Does complete pathological response increase perioperative morbidity risk in rectal cancer?

AIM: The optimal management of patients with clinical complete response after neoadjuvant treatment for rectal cancer is controversial. The aim of this study is to compare the morbidity between patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who have had a pathological complete response (pCR) or not after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) and total mesorectal excision (TME). The study hypothesis was that pCR may impact the surgical complication rate. METHOD: A retrospective cohort study was conducted of a prospectively maintained database in Australia and New Zealand, the Binational Colorectal Cancer Audit, that identified patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (<15 cm from anal verge) from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2019. Patients were included if they had locally advanced rectal cancer and had undergone NCRT and proceeded to surgical resection. RESULTS: There were 4584 patients who satisfied the inclusion criteria, 65% being male. The mean age was 63 years and 11% had a pCR (ypT0N0). TME with anastomosis was performed in 67.8% of patients, and the majority of the cohort received long-course radiotherapy (81.7%). Both major and minor complications were higher in the TME without anastomosis group (17.3% vs. 14.7% and 30.6% vs. 20.8%, respectively), and the 30-day mortality was 1.31%. In the TME with anastomosis group, pCR did not contribute to higher rates of surgical complications, but male gender (p < 0.0012), age (p < 0.0001), preoperative N stage (p = 0.0092) and American Society of Anesthesologists (ASA) score ≥3 (p < 0.0002) did. In addition, pCR had no significant effect (p = 0.44) but male gender (p = 0.0047) and interval to surgery (p = 0.015) contributed to higher rates of anastomotic leak. In the TME without anastomosis cohort, the only variable that contributed to higher rates of complications was ASA score ≥3 (p = 0.033). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing TME dissection for rectal cancer following NCRT showed no difference in complications whether they had achieved pCR or not.

The Eczema Area and Severity Index: An update of progress and challenges in its measurement of atopic dermatitis after 20 years of use.

The Eczema Area and Severity Index is an investigator-assessed instrument reporting clinical signs of atopic dermatitis. The instrument is extensively validated in both adult and paediatric populations and recommended as a core outcome measure to assess clinical signs by the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema initiative in clinical trials and was recently recommended as an option to measure signs in clinical practice. Here, we review the validation of the instrument using standard assessment criteria, explore controversies and challenges to its universal applicability and highlight future electronic adaptations. We find that the instrument demonstrates adequate performance in the measurement properties recommended by the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments initiative for instruments reporting clinical signs, is clinically interpretable, and is suitable for all atopic dermatitis severities. Some validation gaps remain. Information reporting on its performance in diverse populations, with emphasis on deeply pigmented skin, is promising though limited. Technological adaptations are demonstrating promising initial validation results and may facilitate remote and/or automated assessments assisting clinical care and decentralized clinical trials in the future. We find no strong evidence limiting its use in trials or clinical practice although questions pertaining to the effect of investigator training remain. We recommend that the Eczema Area and Severity Index be used in all interventional atopic dermatitis trials and be considered alongside other recommended clinical practice severity instruments.

Randomized controlled pilot trial with ion-exchange water softeners to prevent eczema (SOFTER trial).

