Measuring Signs of Atopic Dermatitis in Clinical Practice: A HOME-CP Consensus Statement.

Importance: Outcome measurement is an essential component of value-based health care and can aid patient care, quality improvement, and clinical effectiveness evidence generation. The Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema Clinical Practice initiative aims to identify a list of validated, feasible, outcome measurement instruments recommended to measure atopic dermatitis (AD) in the clinical practice setting. The clinical practice set is a list of instruments that clinicians can pick and choose from to suit their needs in the context of clinical care. Objective: To recommend instruments to measure clinical signs of AD in clinical practice. Evidence Review: Following the predefined roadmap, a mixed methods design was implemented and incorporated systematic reviews and qualitative consensus methods. Previous systematic reviews identified few clinical signs instruments with sufficient validation for recommendation. An updated systematic review evaluating the validity of clinical signs instruments informed an international meeting to reach consensus on recommended instruments to measure AD clinical signs in clinical practice. Consensus was defined as less than 30% disagreement. An in-person consensus exercise was held in Montreal, Canada, on October 16, 2022. The 34 attendees included patient and patient advocate research partners, health care professionals, researchers, methodologists, and industry representatives. Findings: The updated systematic review found that the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), Scoring Atopic Dermatitis, and objective Scoring Atopic Dermatitis were the only instruments that demonstrated sufficient performance in all assessed measurement properties. The modified EASI and Signs Global Assessment × Body Surface Area instruments were also recommended. The EASI, Validated Investigator Global Assessment, and Investigator's Global Assessment multiplied by or measured concurrently with a body surface area measure achieved consensus in criteria and were adopted. Conclusions and Relevance: This consensus statement by the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema initiative suggests that when assessing and documenting clinical signs of AD, there are several valid and feasible instruments that can best fit a clinician's specific practice needs. These instruments should improve and standardize the documentation of signs severity, help determine the effect of treatment, facilitate the generation of clinical effectiveness evidence, and enhance the implementation of value-based health care.

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.

Evaluation of measurement errors in the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) outcome.

BACKGROUND: The Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) is the recommended core outcome instrument for atopic dermatitis (AD) symptoms. POEM is reported by recalling the presence/absence of seven symptoms in the last 7 days. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate measurement errors in POEM recordings due to imperfect recall. METHODS: Using data from a clinical trial of 247 AD patients aged 12-65 years, we analysed the reported POEM score (r-POEM) and the POEM derived from the corresponding daily scores for the same seven symptoms without weekly recall (d-POEM). We quantified recall error by comparing the r-POEM and d-POEM for 777 patient-weeks collected from 207 patients, and estimated two components of recall error: (1) recall bias due to systematic errors in measurements and (2) recall noise due to random errors in measurements, using a bespoke statistical model. RESULTS: POEM scores have a relatively low recall bias, but a high recall noise. Recall bias was estimated at 1.2 points lower for the r-POEM on average than the d-POEM, with a recall noise of 5.7 points. For example, a patient with a recall-free POEM of 11 (moderate) could report their POEM score anywhere from 5 to 14 (with 95% probability) because of recall error. Model estimates suggested that patients tend to recall itch and dryness more often than experienced (positive bias of less than 1 day), but less often for the other symptoms (bleeding, cracking, flaking, oozing/weeping and sleep disturbance; negative bias ranging 1-4 days). CONCLUSIONS: In this clinical trial data set, we found that patients tended to slightly underestimate their symptoms when reporting POEM, with significant variation in how well they were able to recall the frequency of their symptoms every time they reported POEM. A large recall noise should be taken into consideration when interpreting POEM scores.

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 .

A core domain set for pyoderma gangrenosum trial outcomes: an international eDelphi and consensus study from the UPGRADE initiative.

