Patient and health professional views on risk-stratified monitoring of immune-suppressing treatment in adults with inflammatory diseases.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the acceptability of an individualised risk-stratified approach to monitoring for target-organ toxicity in adult patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases established on immune-suppressing treatment(s). METHODS: Adults (≥18 years) taking immune-suppressing treatment(s) for at-least six months, and healthcare professionals (HCPs) with experience of either prescribing and/or monitoring immune-suppressing drugs were invited to participate in a single, remote, one-to-one, semi-structured interview. Interviews were conducted by a trained qualitative researcher and explored their views and experiences of current monitoring and acceptability of a proposed risk-stratified monitoring plan. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and inductively analysed using thematic analysis in NVivo. RESULTS: Eighteen patients and 13 HCPs were interviewed. While participants found monitoring of immune-suppressing drugs with frequent blood-tests reassuring, the current frequency of these was considered burdensome by patients and HCPs alike, and to be a superfluous use of healthcare resources. Given abnormalities rarely arose during long-term treatment, most felt that monitoring blood-tests were not needed as often. Patients and HCPs found it acceptable to increase the interval between monitoring blood-tests from three-monthly to six-monthly or annually depending on the patients' risk profiles. Conditions of accepting such a change included: allowing for clinician and patient autonomy in determining an individuals' frequency of monitoring blood-tests, the flexibility to change monitoring frequency if someone's risk profile changed, and endorsement from specialist societies and healthcare providers such as the National Health Service. CONCLUSION: A risk-stratified approach to monitoring was acceptable to patients and HCPs. Guideline groups should consider these findings when recommending blood-test monitoring intervals.

Risk-stratified monitoring for sulfasalazine toxicity: prognostic model development and validation.

BACKGROUND: Sulfasalazine-induced cytopenia, nephrotoxicity and hepatotoxicity is uncommon during long-term treatment. Some guidelines recommend 3 monthly monitoring blood tests indefinitely during long-term treatment while others recommend stopping monitoring after 1 year. To rationalise monitoring, we developed and validated a prognostic model for clinically significant blood, liver or kidney toxicity during established sulfasalazine treatment. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: UK primary care. Data from Clinical Practice Research Datalink Gold and Aurum formed independent development and validation cohorts. PARTICIPANTS: Age ≥18 years, new diagnosis of an inflammatory condition and sulfasalazine prescription. STUDY PERIOD: 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2019. OUTCOME: Sulfasalazine discontinuation with abnormal monitoring blood-test result. ANALYSIS: Patients were followed up from 6 months after first primary care prescription to the earliest of outcome, drug discontinuation, death, 5 years or 31 December 2019. Penalised Cox regression was performed to develop the risk equation. Multiple imputation handled missing predictor data. Model performance was assessed in terms of calibration and discrimination. RESULTS: 8936 participants were included in the development cohort (473 events, 23 299 person-years) and 5203 participants were included in the validation cohort (280 events, 12 867 person-years). Nine candidate predictors were included. The optimism adjusted R2 D and Royston D statistic in the development data were 0.13 and 0.79, respectively. The calibration slope (95% CI) and Royston D statistic (95% CI) in validation cohort was 1.19 (0.96 to 1.43) and 0.87 (0.67 to 1.07), respectively. CONCLUSION: This prognostic model for sulfasalazine toxicity uses readily available data and should be used to risk-stratify blood-test monitoring during established sulfasalazine treatment.

