibiotic resistance mean alternatives are needed. Spironolactone is a medicine that is sometimes used for acne in women. However, we do not know whether it works. This trial aimed to answer this question. We invited women aged over 18 who had acne on their face for at least 6 months to take part via their general practitioner surgery, hospital or advertising. Women were randomly assigned to two groups: one group was given spironolactone and the other group was given identical-looking placebo ('dummy pill') daily for 24 weeks. Women in both groups could continue using acne treatments applied to the skin (gels/creams/lotions). We asked participants to rate their acne using a questionnaire called Acne-Specific Quality of Life, asked whether they felt their skin had improved and asked skin specialists to assess their skin. Four hundred and ten women took part, many of whom had had acne for a long time. Acne-Specific Quality of Life scores improved in both groups by 12 weeks but improved more in the spironolactone group at 12 and 24 weeks. When asked directly whether their skin had improved, 71% of participants in the spironolactone group said it had, compared with 43% on placebo. Skin specialists were also more likely to report that the acne had improved in the spironolactone group. Side effects were mild and similar in both groups but there were slightly more headaches on spironolactone (20% compared with 12%). Spironolactone is likely to represent value for money for the National Health Service, though this depends on a number of factors including what it is compared to. This trial suggests that spironolactone is a useful additional treatment for women with persistent acne.

How to use the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema Core Outcome Set for atopic dermatitis trials: a users' guide.

BACKGROUND: The Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative has agreed upon the Core Outcome Set (COS) for use in atopic dermatitis (AD) clinical trials, but additional guidance is needed to maximize its uptake. OBJECTIVES: To provide answers to some of the commonly asked questions about using the HOME COS; to provide data to help with the interpretation of trial results; and to support sample size calculations for future trials. METHODS AND RESULTS: We provide practical guidance on the use of the HOME COS for investigators planning clinical trials in patients with AD. It answers some of the common questions about using the HOME COS, how to access the outcome measurement instruments, what training/resources are needed to use them appropriately and clarifies when the COS is applicable. We also provide exemplar data to inform sample size calculations for eczema trials and encourage standardized data collection and reporting of the COS. CONCLUSIONS: By encouraging adoption of the COS and facilitating consistent reporting of outcome data, it is hoped that the results of eczema trials will be more comprehensive and readily combined in meta-analyses and that patient care will subsequently be improved.

Antenatal couples' counselling in Uganda (ACCU): study protocol for a randomised controlled feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: Common avoidable factors leading to maternal, perinatal and neonatal deaths include lack of birth planning (and delivery in an inappropriate place) and unmet need for contraception. Progress has been slow because routine antenatal care has focused only on women. Yet, in Uganda, many women first want the approval of their husbands. The World Health Organization recommends postpartum family planning (PPFP) as a critical component of health care. The aim of this trial is to test the feasibility of recruiting and retaining participants in a trial of a complex community-based intervention to provide counselling to antenatal couples in Uganda. METHODS: This is a two-group, non-blinded cluster-randomised controlled feasibility trial of a complex intervention. Primary health centres in Uganda will be randomised to receive the intervention or usual care provided by the Ministry of Health. The intervention consists of training village health teams to provide basic counselling to couples at home, encouraging men to accompany their wives to an antenatal clinic, and secondly of training health workers to provide information and counselling to couples at antenatal clinics, to facilitate shared decision-making on the most appropriate place of delivery, and postpartum contraception. We aim to recruit 2 health centres in each arm, each with 10 village health teams, each of whom will aim to recruit 35 pregnant women (a total of 700 women per arm). The village health teams will follow up and collect data on pregnant women in the community up to 12 months after delivery and will directly enter the data using the COSMOS software on a smartphone. DISCUSSION: This intervention addresses two key avoidable factors in maternal, perinatal and neonatal deaths (lack of family planning and inappropriate place of delivery). Determining the acceptability and feasibility of antenatal couples' counselling in this study will inform the design of a fully randomised controlled clinical trial. If this trial demonstrates the feasibility of recruitment and delivery, we will seek funding to conduct a fully powered trial of the complex intervention for improving uptake of birth planning and postpartum family planning in Uganda. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Pan African Clinical Trials Registry PACTR202102794681952 . Approved on 10 February 2021. ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN97229911. Registered on 23 September 2021.