BACKGROUND: Pyoderma gangrenosum (PG) is a rare ulcerative skin condition with no current standardized outcomes or outcome measures. With a rich investigational therapeutic pipeline, standardization of outcomes and improvement of data quality and interpretability will promote the appropriate and consistent evaluation of potential new therapies. Core outcome sets (COS) are agreed, standardized sets of outcomes that represent the minimum that should be measured and reported in all clinical trials of a specific condition. OBJECTIVES: To identify and reach a consensus on which domains (what to be measured) should be included in the Understanding Pyoderma Gangrenosum: Review and Analysis of Disease Effects (UPGRADE) core domain set for clinical trials in PG. METHODS: Collaborative discussions between patients and PG experts, and a systematic review of the literature identified items and prospective domains. A three-round international eDelphi exercise was performed to prioritize the domains and refine the provisional items (consensus: ≥ 70% of participants rating a domain as 'extremely important' and < 15% of participants voting 'not important'), followed by an international meeting to reach consensus on the core domain set (consensus: < 30% disagreement). Item-generation discussions and consensus meetings were hosted via online videoconferences. The eDelphi exercise and consensus voting were performed using Qualtrics survey software. Participants were adults with PG, healthcare professionals, researchers and industry representatives. RESULTS: Collaborative discussions and systematic reviews yielded 115 items, which were distilled into 15 prospective domains. The eDelphi exercise removed the three lowest-priority domains ('laboratory tests', 'treatment costs' and 'disease impact on family') and ranked 'pain', 'quality of life' and 'physical symptoms' as the highest-priority prospective domains. Consensus was reached on the domains of 'pain', 'quality of life' and 'clinical signs'. The domain of 'disease course/disease progression' narrowly failed to reach consensus for inclusion in the core set (32% of participants voted 'no'). Refinement of this domain definition will be required and presented for consideration at future consensus meetings. CONCLUSIONS: The UPGRADE core domain set for clinical trials in PG has been agreed by international multistakeholder consensus. Future work will develop and/or select outcome measurement instruments for these domains to establish a COS.

Treatment of Hidradenitis Suppurativa Evaluation Study (THESEUS): a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic, painful disease affecting flexures and other skin regions, producing nodules, abscesses and skin tunnels. Laser treatment targeting hair follicles and deroofing of skin tunnels are standard HS interventions in some countries but are rarely offered in the UK. OBJECTIVES: To describe current UK HS management pathways and influencing factors to inform the design of future randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: THESEUS was a nonrandomized 12-month prospective cohort study set in 10 UK hospitals offering five interventions: oral doxycycline 200 mg daily; oral clindamycin and rifampicin both 300 mg twice daily for 10 weeks, extended for longer in some cases; laser treatment targeting hair follicles; deroofing; and conventional surgery. The primary outcome was the combination of clinician-assessed eligibility and participant hypothetical willingness to receive each intervention. The secondary outcomes were the proportion of participants selecting each intervention as their final treatment option; the proportion who switch treatments; treatment fidelity; and attrition rates. THESEUS was prospectively registered on the ISRCTN registry: ISRCTN69985145. RESULTS: The recruitment target of 150 participants was met after 18 months, in July 2021, with two pauses due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Baseline demographics reflected the HS secondary care population: average age 36 years, 81% female, 20% non-White, 64% current or ex-smokers, 86% body mass index ≥ 25, 68% with moderate disease, 19% with severe disease and 13% with mild disease. Laser was the intervention with the highest proportion (69%) of participants eligible and willing to receive treatment, then deroofing (58%), conventional surgery (54%), clindamycin and rifampicin (44%), and doxycycline (37%). Laser was ranked first choice by the greatest proportion of participants (41%). Attrition rates were 11% and 17% after 3 and 6 months, respectively. Concordance with doxycycline was 52% after 3 months due to lack of efficacy, participant choice and adverse effects. Delays with procedural interventions were common, with only 43% and 26% of participants starting laser and deroofing, respectively, after 3 months. Uptake of conventional surgery was too small to characterize the intervention. Switching treatment was uncommon and there were no serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: THESEUS has established laser treatment and deroofing for HS in the UK and demonstrated their popularity with patients and clinicians for future RCTs.

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.

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

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

Treatment of Hidradenitis Suppurativa Evaluation Study: the THESEUS prospective cohort study.

