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.

Is Vaccination Against COVID-19 Associated With Inflammatory Bowel Disease Flare? Self-Controlled Case Series Analysis Using the UK CPRD

INTRODUCTION

To investigate the association between vaccination against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) flare.

METHODS

Patients with IBD vaccinated against COVID-19 who consulted for disease flare between December 1, 2020, and December 31, 2021, were ascertained from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. IBD flares were identified using consultation and corticosteroid prescription records. Vaccinations were identified using product codes and vaccination dates. The study period was partitioned into vaccine-exposed (vaccination date and 21 days immediately after), prevaccination (7 days immediately before vaccination), and the remaining vaccine-unexposed periods. Participants contributed data with multiple vaccinations and IBD flares. Season-adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using self-controlled case series analysis.

RESULTS

Data for 1911 cases with IBD were included; 52% of them were female, and their mean age was 49 years. Approximately 63% of participants had ulcerative colitis (UC). COVID-19 vaccination was not associated with increased IBD flares in the vaccine-exposed period when all vaccinations were considered (aIRR [95% CI] 0.89 [0.77-1.02], 0.79 [0.66-0.95], and 1.00 [0.79-1.27] in IBD overall, UC, and Crohn's disease, respectively). Analyses stratified to include only first, second, or third COVID-19 vaccinations found no significant association between vaccination and IBD flares in the vaccine-exposed period (aIRR [95% CI] 0.87 [0.71-1.06], 0.93 [0.75-1.15], and 0.86 [0.63-1.17], respectively). Similarly, stratification by COVID-19 before vaccination and by vaccination with vectored DNA or messenger RNA vaccine did not reveal an increased risk of flare in any of these subgroups.

DISCUSSION

Vaccination against COVID-19 was not associated with IBD flares regardless of prior COVID-19 infection and whether messenger RNA or DNA vaccines were used.

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.

Enhanced early skin treatment for atopic dermatitis in infants reduces food allergy

BACKGROUND

Early-onset atopic dermatitis is a strong risk factor for food allergy, suggesting that early effective treatment may prevent transcutaneous sensitization.

OBJECTIVES

This study tested whether enhanced treatment of atopic dermatitis to clinically affected and unaffected skin is more effective in preventing hen's egg allergy than reactive treatment to clinically affected skin only.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, parallel-group, open-label, assessor-blind, randomized controlled trial (PACI [Prevention of Allergy via Cutaneous Intervention] study). This study enrolled infants 7-13 weeks old with atopic dermatitis and randomly assigned infants in a 1:1 ratio to enhanced early skin treatment or conventional reactive treatment using topical corticosteroids (TCSs). The primary outcome was the proportion of immediate hen's egg allergy confirmed by oral food challenge at 28 weeks of age.

RESULTS

This study enrolled 650 infants and analyzed 640 infants (enhanced [n = 318] or conventional [n = 322] treatment). Enhanced treatment significantly reduced hen's egg allergy compared with the conventional treatment (31.4% vs 41.9%, P = .0028; risk difference: -10.5%, upper bound of a 1-sided CI: -3.0%), while it lowered body weight (mean difference: -422 g, 95% CI: -553 to -292 g) and height (mean difference: -0.8 cm, 95% CI: -1.22 to -0.33 cm) at 28 weeks of age.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlighted the potential of well-controlled atopic dermatitis management as a component of a hen's egg allergy prevention strategy. The enhanced treatment protocol of this trial should be modified before it can be considered as an approach to prevent hen's egg allergy in daily practice to avoid the adverse effects of TCSs. After remission induction by TCSs, maintenance therapy with lower potency TCSs or other topical therapies might be considered as alternative proactive treatments to overcome the safety concerns of TCSs.

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.

How to do 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 NHS 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 two-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 optimisation 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 optimisation 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.

Predator and Alien: the threat of predatory journals and conferences

Predatory journals, first recognized in the early 2000s, are fraudulent journals characterized by aggressive marketing solicitations and deviation from best publishing practices. These journals claim to be legitimate scholarly journals, and accept articles for publication with no or poor peer review process or quality checks with a rapid publication process upon payment by the 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 characterised by an over-riding profit motive, with no concern on 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 prey to such predation includes damage to the external reputation of the authors and their Institution and raises concerns about the legitimacy of the research. Several tools are available to help researchers recognise a predatory journal or conference. This educational review defines predatory journals and predatory conferences and summarises their distinguishing features such as no or poor peer review process, rapid acceptance, flattering language and lacking of meeting. We also highlight the consequences of publishing in a predatory journal or attending a predatory conference. The review finally outlines several tools available to use to reduce the likelihood of dermatologists falling into the hands of a predator.