BACKGROUND: Observational studies suggest an increased risk of eczema in children living in hard versus soft water areas, and there is, therefore, an interest in knowing whether softening water may prevent eczema. We evaluated the feasibility of a parallel-group assessor-blinded pilot randomized controlled trial to test whether installing a domestic ion-exchange water softener before birth in hard water areas reduces the risk of eczema in infants with a family history of atopy. METHODS: Pregnant women living in hard water areas (>250 mg/L calcium carbonate) in and around London UK, were randomized 1:1 antenatally to either have an ion-exchange water softener installed in their home or not (ie to continue to receive usual domestic hard water). Infants were assessed at birth and followed up for 6 months. The main end-points were around feasibility, the primary end-point being the proportion of eligible families screened who were willing and able to be randomized. Clinical end-points were evaluated including frequency of parent-reported doctor-diagnosed eczema and visible eczema on skin examination. Descriptive analyses were conducted, and no statistical testing was performed as this was a pilot study. RESULTS: One hundred and forty-nine families screened were eligible antenatally and 28% (41/149) could not have a water softener installed due to technical reasons or lack of landlord approval. Eighty of 149 (54%) were randomized, the primary end-point. Two participants withdrew immediately after randomization, leaving 39 participants in each arm (78 total). Attrition was 15% (12/78) by 6 months postpartum. All respondents (n = 69) to the study acceptability questionnaire reported that the study was acceptable. Fifty-six of 708 (7.9%) water samples in the water softener arm were above the hard water threshold of 20 mg/L CaCO3 . At 6 months of age 27/67 infants (40%) developed visible eczema, 12/36 (33%) vs. 15/31 (48%) in the water softener and control groups, respectively, difference -15% (95% CI -38, 8.3%), with most assessments (≥96%) remaining blinded. Similarly, a lower proportion of infants in the water softener arm had parent-reported, doctor-diagnosed eczema by 6 months compared to the control arm, 6/17 (35%) versus 9/19 (47%), difference -12% (95% CI -44, 20%). CONCLUSION: A randomized controlled trial of water softeners for the prevention of atopic eczema in high-risk infants is feasible and acceptable. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03270566 (clinicaltrials.gov).

Identifying the best predictive diagnostic criteria for psoriasis in children (< 18 years): a UK multicentre case-control diagnostic accuracy study (DIPSOC study).

BACKGROUND: In children, psoriasis can be challenging to diagnose. Difficulties arise from differences in the clinical presentation compared with adults. OBJECTIVES: To test the diagnostic accuracy of previously agreed consensus criteria and to develop a shortlist of the best predictive diagnostic criteria for childhood psoriasis. METHODS: A case-control diagnostic accuracy study in 12 UK dermatology departments (2017-2019) assessed 18 clinical criteria using blinded trained investigators. Children (< 18 years) with dermatologist-diagnosed psoriasis (cases, N = 170) or a different scaly inflammatory rash (controls, N = 160) were recruited. The best predictive criteria were identified using backward logistic regression, and internal validation was conducted using bootstrapping. RESULTS: The sensitivity of the consensus-agreed criteria and consensus scoring algorithm was 84·6%, the specificity was 65·1% and the area under the curve (AUC) was 0·75. The seven diagnostic criteria that performed best were: (i) scale and erythema in the scalp involving the hairline, (ii) scaly erythema inside the external auditory meatus, (iii) persistent well-demarcated erythematous rash anywhere on the body, (iv) persistent erythema in the umbilicus, (v) scaly erythematous plaques on the extensor surfaces of the elbows and/or knees, (vi) well-demarcated erythematous rash in the napkin area involving the crural fold and (vii) family history of psoriasis. The sensitivity of the best predictive model was 76·8%, with specificity 72·7% and AUC 0·84. The c-statistic optimism-adjusted shrinkage factor was 0·012. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides examination- and history-based data on the clinical features of psoriasis in children and proposes seven diagnostic criteria with good discriminatory ability in secondary-care patients. External validation is now needed.

Thematic synthesis of the experiences of people with hidradenitis suppurativa: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Although hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is known to affect quality of life, little summative knowledge exists on how HS impacts people living with the condition. OBJECTIVES: To synthesize experiences of people with HS within published qualitative research. METHODS: Searches on databases MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase and CINAHL were conducted on 17 April 2020. Two independent reviewers screened 5512 publications. Study quality was assessed using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence quality appraisal checklist for qualitative studies. Thematic synthesis generated descriptive and analytic themes. RESULTS: Fourteen studies were included: four studies fulfilled most quality criteria, eight fulfilled some quality criteria, and two fulfilled few quality criteria. There were three final themes. (i) Putting the brakes on life. The physical, psychological and social consequences of HS resulted in people missing out on multiple life events. This could have a cumulative effect that influences the trajectory of someone's life. (ii) A stigmatized identity: concealed and revealed. People try to conceal their HS, visually and verbally, but this results in anticipation and fear of exposure. Social support and psychological acceptance helped people cope. Connecting to others with HS may have a specific role in preserving a positive self-identity. (iii) Falling through the cracks. Delayed diagnosis, misdiagnosis and lack of access to care were reported. People felt unheard and misunderstood by healthcare professionals, and healthcare interactions could enhance feelings of shame. CONCLUSIONS: There need to be improvements to clinical care to allow people with HS to live their life more fully.