Background: Hidradenitis suppurativa is a chronic inflammatory skin disease characterised by recurrent inflammatory lesions and skin tunnels in flexural sites such as the axilla. Deroofing of skin tunnels and laser treatment are standard hidradenitis suppurativa interventions in some countries but not yet introduced in the United Kingdom. Objective: To understand current hidradenitis suppurativa management pathways and what influences treatment choices to inform the design of future randomised controlled trials. Design: Prospective 12-month observational cohort study, including five treatment options, with nested qualitative interviews and an end-of-study consensus workshop. Setting: Ten United Kingdom hospitals with recruitment led by dermatology and plastic surgery departments. Participants: Adults with active hidradenitis suppurativa of any severity not adequately controlled by current treatment. Interventions: Oral doxycycline 200 mg once daily; oral clindamycin and rifampicin, both 300 mg twice daily for 10 weeks initially; laser treatment targeting the hair follicle (neodymium-doped yttrium aluminium garnet or alexandrite); deroofing; and conventional surgery. Main outcome measures: Primary outcome was the proportion of participants who are eligible, and hypothetically willing, to use the different treatment options. Secondary outcomes included proportion of participants choosing each of the study interventions, with reasons for their choices; proportion of participants who switched treatments; treatment fidelity; loss to follow-up rates over 12 months; and efficacy outcome estimates to inform outcome measure instrument responsiveness. Results: Between February 2020 and July 2021, 151 participants were recruited, with two pauses due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Follow-up rates were 89% and 83% after 3 and 6 months, decreasing to 70% and 44% at 9 and 12 months, respectively, because pandemic recruitment delays prevented all participants reaching their final review. Baseline demographics included an average age of 36 years, 81% female, 20% black, Asian or Caribbean, 64% current or ex-smokers and 86% with a raised body mass index. Some 69% had moderate disease, 19% severe disease and 13% mild disease. Regarding the study's primary outcome, laser treatment was the intervention with the highest proportion (69%) of participants who were eligible and hypothetically willing to receive treatment, followed by deroofing (58%), conventional surgery (54%), the combination of oral clindamycin and rifampicin (44%) and doxycycline (37%). Considering participant willingness in isolation, laser was ranked first choice by the greatest proportion (41%) of participants. The cohort study and qualitative study demonstrated that participant willingness to receive treatment was strongly influenced by their clinician. Fidelity to oral doxycycline was only 52% after 3 months due to lack of effectiveness, participant preference and adverse effects. Delays receiving procedural interventions were common, with only 43% and 26% of participants commencing laser therapy and deroofing, respectively, after 3 months. Treatment switching was uncommon and there were no serious adverse events. Daily pain score text messages were initiated in 110 participants. Daily responses reduced over time with greatest concordance during the first 14 days. Limitations: It was not possible to characterise conventional surgery due to a low number of participants. Conclusion: The Treatment of Hidradenitis Suppurativa Evaluation Study established deroofing and laser treatment for hidradenitis suppurativa in the United Kingdom and developed a network of 10 sites for subsequent hidradenitis suppurativa randomised controlled trials. Future work: The consensus workshop prioritised laser treatment and deroofing as interventions for future randomised controlled trials, in some cases combined with drug treatment. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN69985145. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 12/35/64) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 30. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

The Treatment of Hidradenitis Suppurativa Evaluation Study introduced deroofing of skin tunnels and laser treatment for hidradenitis suppurativa and found that these are preferred interventions for future trials compared with oral antibiotics or conventional surgery.

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

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

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

The long-term safety of topical corticosteroids in atopic dermatitis: A systematic review.

Background: Topical corticosteroids (TCS) are a first-line treatment for eczema, but there are concerns about their safety when used long-term. Objectives: To systematically review adverse effects associated with longer-term use of TCS for eczema. Methods: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort and case-control studies reporting adverse effects of TCS (comparators: no TCS treatment, other topicals) in patients with eczema were identified. Included studies had greater than one year of follow-up, minimum cohort size of 50 participants, or minimum 50 per arm for RCTs. Evidence was GRADE-assessed. Prospero registration CRD42021286413. Results: We found seven studies (two randomised, five observational); two RCTs (n = 2570, including 1288 receiving TCS), two cohort (all received TCS n = 148) and three case-control studies (cases n = 10 322, controls n = 12 201). Evidence from two RCTS (n = 2570, children, three and five years' duration) comparing TCS to topical calcineurin inhibitors found intermittent TCS use probably results in little to no difference in risk of growth abnormalities, non-skin infections, impaired vaccine response and lymphoma/non lymphoma malignancies. The five-year RCT reported only one episode of skin atrophy (n = 1213 TCS arm; mild/moderate potency), suggesting TCS use probably results in little to no difference in skin thinning when used intermittently to treat flares. No cases of clinical adrenal insufficiency were reported in 75 patients using mild/moderate TCS in the three-year RCT. Small associations between TCS and type-2 diabetes and lymphoma were identified in two case-control studies compared to no TCS, but the evidence is very uncertain. No long-term studies concerning topical steroid withdrawal or eye problems were identified. Conclusion: This review provides some reassuring data on growth and skin thinning when TCS are used intermittently for up to 5 years, but many knowledge gaps remain.

