What is the evidence base for atopic eczema treatments? A summary of published randomized controlled trials.

Atopic eczema (AE) is a common chronic inflammatory skin condition. While many AE treatment options are available, the evidence to support their efficacy varies in depth and quality. In 2000, a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment systematic review identified and evaluated existing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of AE treatments. To ensure continuing utility, the NIHR commissioned an update to the review. Here, we present an overview of the updated report and its key findings. Systematic reviews and RCTs of AE treatments that included participants with AE (criteria based or diagnosed) were identified using Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register [searched to 31 August 2013 (RCTs) and 31 December 2015 (systematic reviews)]. Outcome measures included symptoms, AE severity, quality of life and adverse effects. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. Of the 287 new RCTs identified, only 22 (8%) were judged to have a low risk of bias. When combined with RCTs from the previous review (n = 254), we found 'reasonable evidence of benefit' for corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, Atopiclair® , ciclosporin, azathioprine, ultraviolet radiation and education programmes. Interventions with reasonable evidence of 'no benefit' included some dietary interventions, ion exchange water softeners, multiple daily applications of topical corticosteroids and antibiotic-containing corticosteroids for noninfected AE. Many common treatments lack evidence of efficacy and warrant further evaluation. The evidence base for AE is still hampered by poor trial design and reporting. The trials included in this review were used to establish the Global Resource of EczemA Trials (GREAT) database.

Evaluation of the measurement properties of symptom measurement instruments for atopic eczema: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Symptoms have been identified as a core outcome domain for atopic eczema (AE) trials. Various instruments exist to measure symptoms in AE, but they vary in quality and there is a lack of standardization between clinical trials. Our objective was to systematically evaluate the quality of the evidence on the measurement properties of AE symptom instruments, thereby informing consensus discussions within the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative regarding the most appropriate instruments for the core outcome domain symptoms. METHODS: Using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist and predefined criteria for good measurement properties on identified development and validation studies of AE symptom instruments, a best evidence synthesis was performed to draw an overall conclusion on quality of the instruments and to provide recommendations. RESULTS: Eighteen instruments were identified and evaluated. When the quality and results of the studies were considered, only five of these instruments had sufficient validation data to consider them for the core outcome set for the core outcome domain symptoms. These were the paediatric Itch Severity Scale (ISS), Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), Patient-Oriented SCOring Atopic Dermatitis (PO-SCORAD), Self-Administered Eczema Area and Severity Index (SA-EASI) and adapted SA-EASI. CONCLUSIONS: ISS (paediatric version), POEM, PO-SCORAD, SA-EASI and adapted SA-EASI are currently the most appropriate instruments and therefore have the potential to be recommended as core symptom instrument in future clinical trials. These findings will be utilized for the development of a core outcome set for AE.

Specific allergen immunotherapy for the treatment of atopic eczema: a Cochrane systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Specific allergen immunotherapy (SIT) is an effective allergy treatment, but it is unclear whether SIT is effective for atopic eczema (AE). We undertook a systematic review to assess SIT efficacy and safety for treating AE. METHODS: We searched databases, ongoing clinical trials registers, and conference proceedings up to July 2015. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SIT using standardized allergen extracts, compared with placebo/control, for treating AE in patients with allergic sensitization were eligible. RESULTS: We identified 12 eligible trials with 733 participants. Interventions included subcutaneous (six trials), sublingual (four trials), oral or intradermal SIT in children/adults allergic to house dust mite (10 trials), grass pollen or other inhalants. Risk of bias was moderate, with high loss to follow-up and nonblinding as the main concerns. For our primary outcomes, three studies (208 participants) reported no significant difference - patient-reported global disease severity improvement RR 0.75 (95% CI 0.45, 1.26); and eczema symptoms mean difference -0.74 on a 20-point scale (95% CI -1.98, 0.50). Two studies (85 participants) reported a significant difference - SIT improved global disease severity RR 2.85 (95% CI 1.02, 7.96); and itch mean difference -4.20 on a 10-point scale (95% CI -3.69, -4.71). Meta-analysis was limited due to extreme statistical heterogeneity. For some secondary outcomes, meta-analyses showed benefits for SIT, for example investigator-rated improvement in eczema severity RR 1.48 (95% CI 1.16, 1.88; six trials, 262 participants). We found no evidence of adverse effects. The overall quality of evidence was low. CONCLUSION: We found no consistent evidence that SIT is effective for treating AE, but due to the low quality of evidence further research is needed to establish whether SIT has a role in AE treatment.

Reporting of symptoms in randomized controlled trials of atopic eczema treatments: a systematic review.

'Symptoms' is a core outcome domain for atopic eczema (AE) trials, agreed by consensus as part of the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative. To standardize and validate the core domain symptoms and symptom instruments for AE trials the HOME roadmap is followed. Its first step is to establish if and how symptoms have been measured in published AE treatment trials. Therefore the Global Resource for Eczema Trials database was used to collect all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of treatments for AE between January 2000 and April 2014. Study selection and data extraction were performed by three reviewers independently. We identified the use of symptoms in 295 of 378 trials (78%). Symptoms as a primary end point were applied by 147 RCTs (50%). Seventeen different symptoms were measured, but mostly itch and sleep loss. Symptoms were assessed by only 37% of trials by a stand-alone symptom measurement. Overall 63% of RCTs used a composite instrument, and 30 different instruments were identified. The Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) index was the most commonly applied, but only 23% of RCTs reported the SCORAD symptom score separately. This systematic review demonstrates that symptoms, most frequently itch and sleep loss, are commonly reported in AE treatment trials, but are measured using many different instruments. Often symptoms are evaluated as part of a composite instrument, and currently it is not possible to extract symptoms-only data from most published studies. Future trials should report symptom scores to permit meta-analysis of the core outcomes.

Report from the third international consensus meeting to harmonise core outcome measures for atopic eczema/dermatitis clinical trials (HOME).

This report provides a summary of the third meeting of the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative held in San Diego, CA, U.S.A., 6-7 April 2013 (HOME III). The meeting addressed the four domains that had previously been agreed should be measured in every eczema clinical trial: clinical signs, patient-reported symptoms, long-term control and quality of life. Formal presentations and nominal group techniques were used at this working meeting, attended by 56 voting participants (31 of whom were dermatologists). Significant progress was made on the domain of clinical signs. Without reference to any named scales, it was agreed that the intensity and extent of erythema, excoriation, oedema/papulation and lichenification should be included in the core outcome measure for the scale to have content validity. The group then discussed a systematic review of all scales measuring the clinical signs of eczema and their measurement properties, followed by a consensus vote on which scale to recommend for inclusion in the core outcome set. Research into the remaining three domains was presented, followed by discussions. The symptoms group and quality of life groups need to systematically identify all available tools and rate the quality of the tools. A definition of long-term control is needed before progress can be made towards recommending a core outcome measure.