Effect of a 2-week interruption in methotrexate treatment on COVID-19 vaccine response in people with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (VROOM study): a randomised, open label, superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Methotrexate is the first-line treatment for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases and reduces vaccine-induced immunity. We evaluated if a 2-week interruption of methotrexate treatment immediately after COVID-19 booster vaccination improved antibody response against the S1 receptor binding domain (S1-RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and live SARS-CoV-2 neutralisation compared with uninterrupted treatment in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. METHOD: We did a multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised, superiority trial in secondary-care rheumatology and dermatology clinics in 26 hospitals in the UK. Adults (aged ≥18 years) with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases taking methotrexate (≤25 mg per week) for at least 3 months, who had received two primary vaccine doses from the UK COVID-19 vaccination programme were eligible. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using a centralised validated computer program, to temporarily suspend methotrexate treatment for 2 weeks immediately after COVID-19 booster vaccination or continue treatment as usual. The primary outcome was S1-RBD antibody titres 4 weeks after COVID-19 booster vaccination and was assessed masked to group assignment. All randomly assigned patients were included in primary and safety analyses. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN11442263; following a pre-planned interim analysis, recruitment was stopped early. FINDING: Between Sept 30, 2021, and March 7, 2022, we screened 685 individuals, of whom 383 were randomly assigned: to either suspend methotrexate (n=191; mean age 58·8 years [SD 12·5], 118 [62%] women and 73 [38%] men) or to continue methotrexate (n=192; mean age 59·3 years [11·9], 117 [61%] women and 75 [39%] men). At 4 weeks, the geometric mean S1-RBD antibody titre was 25 413 U/mL (95% CI 22 227-29 056) in the suspend methotrexate group and 12 326 U/mL (10 538-14 418) in the continue methotrexate group with a geometric mean ratio (GMR) of 2·08 (95% CI 1·59-2·70; p<0·0001). No intervention-related serious adverse events occurred. INTERPRETATION: 2-week interruption of methotrexate treatment in people with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases enhanced antibody responses after COVID-19 booster vaccination that were sustained at 12 weeks and 26 weeks. There was a temporary increase in inflammatory disease flares, mostly self-managed. The choice to suspend methotrexate should be individualised based on disease status and vulnerability to severe outcomes from COVID-19. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research.

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 .

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.

Discontinuation of anti-TNF-alpha treatment due to blood test abnormalities and cost-effectiveness of alternate blood monitoring strategies.

BACKGROUND: There is no evidence base supporting the use of six-monthly monitoring blood tests for the early detection of liver, blood, and renal toxicity during established anti-TNF-alpha treatment. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the incidence and risk factors of anti-TNF-alpha treatment cessation due to liver, blood, and renal side-effects and, to estimate the cost-effectiveness of alternate intervals between monitoring blood tests. METHODS: A secondary-care based retrospective cohort study was performed. Data from the British Association of Dermatologists Biologic and Immunomodulators Register were used. Patients with at-least moderate psoriasis prescribed their first anti-TNF-alpha treatment were included. Treatment discontinuation due to monitoring blood test abnormality was the primary-outcome.Patients were followed-up from treatment start to the earliest of outcome, drug-discontinuation, death, five years, or 31/07/2021. The incidence rate and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of anti-TNF-alpha discontinuation with monitoring blood test abnormality was calculated. Multivariate Cox regression was used to examine the association between risk-factors and outcome. A mathematical model evaluated costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with lengthening the time between monitoring blood tests during anti-TNF-alpha treatment. RESULTS: The cohort included 8,819 participants (3,710 (42.1%) female, mean age (standard deviation) 44.76 (13.20) years) that contributed 25,058 person-years of follow-up and experienced 125 treatment discontinuations due to monitoring blood test abnormality at an incidence rate (95%CI) of 5.85 (4.91-6.97)/1,000 person-years. Of these, 64, and 61 discontinuations occurred within the first year, and after the first-year of treatment start at an incidence rate (95% CI) of 8.62 (6.74-11.01) and 3.44 (2.67-4.42)/1000 person-years respectively. Increasing age in years, diabetes, and liver disease associated with anti-TNF-alpha discontinuation with monitoring blood test abnormality with adjusted Hazard Ratio (95%CI) of 1.02 (1.01-1.04), 1.68 (1.00-2.81), and 2.27 (1.26-4.07) respectively. Assuming a threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained, no monitoring was most cost-effective but all extended periods were cost-effective compared to three monthly or six-monthly monitoring. CONCLUSION: Anti-TNF-alpha drugs were uncommonly discontinued due to abnormal monitoring blood tests after the first year of treatment. Extending the duration between monitoring blood-tests was cost-effective. Our results produce evidence for specialist society guidance to reduce patient monitoring burden and healthcare costs.

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.

Frequency of newborn bathing in the first 9 weeks of life and related factors: An observational study in a community-based sample from Meta-LARC.