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.

The Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) implementation roadmap.

BACKGROUND: Core outcome sets (COS) are consensus-driven sets of minimum outcomes that should be measured and reported in all clinical trials. COS aim to reduce heterogeneity in outcome measurement and reporting, and selective outcome reporting. Implementing COS into clinical trials is challenging. Guidance to improve COS uptake in dermatology is lacking. OBJECTIVES: To develop a structured practical guide to COS implementation. METHODS: Members of the Harmonising Outcome Measurement for Eczema (HOME) executive committee developed an expert opinion-based roadmap founded on a combination of a review of the COS implementation literature, the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative resources, input from HOME members and experience in COS development and clinical trials. RESULTS: The data review and input from HOME members was synthesized into themes, which guided roadmap development: (a) barriers and facilitators to COS uptake based on stakeholder awareness/engagement and COS features; and (b) key implementation science principles (assessment-driven, data-centred, priority-based and context-sensitive). The HOME implementation roadmap follows three stages. Firstly, the COS uptake scope and goals need to be defined. Secondly, during COS development, preparation for future implementation is supported by establishing the COS as a credible evidence-informed consensus by applying robust COS development methodology, engaging multiple stakeholders, fostering sustained and global engagement, emphasizing COS ease of use and universal applicability, and providing recommendations on COS use. Thirdly, incorporating completed COS into primary (trials) and secondary (reviews) research is an iterative process starting with mapping COS uptake and stakeholders' attitudes, followed by designing and carrying out targeted implementation projects. Main themes for implementation projects identified at HOME are stakeholder awareness/engagement; universal applicability for different populations; and improving ease-of-use by reducing administrative and study burden. Formal implementation frameworks can be used to identify implementation barriers/facilitators and to design implementation strategies. The effect of these strategies on uptake should be evaluated and implementation plans adjusted accordingly. CONCLUSIONS: COS can improve the quality and applicability of research and, so, clinical practice but can only succeed if used and reported consistently. The HOME implementation roadmap is an extension of the original HOME roadmap for COS development and provides a pragmatic framework to develop COS implementation strategies.

'It's just a finger isn't it ': patients' perspectives of recovery following finger fractures and participation in surgical trials - a qualitative interview study.

OBJECTIVES: To (1) generate detailed, person-centred data about the experience of finger injury and treatment and (2) understand the patients' perspectives of research involvement with a view to informing better designed future studies in hand injury. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semistructured interviews and framework analysis. PARTICIPANTS: 19 participants who were part of the Cohort study of Patients' Outcomes for Finger Fractures and Joint Injuries study in a single secondary care centre in the UK. RESULTS: The results of this study showed that although finger injuries are frequently seen as minor by patients and healthcare professionals, their effects on peoples' lives are possibly greater than first anticipated. The relative importance of hand functioning means that the experience of treatment and recovery varies and is shaped by an individual's age, job, lifestyle and hobbies. These factors will also inform an individual's perspective on and willingness to participate in, hand research. Interviewees showed reluctance to accept randomisation in surgical trials. Interviewees would be more likely to participate in a study testing two variants of the same treatment modality (eg, surgery vs surgery), rather than two different modalities, (eg, surgery vs splint). The Patient-Reported Outcome Measure questionnaires that were used in this study were seen as less relevant by these patients. Pain, hand function and cosmetic appearance were considered important, meaningful outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with finger injuries need more support from healthcare professionals as they may experience more problems than first anticipated. Good communication by clinicians and empathy can help patients engage with the treatment pathway. Perceptions of an 'insignificant' injury and/or need for quick functional recovery will influence recruitment to future hand research (both positively and negatively). Accessible information about the functional and clinical consequences of a hand injury will be important in enabling participants to make fully informed decisions about participation.