Incidence, prevalence and mortality of bullous pemphigoid in England 1998-2017: a population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: A rising incidence and high mortality were found for bullous pemphigoid (BP) over a decade ago in the UK. Updated estimates of its epidemiology are required to understand the healthcare needs of an ageing population. OBJECTIVES: To determine the incidence, prevalence and mortality rates of BP in England from 1998 to 2017. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study of longitudinal electronic health records using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink and linked Hospital Episode Statistics. Incidence was calculated per 100 000 person-years and annual point prevalence per 100 000 people. Multivariate analysis was used to determine incidence rate ratios by sociodemographic factors. Mortality was examined in an age-, sex- and practice-matched cohort, using linked Office of National Statistics death records. Hazard ratios (HRs) were stratified by matched set. RESULTS: The incidence was 7·63 [95% confidence interval (CI) 7·35-7·93] per 100 000 person-years and rose with increasing age, particularly for elderly men. The annual increase in incidence was 0·9% (95% CI 0·2-1·7). The prevalence almost doubled over the observation period, reaching 47·99 (95% CI 43·09-53·46) per 100 000 people and 141·24 (95% CI 125·55-158·87) per 100 000 people over the age of 60 years. The risk of all-cause mortality was highest in the 2 years after diagnosis (HR 2·96; 95% CI 2·68-3·26) and remained raised thereafter (HR 1·54; 95% CI 1·36-1·74). CONCLUSIONS: We report a modest increase in the incidence rate of BP, but show that the burden of disease in the elderly population is considerable. Mortality is high, particularly in the first 2 years after diagnosis.

Views and experiences of managing eczema: systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies.

BACKGROUND: The number of qualitative studies on eczema has increased rapidly in recent years. Systematically reviewing these can provide greater understandings of people's perceptions of eczema and eczema treatments. OBJECTIVES: We sought to systematically review and thematically synthesize qualitative studies exploring views and experiences of people with eczema and parents/carers of children with eczema. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL from the earliest date available to February 2019. We selected papers focusing on views and experiences of eczema and eczema treatments, and barriers/facilitators to eczema self-management. We excluded papers focusing on health service provision models or health professionals' views. RESULTS: We synthesized 39 papers (reporting 32 studies) from 13 countries. We developed four analytical themes: (1) Eczema not viewed as a long-term condition; (2) Significant psychosocial impact not acknowledged by others; (3) Hesitancy (patient/carer uncertainty) about eczema treatments; and (4) Insufficient information and advice. Our findings suggest that people with eczema and their carers experience frustration at having to manage a condition that is often seen by others as mundane but has significant psychosocial impact and is difficult to manage due to concerns about, and burden of, treatment. This frustration can be exacerbated by experiences of conflicting and/or insufficient information and advice from health professionals, family and others. CONCLUSIONS: Effective self-management of eczema could be supported by addressing beliefs and concerns about treatments; seeking positive ways to promote a 'control not cure' message; acknowledging psychosocial impacts of eczema and treatment burden; and providing clear consistent advice or signposting towards reliable information.

Recommended core outcome instruments for health-related quality of life, long-term control and itch intensity in atopic eczema trials: results of the HOME VII consensus meeting.