PURPOSE: Environmental factors such as bathing may play a role in atopic dermatitis (AD) development. This analysis utilized data from the Community Assessment of Skin Care, Allergies, and Eczema (CASCADE) Trial (NCT03409367), a randomized controlled trial of emollient therapy for AD prevention in the general population, to estimate bathing frequency and associated factors within the first 9 weeks of life. METHODS: Data were collected from 909 parent/newborn dyads recruited from 25 pediatric and family medicine clinics from the Meta-network Learning and Research Center (Meta-LARC) practice-based research network (PBRN) consortium in Oregon, North Carolina, Colorado, and Wisconsin for the CASCADE trial. Ordinal logistic regression was used to conduct a cross-sectional analysis of the association between bathing frequency (measured in baths per week) and demographic, medical, and lifestyle information about the infant, their family, and their household. Variables were selected using a backwards-stepwise method and estimates from the reduced model are reported in the text. RESULTS: Moisturizer use (OR = 2.03, 95% CI: 1.54-2.68), Hispanic or Latino ethnicity (OR = 1.97, 95% CI: 1.42-2.72), a parental education level lower than a 4-year college degree (OR = 2.48, 95% CI: 1.70-3.62), living in North Carolina or Wisconsin (compared to Oregon; OR = 2.12 and 1.47, 95% CI: 1.53-2.93 and 1.04-2.08, respectively), and increasing child age (in days; OR = 1.02, 95% CI: 1.01-1.02) were significantly associated with more frequent bathing, while pet ownership (OR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.52-0.87) was significantly associated with less frequent bathing. CONCLUSIONS: We found significant ethnic, geographic, and socioeconomic variation in bathing frequency before 9 weeks of age that may be of relevance to AD prevention studies.

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.

Reliable Detection of Eczema Areas for Fully Automated Assessment of Eczema Severity from Digital Camera Images.

Assessing the severity of eczema in clinical research requires face-to-face skin examination by trained staff. Such approaches are resource-intensive for participants and staff, challenging during pandemics, and prone to inter- and intra-observer variation. Computer vision algorithms have been proposed to automate the assessment of eczema severity using digital camera images. However, they often require human intervention to detect eczema lesions and cannot automatically assess eczema severity from real-world images in an end-to-end pipeline. We developed a model to detect eczema lesions from images using data augmentation and pixel-level segmentation of eczema lesions on 1,345 images provided by dermatologists. We evaluated the quality of the obtained segmentation compared with that of the clinicians, the robustness to varying imaging conditions encountered in real-life images, such as lighting, focus, and blur, and the performance of downstream severity prediction when using the detected eczema lesions. The quality and robustness of eczema lesion detection increased by approximately 25% and 40%, respectively, compared with that of our previous eczema detection model. The performance of the downstream severity prediction remained unchanged. Use of skin segmentation as an alternative to eczema segmentation that requires specialist labeling showed the performance on par with when eczema segmentation is used.

Risk-stratified monitoring for thiopurine toxicity in immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: prognostic model development, validation, and, health economic evaluation.

Background: Patients established on thiopurines (e.g., azathioprine) are recommended to undergo three-monthly blood tests for the early detection of blood, liver, or kidney toxicity. These side-effects are uncommon during long-term treatment. We developed a prognostic model that could be used to inform risk-stratified decisions on frequency of monitoring blood-tests during long-term thiopurine treatment, and, performed health-economic evaluation of alternate monitoring intervals. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study set in the UK primary-care. Data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum and Gold formed development and validation cohorts, respectively. People age ≥18 years, diagnosed with an immune mediated inflammatory disease, prescribed thiopurine by their general practitioner for at-least six-months between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2019 were eligible. The outcome was thiopurine discontinuation with abnormal blood-test results. Patients were followed up from six-months after first primary-care thiopurine prescription to up to five-years. Penalised Cox regression developed the risk equation. Multiple imputation handled missing predictor data. Calibration and discrimination assessed model performance. A mathematical model evaluated costs and quality-adjusted life years associated with lengthening the interval between blood-tests. Findings: Data from 5982 (405 events over 16,117 person-years) and 3573 (269 events over 9075 person-years) participants were included in the development and validation cohorts, respectively. Fourteen candidate predictors (21 parameters) were included. The optimism adjusted R2 and Royston D statistic in development data were 0.11 and 0.76, respectively. The calibration slope and Royston D statistic (95% Confidence Interval) in the validation data were 1.10 (0.84-1.36) and 0.72 (0.52-0.92), respectively. A 2-year period between monitoring blood-test was most cost-effective in all deciles of predicted risk but the gain between monitoring annually or biennially reduced in higher risk deciles. Interpretation: This prognostic model requires information that is readily available during routine clinical care and may be used to risk-stratify blood-test monitoring for thiopurine toxicity. These findings should be considered by specialist societies when recommending blood monitoring during thiopurine prescription to bring about sustainable and equitable change in clinical practice. Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research.

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.