Comparison between treatment effects in a randomised controlled trial and an observational study using propensity scores in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Although randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered 'gold standard' evidence, they are not always feasible or appropriate, and may represent a select population. Observational studies provide a useful alternative to enhance applicability, but results can be biased due to confounding. AIM: To explore the utility of propensity scores for causal inference in an observational study. DESIGN AND SETTING: Comparison of the effect of amoxicillin on key outcomes in an international RCT and observational study of lower respiratory tract infections. METHOD: Propensity scores were calculated and applied as probability weights in the analyses. The adjusted results were compared with the effects reported in the RCT. RESULTS: Groups were well balanced in the RCT but significantly imbalanced in the observational study, with evidence of confounding by indication: patients receiving antibiotics tended to be older and more unwell at baseline consultation. In the trial duration of symptoms (hazard ratio 1.06, 95% CI = 0.96 to 1.18) and symptom severity (-0.07, 95% CI = -0.15 to 0.007) did not differ between groups. Weighting by propensity score in the observational study resulted in very similar estimates of effect: duration of symptoms (hazard ratio 1.06, 95% CI = 0.80 to 1.40) and difference for symptom severity (-0.07, 95% CI = -0.34 to 0.20). CONCLUSION: The observational study, after conditioning on propensity score, echoed the trial results. Provided that detailed information is available on potential sources of confounding, effects of interventions can probably be assessed reasonably well in observational datasets, allowing them to be more directly compared with the results of RCTs.

Yeast-derived ß-1,3/1,6 glucan, upper respiratory tract infection and innate immunity in older adults.

OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to test whether yeast-derived ß-1,3/1,6 glucan can prevent the occurrence or reduce the severity of upper respiratory tract infection (URTI) and modulate innate immune responses during winter months in community-dwelling older adults. METHODS: This was a double-blind placebo-controlled trial of community-dwelling adults ages 50 to 70 y randomized to once-daily ß-1,3/1,6 glucan (Wellmune 250 mg/d; n = 50) or identical placebo capsule (n = 50) over 90 d during winter. URTI episodes were medically confirmed. Symptom severity was recorded via self-reported daily Wisconsin Upper Respiratory Tract Infection Score 21. Blood and saliva samples were collected at days 0, 45, and 90 for measurements of innate immune parameters. RESULTS: Forty-nine participants completed the trial in each group. Supplementation was well tolerated. Forty-five URTIs were confirmed: 28 in the placebo group and 17 in the Wellmune group (odds ratio, 0.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-1.26; P = 0.149). There was a strong trend for Wellmune to decrease the number of symptom days (P = 0.067). Symptom severity did not differ significantly between groups. Compared with the placebo group, lipopolysaccharide-stimulated blood from participants in the Wellmune group showed an increase in interferon-γ concentration from baseline at day 45 (P = 0.016) and smaller decreases in monokine induced by interferon-γ concentration from baseline at days 45 and 90 (P = 0.032 and 0.046, respectively). No difference was seen in serum or nonstimulated blood cytokines and chemokines or in salivary immunoglobulin A. CONCLUSION: Daily oral ß-1,3/1,6 glucan may protect against URTIs and reduce the duration of URTI symptoms in older individuals once infected. This may be linked to effects on innate immune function. Larger studies are needed to confirm the benefits of ß-1,3/1,6 glucan on URTIs in this older population.

Supporting self-care for families of children with eczema with a Web-based intervention plus health care professional support: pilot randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Childhood eczema, or childhood atopic dermatitis, causes significant distress to children and their families through sleep disturbance and itch. The main cause of treatment failure is nonuse of prescribed treatments. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to develop and test a Web-based intervention to support families of children with eczema, and to explore whether support from a health care professional (HCP) is necessary to engage participants with the intervention. METHODS: We followed the PRECEDE-PROCEED model: regular emollient use was the target behavior we were seeking to promote and we identified potential techniques to influence this. LifeGuide software was used to write the intervention website. Carers of children with eczema were invited through primary care mail-out and randomized to 3 groups: (1) website only, (2) website plus HCP support, or (3) usual care. Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) scores were measured online by carer report at baseline and at 12 weeks. Qualitative interviews were carried out with 13 HCPs (primarily practice nurses) and 26 participants to explore their experiences of taking part in the study. RESULTS: A total of 143 carers were recruited through 31 practices. We found a decrease of ≥2 in follow-up compared with baseline POEM score in 23 of 42 (55%) participants in the website only group, 16 of 49 (33%) in the usual care group, and 18 of 47 (38%) in the website plus HCP group. Website use data showed that 75 of 93 (81%) participants allocated to the website groups completed the core modules, but less than half used other key components (videos: 35%; regular text reminders: 39%). There were no consistent differences in website use between the website only or the website plus HCP groups. Qualitative feedback showed that most HCPs had initial concerns about providing support for eczema self-care because this was not a condition that they felt expert in. However, HCPs reported productive consultations and that they found it helpful to use the website in consultations, while observing that some participants seemed to need more support than others. Qualitative interviews with participants suggested that HCP support was valued highly only by a minority, generally those who were less confident in their management of eczema or less confident using the Internet. CONCLUSIONS: Our pilot trial demonstrated the potential for greater improvements in POEM scores in both website intervention groups and that a full-scale trial is feasible. Such a trial would quantify the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of this intervention to determine whether it should be widely promoted to families of children with newly diagnosed eczema. In this study population, HCP support was not strongly valued by participants and did not lead to better outcomes or website use than use of the Web-based intervention alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN): 98560867; http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN98560867 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6NcxvMtgN).