BACKGROUND: The Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative has established a core outcome set of domains for atopic eczema (AE) clinical trials. Previous consensus meetings have agreed on preferred instruments for clinician-reported signs (Eczema Area and Severity Index, EASI) and patient-reported symptoms (Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure, POEM). This paper reports consensus decisions from the HOME VII meeting. OBJECTIVES: To complete the core outcome set for AE by agreeing on core outcome instruments for the domains of quality of life (QoL), long-term control and itch intensity. METHODS: A face-to-face consensus meeting was held in Tokyo, Japan (8-10 April 2019) including 75 participants (49 healthcare professionals/methodologists, 14 patients, 12 industry representatives) from 16 countries. Consensus decisions were made by presentations of evidence, followed by whole and small group discussions and anonymous voting using predefined consensus rules. RESULTS: It was agreed by consensus that QoL should be measured using the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) for adults, the Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI) for children and the Infant's Dermatology Quality of Life Index (IDQoL) for infants. For long-term control, the Recap of Atopic Eczema (RECAP) instrument or the Atopic Dermatitis Control Test (ADCT) should be used. Consensus was not reached over the frequency of data collection for long-term control. The peak itch numerical rating scale (NRS)-11 past 24 h was recommended as an additional instrument for the symptom domain in trials of older children and adults. Agreement was reached that all core outcome instruments should be captured at baseline and at the time of primary outcome assessment as a minimum. CONCLUSIONS: For now, the core outcome set for clinical trials in AE is complete. The specified domains and instruments should be used in all new clinical trials and systematic reviews of eczema treatments.

An economic evaluation of the randomized controlled trial of topical corticosteroid and home-based narrowband ultraviolet B for active and limited vitiligo (the HI-Light Vitiligo Trial).

BACKGROUND: Economic evidence for vitiligo treatments is absent. OBJECTIVES: To determine the cost-effectiveness of (i) handheld narrowband ultraviolet B (NB-UVB) and (ii) a combination of topical corticosteroid (TCS) and NB-UVB compared with TCS alone for localized vitiligo. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a pragmatic, three-arm, placebo-controlled randomized controlled trial with 9 months' treatment. In total 517 adults and children (aged ≥ 5 years) with active vitiligo affecting < 10% of skin were recruited from secondary care and the community and were randomized 1: 1: 1 to receive TCS, NB-UVB or both. Cost per successful treatment (measured on the Vitiligo Noticeability Scale) was estimated. Secondary cost-utility analyses measured quality-adjusted life-years using the EuroQol 5 Dimensions 5 Levels for those aged ≥ 11 years and the Child Health Utility 9D for those aged 5 to < 18 years. The trial was registered with number ISRCTN17160087 on 8 January 2015. RESULTS: The mean ± SD cost per participant was £775 ± 83·7 for NB-UVB, £813 ± 111.4 for combination treatment and £600 ± 96·2 for TCS. In analyses adjusted for age and target patch location, the incremental difference in cost for combination treatment compared with TCS was £211 (95% confidence interval 188-235), corresponding to a risk difference of 10·9% (number needed to treat = 9). The incremental cost was £1932 per successful treatment. The incremental difference in cost for NB-UVB compared with TCS was £173 (95% confidence interval 151-196), with a risk difference of 5·2% (number needed to treat = 19). The incremental cost was £3336 per successful treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Combination treatment, compared with TCS alone, has a lower incremental cost per additional successful treatment than NB-UVB only. Combination treatment would be considered cost-effective if decision makers are willing to pay £1932 per additional treatment success.

Randomized controlled trial of topical corticosteroid and home-based narrowband ultraviolet B for active and limited vitiligo: results of the HI-Light Vitiligo Trial.