Determining the clinical applicability of machine learning models through assessment of reporting across skin phototypes and rarer skin cancer types: A systematic review

Machine learning (ML) models for skin cancer recognition may have variable performance across different skin phototypes and skin cancer types. Overall performance metrics alone are insufficient to detect poor subgroup performance. We aimed (1) to assess whether studies of ML models reported results separately for different skin phototypes and rarer skin cancers, and (2) to graphically represent the skin cancer training datasets used by current ML models. In this systematic review, we searched PubMed, Embase and CENTRAL. We included all studies in medical journals assessing an ML technique for skin cancer diagnosis that used clinical or dermoscopic images from 1 January 2012 to 22 September 2021. No language restrictions were applied. We considered rarer skin cancers to be skin cancers other than pigmented melanoma, basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma. We identified 114 studies for inclusion. Rarer skin cancers were included by 8/114 studies (7.0%), and results for a rarer skin cancer were reported separately in 1/114 studies (0.9%). Performance was reported across all skin phototypes in 1/114 studies (0.9%), but performance was uncertain in skin phototypes I and VI from minimal representation of the skin phototypes in the test dataset (9/3756 and 1/3756, respectively). For training datasets, although public datasets were most frequently used, with the most widely used being the International Skin Imaging Collaboration (ISIC) archive (65/114 studies, 57.0%), the largest datasets were private. Our review identified that most ML models did not report performance separately for rarer skin cancers and different skin phototypes. A degree of variability in ML model performance across subgroups is expected, but the current lack of transparency is not justifiable and risks models being used inappropriately in populations in whom accuracy is low.

How is oral isotretinoin prescribed for the treatment of acne vulgaris? Results from a UK Dermatology Clinical Trials Network (UKDCTN) and British Dermatological Nursing Group (BDNG) survey of health professionals

We undertook a survey of UK healthcare professionals through the UK Dermatology Clinical Trials Network and British Dermatological Nursing Group to understand clinicians' routine practice of prescribing oral isotretinoin for treatment of acne vulgaris. We also wanted to understand clinicians' experiences and views on prescribing low daily dose regimens. Overall, the survey showed that clinicians adopted a patient-centred approach when deciding isotretinoin dosing. The rationale for using a low-dose regimen varied, but was focused on patient wellbeing during treatment. Some clinicians were concerned that use of a low-dose regimen could be less effective and lead to longer treatment durations. The survey results will be useful to inform a clinical trial investigating the effectiveness and safety of low daily dose isotretinoin for the treatment of acne.

Eczema Care Online behavioural interventions to support self-care for children and young people: two independent, pragmatic, randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness of two online behavioural interventions, one for parents and carers and one for young people, to support eczema self-management.

DESIGN

Two independent, pragmatic, parallel group, unmasked, randomised controlled trials.

SETTING

98 general practices in England.

PARTICIPANTS

Parents and carers of children (0-12 years) with eczema (trial 1) and young people (13-25 years) with eczema (trial 2), excluding people with inactive or very mild eczema (≤5 on POEM, the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure).

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomised (1:1) using online software to receive usual eczema care or an online (www.EczemaCareOnline.org.uk) behavioural intervention for eczema plus usual care.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome was eczema symptoms rated using POEM (range 0-28, with 28 being very severe) every four weeks over 24 weeks. Outcomes were reported by parents or carers for children and by self-report for young people. Secondary outcomes included POEM score every four weeks over 52 weeks, quality of life, eczema control, itch intensity (young people only), patient enablement, treatment use, perceived barriers to treatment use, and intervention use. Analyses were carried out separately for the two trials and according to intention-to-treat principles.