Effectiveness of spironolactone for women with acne vulgaris (SAFA) in England and Wales: pragmatic, multicentre, phase 3, double blind, randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of oral spironolactone for acne vulgaris in adult women. DESIGN: Pragmatic, multicentre, phase 3, double blind, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Primary and secondary healthcare, and advertising in the community and on social media in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: Women (≥18 years) with facial acne for at least six months, judged to warrant oral antibiotics. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to either 50 mg/day spironolactone or matched placebo until week six, increasing to 100 mg/day spironolactone or placebo until week 24. Participants could continue using topical treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was Acne-Specific Quality of Life (Acne-QoL) symptom subscale score at week 12 (range 0-30, where higher scores reflect improved QoL). Secondary outcomes were Acne-QoL at week 24, participant self-assessed improvement; investigator's global assessment (IGA) for treatment success; and adverse reactions. RESULTS: From 5 June 2019 to 31 August 2021, 1267 women were assessed for eligibility, 410 were randomly assigned to the intervention (n=201) or control group (n=209) and 342 were included in the primary analysis (n=176 in the intervention group and n=166 in the control group). Baseline mean age was 29.2 years (standard deviation 7.2), 28 (7%) of 389 were from ethnicities other than white, with 46% mild, 40% moderate, and 13% severe acne. Mean Acne-QoL symptom scores at baseline were 13.2 (standard deviation 4.9) and at week 12 were 19.2 (6.1) for spironolactone and 12.9 (4.5) and 17.8 (5.6) for placebo (difference favouring spironolactone 1.27 (95% confidence interval 0.07 to 2.46), adjusted for baseline variables). Scores at week 24 were 21.2 (5.9) for spironolactone and 17.4 (5.8) for placebo (difference 3.45 (95% confidence interval 2.16 to 4.75), adjusted). More participants in the spironolactone group reported acne improvement than in the placebo group: no significant difference was reported at week 12 (72% v 68%, odds ratio 1.16 (95% confidence interval 0.70 to 1.91)) but significant difference was noted at week 24 (82% v 63%, 2.72 (1.50 to 4.93)). Treatment success (IGA classified) at week 12 was 31 (19%) of 168 given spironolactone and nine (6%) of 160 given placebo (5.18 (2.18 to 12.28)). Adverse reactions were slightly more common in the spironolactone group with more headaches reported (20% v 12%; p=0.02). No serious adverse reactions were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Spironolactone improved outcomes compared with placebo, with greater differences at week 24 than week 12. Spironolactone is a useful alternative to oral antibiotics for women with acne. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN12892056.

Evaluating the effect of weekly patient-reported symptom monitoring on trial outcomes: results of the Eczema Monitoring Online randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are commonly used in eczema clinical trials. Several trials have used PROMs weekly for symptom monitoring. However, the increased frequency of patient-reported symptom monitoring may prompt participants to enhance the self-management of eczema and increase standard topical treatment use that can lead to improvements in outcomes over time. This is concerning as weekly symptom monitoring may constitute an unplanned intervention, which may mask small treatment effects and make it difficult to identify changes in the eczema resulting from the treatment under investigation. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of weekly patient-reported symptom monitoring on participants' outcomes and to inform the design of future eczema trials. METHODS: This was an online parallel-group nonblinded randomized controlled trial. Parents/carers of children with eczema and young people and adults with eczema were recruited online, excluding people scoring < 3 points on the Patient Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), to avoid floor effects. Electronic PROMs were used for data collection. Participants were allocated using online randomization (1 : 1) to weekly POEM for 7 weeks (intervention) or no POEM during this period (control). The primary outcome was change in eczema severity based on POEM scores, assessed at baseline and week 8. Secondary outcomes included change in standard topical treatment use and data completeness at follow-up. Analyses were conducted according to randomized groups in those with complete data at week 8. RESULTS: A total of 296 participants were randomized from 14 September 2021 to 16 January 2022 (71% female, 77% white, mean age 26.7 years). The follow-up completion rate was 81.7% [n = 242; intervention group, n = 118/147 (80.3%); control group n = 124/149 (83.2%)]. After adjusting for baseline disease severity and age, eczema severity improved in the intervention group (mean difference in POEM score -1.64, 95% confidence interval -2.91 to -0.38; P = 0.01). No between-group differences were noted in the use of standard topical treatments and data completeness at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Weekly patient-reported symptom monitoring led to a small perceived improvement in eczema severity.