BACKGROUND: Evidence for the effectiveness of vitiligo treatments is limited. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of (i) handheld narrowband UVB (NB-UVB) and (ii) a combination of potent topical corticosteroid (TCS) and NB-UVB, compared with TCS alone, for localized vitiligo. METHODS: A pragmatic, three-arm, placebo-controlled randomized controlled trial (9-month treatment, 12-month follow-up). Adults and children, recruited from secondary care and the community, aged ≥ 5 years and with active vitiligo affecting < 10% of skin, were randomized 1 : 1 : 1 to receive TCS (mometasone furoate 0·1% ointment + dummy NB-UVB), NB-UVB (NB-UVB + placebo TCS) or a combination (TCS + NB-UVB). TCS was applied once daily on alternating weeks; NB-UVB was administered on alternate days in escalating doses, adjusted for erythema. The primary outcome was treatment success at 9 months at a target patch assessed using the participant-reported Vitiligo Noticeability Scale, with multiple imputation for missing data. The trial was registered with number ISRCTN17160087 on 8 January 2015. RESULTS: In total 517 participants were randomized to TCS (n = 173), NB-UVB (n = 169) and combination (n = 175). Primary outcome data were available for 370 (72%) participants. The proportions with target patch treatment success were 17% (TCS), 22% (NB-UVB) and 27% (combination). Combination treatment was superior to TCS: adjusted between-group difference 10·9% (95% confidence interval 1·0%-20·9%; P = 0·032; number needed to treat = 10). NB-UVB alone was not superior to TCS: adjusted between-group difference 5·2% (95% CI - 4·4% to 14·9%; P = 0·29; number needed to treat = 19). Participants using interventions with ≥ 75% expected adherence were more likely to achieve treatment success, but the effects were lost once treatment stopped. Localized grade 3 or 4 erythema was reported in 62 (12%) participants (including three with dummy light). Skin thinning was reported in 13 (2·5%) participants (including one with placebo ointment). CONCLUSIONS: Combination treatment with home-based handheld NB-UVB plus TCS is likely to be superior to TCS alone for treatment of localized vitiligo. Combination treatment was relatively safe and well tolerated but was successful in only around one-quarter of participants.

Using electronic health records to inform trial feasibility in a rare autoimmune blistering skin disease in England.

BACKGROUND: Trials of novel agents are required to improve the care of patients with rare diseases, but trial feasibility may be uncertain due to concerns over insufficient patient numbers. We aimed to determine the size of the pool of potential participants in England 2015-2017 for trials in the autoimmune blistering skin disease bullous pemphigoid. METHODS: The size of the pool of potential participants was estimated using routinely collected healthcare data from linked primary care (Clinical Practice Research Datalink; CPRD) and secondary care (Hospital Episode Statistics; HES) databases. Thirteen consultant dermatologists were surveyed to determine the likelihood that a patient would be eligible for a trial based on the presence of cautions or contra-indications to prednisolone use. These criteria were applied to determine how they influenced the potential pool of participants. RESULTS: Extrapolated to the population of England, we would expect approximately 10,800 (point estimate 10,747; 95% CI 7191 to 17,239) new cases of bullous pemphigoid to be identified in a three-year period. For a future trial involving oral prednisolone (standard care), the application of cautions to its use as exclusion criteria would result in approximately 365 potential participants unlikely to be recruited, a further 5332 could be recruited with caution, and 5104 in whom recruitment is still possible. 11-17% of potential participants may have pre-existing dementia and require an alternative consent process. CONCLUSIONS: Routinely collected electronic health records can be used to inform the feasibility of clinical trials in rare diseases, such as whether recruitment is feasible nationally and how long recruitment might take to meet recruitment targets. Future trials of bullous pemphigoid in England may use the data presented to inform trial design, including eligibility criteria and consent processes for enrolling people with dementia.

Scoping the international impact from four independent national dermatology trials.

BACKGROUND: Research impact describes whether and how research results in wider benefits to society beyond academic publication. Little is known about translation of clinical trial research into dermatological practice. AIM: We scoped international impact from four independently funded clinical trials published by our group over the past 10 years. METHODS: This was a scoping survey of 35 international colleagues from 22 countries followed by a narrative summary of emergent themes. RESULTS: All recipients kindly responded to the survey. At least 20 emergent themes were identified, which broadly included: (i) interest and enthusiasm in the concept of trying to document clinical trial impact; (ii) direct impacts such as adoption of the drug as tested and recommended from the trial results, including more confidence using the drug in slightly different ways for the same condition; (iii) the finding that trial impact was dependent on factors such as drug availability and country-specific disease patterns; and (iv) the educational value of good trial design for journal club discussions and improving future clinical trial designs in dermatology. Our survey suggests that uptake into clinical practice was surprisingly rapid and widespread. CONCLUSION: Clinical trial research is of little use unless findings are translated into clinical practice for patient benefit. Our international scoping survey suggests that independent clinical trials that address important questions identified by the dermatology community have substantial, diverse and far-reaching impacts on dermatological practice.

Measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures for eczema control: a systematic review.