Risk stratified monitoring for methotrexate toxicity in immune mediated inflammatory diseases: prognostic model development and validation using primary care data from the UK.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a prognostic model to inform risk stratified decisions on frequency of monitoring blood tests during long term methotrexate treatment. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Electronic health records within the UK's Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Gold and CPRD Aurum. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (≥18 years) with a diagnosis of an immune mediated inflammatory disease who were prescribed methotrexate by their general practitioner for six months or more during 2007-19. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Discontinuation of methotrexate owing to abnormal monitoring blood test result. Patients were followed-up from six months after their first prescription for methotrexate in primary care to the earliest of outcome, drug discontinuation for any other reason, leaving the practice, last data collection from the practice, death, five years, or 31 December 2019. Cox regression was performed to develop the risk equation, with bootstrapping used to shrink predictor effects for optimism. Multiple imputation handled missing predictor data. Model performance was assessed in terms of calibration and discrimination. RESULTS: Data from 13 110 (854 events) and 23 999 (1486 events) participants were included in the development and validation cohorts, respectively. 11 candidate predictors (17 parameters) were included. In the development dataset, the optimism adjusted R2 was 0.13 and the optimism adjusted Royston D statistic was 0.79. The calibration slope and Royston D statistic in the validation dataset for the entire follow-up period was 0.94 (95% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.02) and 0.75 (95% confidence interval 0.67 to 0.83), respectively. The prognostic model performed well in predicting outcomes in clinically relevant subgroups defined by age group, type of immune mediated inflammatory disease, and methotrexate dose. CONCLUSION: A prognostic model was developed and validated that uses information collected during routine clinical care and may be used to risk stratify the frequency of monitoring blood test during long term methotrexate treatment.

Predator and Alien: the threat of predatory journals and conferences.

Predatory journals, first recognized in the early 2000s, are fraudulent publications characterized by aggressive marketing solicitations and deviation from best publishing practices. These journals claim to be legitimate scholarly publications, and accept articles with no or poor peer review processes or quality checks, with rapid publication on payment by authors. They are a global threat as they are dishonest, lack transparency and seek only financial gain. More recently, predatory conferences have emerged and are expanding rapidly. Although they appear to be legitimate scientific conferences, they are also characterized by an overriding profit motive, with no concern for academic values. Predatory journals and conferences are on the rise; dermatology trainees, readers and those new to publishing and conferences are vulnerable to predatory exploitation. The consequences of falling victim to such predation include damage to the external reputation of the authors and their institution, and heightened concerns about the legitimacy of the research. This educational review defines predatory journals and conferences, and summarizes their distinguishing features such as a poor or no peer review process, rapid acceptance, flattering language and lack of meeting. It highlights the consequences of publishing in a predatory journal or attending a predatory conference, and outlines several tools available that dermatology researchers can use to recognize and reduce the likelihood of falling prey to a predatory journal or conference.

How to critically appraise a systematic review: an aide for the reader and reviewer.

The number of published systematic reviews has soared rapidly in recent years. Sadly, the quality of most systematic reviews in dermatology is substandard. With the continued increase in exposure to systematic reviews, and their potential to influence clinical practice, we sought to describe a sequence of useful tips for the busy clinician reader to determine study quality and clinical utility. Important factors to consider when assessing systematic reviews include: determining the motivation to performing the study, establishing if the study protocol was prepublished, assessing quality of reporting using the PRISMA checklist, assessing study quality using the AMSTAR 2 critical appraisal checklist, assessing for evidence of spin, and summarizing the main strengths and limitations of the study to determine if it could change clinical practice. Having a set of heuristics to consider when reading systematic reviews serves to save time, enabling assessment of quality in a structured way, and come to a prompt conclusion of the merits of a review article in order to inform the care of dermatology patients.

How to do digital Advice and Guidance well.

The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated a rapid expansion of digital Advice and Guidance (A&G) across UK medical and surgical specialties. Dermatology A&G requests have increased by over 400% since the onset of the pandemic in 2020, with rapid expansion of teledermatology A&G services across England. Dermatology A&G is usually carried out asynchronously through dedicated digital platforms such as the National Health Service e-referral service, with streamlined conversion to referral if clinically indicated. A&G with images is advocated as the main referral pathway to dermatology specialist services in England (excluding the 2-week wait suspected skin cancer pathway). Providing dermatological care through A&G requires specific clinical skill sets to ensure rapid, safe and collaborative delivery, and optimization of educational benefit. Little published guidance is available to signpost clinicians to what constitutes a high-quality A&G request and response. This educational article discusses good clinical practice based on extensive local and national experience from primary and secondary care doctors. We cover digital communication skills, shared decision making, clinical competency and building collaborative links between patients, referrers and specialists. High-quality A&G, with agreed turn-around times and optimization of technology, can significantly streamline patient care and strengthen links between clinicians, providing it is appropriately resourced within the wider planning of elective care and outpatient activity.