Atopic eczema (herein referred to as 'eczema') is a skin disease characterized by remitting and relapsing symptoms. The Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative was developed to establish a core outcome set (COS) for eczema to be measured for all future eczema trials. The core outcome set for atopic eczema clinical trials includes the domain for patient-reported eczema control, but a review of the validation of available eczema control instruments was lacking. We aimed to review the literature and systematically assess the measurement properties of validated patient-reported outcome instruments that capture eczema control. PubMed and Ovid EMBASE were searched up to 24 January 2020 for any study that reported on PROM instrument development or validation. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) criteria were used to assess the quality of eligible studies. We screened 12 036 titles and abstracts and 58 full texts. A total of 12 papers were included, reporting on seven PROMS. These were assessed with respect to development, reliability, construct validity and responsiveness. Two instruments, Recap of Atopic Eczema (RECAP) and the Atopic Dermatitis Control Tool (ADCT), have been developed and validated to a sufficient standard to support their recommendation as patient-reported outcome instruments for measuring control of atopic eczema as part of the HOME Core Outcome Set.

Development and initial testing of a new instrument to measure the experience of eczema control in adults and children: Recap of atopic eczema (RECAP).

BACKGROUND: Eczema control has been identified as an important outcome by key stakeholders in eczema research (including patients, carers, healthcare professionals and researchers) but no validated instruments for the domain have been identified. OBJECTIVES: To develop a measurement instrument to capture a patient's perspective of eczema control that is suitable for use in eczema clinical trials. METHODS: Best practice for the development of a patient-reported outcome was followed. A mixed-methods approach was used to develop and refine a conceptual framework, generate, refine and select items and to test the distribution and construct validity of the final scale. The mixed-methods approach involved expert panel meetings (including patient representatives, healthcare professionals and methodologists), and data collection using a focus group, cognitive interviews and an online survey with people with eczema and caregivers. Multivariable linear regression was used in the item selection process. RESULTS: Fourteen expert panel members co-produced the instrument, with input from people with eczema and caregivers via a focus group (n = 6), cognitive interviews (n = 13) and an online survey (n = 330). The resulting instrument, Recap of atopic eczema (RECAP), is a seven-item questionnaire that captures eczema control via self or caregiver report. The development process aimed to ensure good content validity and feasibility. Initial testing suggested no floor or ceiling effects and good construct validity. Hypothesized correlation with the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure was confirmed [r(258) = 0·83, P < 0·001]. CONCLUSIONS: RECAP has the potential to improve reporting of eczema control in research and clinical practice. Further exploration of measurement properties is required. Linked Comment: Pattinson and Bundy. Br J Dermatol 2020; 183:418-419. What's already known about this topic? Eczema control has been identified as an important outcome by key stakeholders in eczema research (including patients, carers, healthcare professionals and researchers). Qualitative studies suggest eczema control is a multifaceted and individual experience and no instrument has been identified that captures eczema control in this way. What does this study add? We have developed Recap of atopic eczema (RECAP), a seven-item questionnaire to capture the experience of eczema control in all ages and eczema severities; there are two versions: a self-reported version for adults and older children with eczema, and a caregiver-reported version for younger children with eczema. Designed with input from people with eczema, caregivers and healthcare professionals to ensure good content validity. Initial testing of score distributions and construct validity suggests good measurement properties. What are the clinical implications of the work? The RECAP instrument is appropriate and feasible for measuring eczema control in clinical trials and may also be useful in routine practice.

Recommended core outcome instruments for health-related quality of life, long-term control and itch intensity in atopic eczema trials: results of the HOME VII consensus meeting.

BACKGROUND: The Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative has established a core outcome set of domains for atopic eczema clinical trials. Previous consensus meetings have agreed upon preferred instruments for clinician-reported signs (Eczema Area and Severity Index - EASI) and patient-reported symptoms (Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure - POEM). This paper reports consensus decisions from the HOME VII meeting. OBJECTIVE: To complete the core outcome set for atopic eczema by agreeing upon core outcome instruments for the domains of quality of life, long-term control and itch intensity. METHODS: Face-to-face consensus meeting held in Tokyo, Japan (8th to 10th April, 2019) including 74 participants (47 healthcare professionals/methodologists, 14 patients, 13 industry representatives), from 16 countries. Consensus decisions were made by presentations of evidence, followed by whole and small group discussions and anonymous voting using pre-defined consensus rules. RESULTS: It was agreed by consensus that quality of life should be measured using the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) for adults, the Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI) for children, and the Infant's Dermatology Quality of Life Index (IDQoL) for infants. For long-term control, the Recap of Atopic Eczema (RECAP) instrument or the Atopic Dermatitis Control Test (ADCT) should be used. Consensus was not reached over the frequency of data collection for long-term control. The peak itch numerical rating scale(NRS)-11 past 24 hours was recommended as an additional instrument for the symptom domain in trials of older children and adults. Agreement was reached that all core outcome instruments should be captured at baseline and at the time of primary outcome assessment as a minimum. CONCLUSIONS: For now, the core outcome set for clinical trials in atopic eczema is complete. The specified domains and instruments should be used in all new clinical trials and systematic reviews of eczema treatments.

The red leg dilemma: a scoping review of the challenges of diagnosing lower-limb cellulitis.

BACKGROUND: Presentations of suspected lower-limb cellulitis are commonly misdiagnoses, resulting in avoidable antibiotic prescribing or hospital admissions. Understanding the challenges posed in diagnosing cellulitis may help enhance future care. OBJECTIVES: To examine and map out the challenges and facilitators identified by patients and health professionals in diagnosing lower-limb cellulitis. METHODS: A scoping systematic review was performed in MEDLINE and Embase in October 2017. Thematic analysis was used to identify key themes. Quantitative data were summarized by narrative synthesis. RESULTS: Three themes were explored: (i) clinical case reports of misdiagnosis, (ii) service development and (iii) diagnostic aids. Forty-seven different pathologies were misdiagnosed, including seven malignancies. Two different services have been piloted to reduce the misdiagnosis rates of lower-limb cellulitis and save costs. Four studies have looked at biochemical markers, imaging and a scoring tool to aid diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the range of alternative pathologies that can be misdiagnosed as cellulitis, and emerging services and diagnostic aids developed to minimize misdiagnosis. Future work should focus on gaining a greater qualitative understanding of the diagnostic challenges from the perspective of patients and clinicians.

Patients' understanding of cellulitis and views about how best to prevent recurrent episodes: mixed-methods study in primary and secondary care.

BACKGROUND: Cellulitis is a common painful infection of the skin and underlying tissues that recurs in approximately one-third of cases. The only proven strategy to reduce the risk of recurrence is long-term, low-dose antibiotics. Given current concerns about antibiotic resistance and the pressure to reduce antibiotic prescribing, other prevention strategies are needed. OBJECTIVES: To explore patients' views about cellulitis and different ways of preventing recurrent episodes. METHODS: Adults aged ≥ 18 years with a history of first-episode or recurrent cellulitis were invited through primary care, hospitals and advertising to complete a survey, take part in an interview or both. RESULTS: Thirty interviews were conducted between August 2016 and July 2017. Two hundred and forty surveys were completed (response rate 17%). Triangulation of quantitative and qualitative data showed that people who have had cellulitis have wide-ranging beliefs about what can cause cellulitis and are often unaware of risk of recurrence or potential strategies to prevent recurrence. Enhanced foot hygiene, applying emollients daily, exercise and losing weight were more popular potential strategies than the use of compression stockings or long-term antibiotics. Participants expressed caution about long-term oral antibiotics, particularly those who had experienced only one episode of cellulitis. CONCLUSIONS: People who have had cellulitis are keen to know about possible ways to prevent further episodes. Enhanced foot hygiene, applying emollients daily, exercise and losing weight were generally viewed to be more acceptable, feasible strategies than compression or antibiotics, but further research is needed to explore uptake and effectiveness in practice.

A systematic review showing the lack of diagnostic criteria and tools developed for lower-limb cellulitis.

BACKGROUND: Cellulitis can be a difficult diagnosis to make. Furthermore, 31% of patients admitted from the emergency department with suspected lower-limb cellulitis have been misdiagnosed, with incorrect treatment potentially resulting in avoidable hospital admission and the prescription of unnecessary antibiotics. OBJECTIVES: We sought to identify diagnostic criteria or tools that have been developed for lower-limb cellulitis. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review using Ovid MEDLINE and Embase databases in May 2018, with the aim of describing diagnostic criteria and tools developed for lower-limb cellulitis, and we assessed the quality of the studies identified using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. We included all types of study that described diagnostic criteria or tools. RESULTS: Eight observational studies were included. Five studies examined biochemical markers, two studies assessed imaging and one study developed a diagnostic decision model. All eight studies were considered to have a high risk for bias in at least one domain. The quantity and quality of available data was low and results could not be pooled owing to the heterogeneity of the findings. CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of high-quality publications describing criteria or tools for diagnosing lower-limb cellulitis. Future studies using prospective designs, validated in both primary and secondary care settings, are needed. What's already known about this topic? Diagnosing lower-limb cellulitis on first presentation is challenging. Approximately one in three patients admitted from the emergency department with suspected lower-limb cellulitis do not have cellulitis and are given another diagnosis on discharge. Consequently, this results in potentially avoidable hospital admissions and the prescription of unnecessary antibiotics. There are no diagnostic criteria available for lower-limb cellulitis in the U.K. What does this study add? This systematic review has identified a key research gap in the diagnosis of lower-limb cellulitis. There is a current lack of robustly developed and validated diagnostic criteria or tools for use in clinical practice.

What's new in atopic eczema? An analysis of systematic reviews published in 2016. Part 2: Epidemiology, aetiology and risk factors.

This review forms part of a series of annual updates that summarize the evidence base for atopic eczema (AE), providing a succinct guide for clinicians and patients. It presents the key findings from 14 systematic reviews published in 2016, focusing on AE epidemiology, aetiology and risk factors. For systematic reviews on the treatment and prevention of AE and for nomenclature and outcome assessments, see Parts 1 and 3 of this update, respectively. The annual self-reported prevalence of AE is a range of 11.4-24.2%, compared with a general practioner-diagnosed prevalence of 1.8-9.5%. The mean age of AE diagnosis is 1.6 years. Persistent AE is associated with more severe disease at the time of diagnosis, onset after the age of 2 years and female sex. There is a significant association between having AE and subsequent development of food allergy. Food allergy is also associated with more severe and persistent AE. No consistent association was found between the timing of allergenic food introduction and the risk of developing AE. Evidence from heterogeneous studies indicates that skin absorption is increased in patients with AE, and that there is increased colonization with Staphylococcus aureus in lesional and nonlesional skin and the nasal mucosa of patients with AE compared with controls. There is uncertain evidence indicating an association between AE and smoking exposure, antenatal infection and low maternal vitamin D levels during pregnancy. Weak evidence suggests an increased risk of basal cell carcinoma, but not of melanoma or squamous cell carcinoma, while the risk of glioma is reduced.

What's new in atopic eczema? An analysis of systematic reviews published in 2016. Part 3: nomenclature and outcome assessment.

This review forms part of a series of annual updates that summarize the evidence base for atopic eczema (AE). It presents the key findings from 11 systematic reviews published in 2016 that focus on AE outcome assessment, disease impact and nomenclature. Systematic reviews on the treatment and prevention of AE are summarized in Part 1 of this update, and systematic reviews on the epidemiology of and risk factors for AE are summarized in Part 2. Six reviews summarized what outcome measurement instruments have been used in published AE trials, or summarized validation studies for the available instruments. These reviews were used to inform consensus decisions by the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema initiative. Although validated instruments exist for clinical signs and patient-reported symptoms, there are currently no validated instruments for capturing quality of life or long-term control. Four reviews examined the impact of AE on children and their families, but few studies were included. One birth cohort study found no association between AE and educational attainment at 11 years. AE has a moderate impact on health-related quality of life and a substantial impact on family life. AE is a major risk factor for occupational hand dermatitis, and it is advised that young atopic individuals are informed about high-risk occupations. Further efforts are required to standardize the nomenclature for AE, which is also commonly known as 'atopic dermatitis' or 'eczema', and preferred terms vary around the world.