RESULTS

340 parents or carers of children (169 usual care; 171 intervention) and 337 young people (169 usual care; 168 intervention) were randomised. The mean baseline POEM score was 12.8 (standard deviation 5.3) for parents and carers and 15.2 (5.4) for young people. Three young people withdrew from follow-up but did not withdraw their data. All randomised participants were included in the analyses. At 24 weeks, follow-up rates were 91.5% (311/340) for parents or carers and 90.2% (304/337) for young people. After controlling for baseline eczema severity and confounders, compared with usual care groups over 24 weeks, eczema severity improved in the intervention groups: mean difference in POEM score -1.5 (95% confidence interval -2.5 to -0.6; P=0.002) for parents or carers and -1.9 (-3.0 to -0.8; P<0.001) for young people. The number needed to treat to achieve a 2.5 difference in POEM score at 24 weeks was 6 in both trials. Improvements were sustained to 52 weeks in both trials. Enablement showed a statistically significant difference favouring the intervention group in both trials: adjusted mean difference at 24 weeks -0.7 (95% confidence interval -1.0 to -0.4) for parents or carers and -0.9 (-1.3 to -0.6) for young people. No harms were identified in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

Two online interventions for self-management of eczema aimed at parents or carers of children with eczema and at young people with eczema provide a useful, sustained benefit in managing eczema severity in children and young people when offered in addition to usual eczema care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN registry ISRCTN79282252.

'Eczema shouldn't control you; you should control eczema': qualitative process evaluation of online behavioural interventions to support young people and parents/carers of children with eczema

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of well-conducted randomized controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of theory-based online interventions for eczema. To address these deficiencies, we previously developed and demonstrated the effectiveness of two online behavioural interventions: Eczema Care Online for parents/carers of children with eczema, and Eczema Care Online for young people with eczema.

OBJECTIVES

To explore the views and experiences of people who have used the Eczema Care Online interventions to provide insights into how the interventions worked and identify contextual factors that may impede users' engagement with the interventions.

METHODS

Qualitative semistructured interviews were conducted with 17 parents/carers of children with eczema and 17 young people with eczema. Participants were purposively sampled from two randomized controlled trials of the interventions and recruited from GP surgeries in England. Transcripts were analysed using inductive thematic analysis, and intervention modifications were identified using the person-based approach table of changes method.

RESULTS

Both young people and parents/carers found the interventions easy to use, relatable and trustworthy, and perceived that they helped them to manage their eczema, thus suggesting that Eczema Care Online may be acceptable to its target groups. Our analysis suggested that the interventions may reduce eczema severity by facilitating empowerment among its users, specifically through improved understanding of, and confidence in, eczema management, reduced treatment concerns, and improved treatment adherence and management of irritants/triggers. Reading about the experiences of others with eczema helped people to feel 'normal' and less alone. Some (mainly young people) expressed firmly held negative beliefs about topical corticosteroids, views that were not influenced by the intervention. Minor improvements to the design and navigation of the Eczema Care Online interventions and content changes were identified and made, ready for wider implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

People with eczema and their families can benefit from reliable information, specifically information on the best and safest ways to use their eczema treatments early in their eczema journey. Together, our findings from this study and the corresponding trials suggest wider implementation of Eczema Care Online (EczemaCareOnline.org.uk) is justified.

Is routine laboratory testing in healthy young patients taking isotretinoin necessary: a critically appraised topic

CLINICAL QUESTION

Is monitoring of liver function, lipids and full blood count necessary in healthy people taking isotretinoin?

BACKGROUND

Routine blood testing was recommended in the original licence for Roaccutane™ (isotretinoin) in 1983. In recent years, less frequent monitoring has been suggested by various authors.

DATA SOURCES

We performed four individual systematic searches of the MEDLINE database, via PubMed, from origin to 2 May 2021, supplemented by a hand search of all references in the identified papers.

STUDY SELECTION

Inclusion criteria were any description of clinical symptoms, laboratory abnormalities and/or physical findings, and any paper that explicitly described the patients as asymptomatic, during treatment with oral isotretinoin.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two independent reviewers (J.A. and D.J.) assessed articles for eligibility of inclusion. Evaluation of the data was done also by two of the authors (A.A., D.J. and J.A.) for each section, with the aim to use the presented evidence including guidelines, databases, case series, case reports, cohort studies and randomized clinical trials to delineate the clinical presentation and frequency of adverse events that might be amenable to laboratory monitoring.

RESULTS

We identified 407 papers in our searches and reviewed 125 papers in four sections. Overall, reported adverse events were very rare (< 1 in 10 000) and were either idiosyncratic or not preventable by monitoring, accompanied by symptoms, or seen in identifiable predisposed individuals who might benefit from monitoring because of pre-existing conditions.

RECOMMENDATION FOR CLINICAL CARE

We could not find evidence to support the benefit of monitoring to detect adverse events. We suggest that in healthy young people laboratory monitoring for oral isotretinoin is unnecessary and risks detecting nonserious biochemical abnormalities. However, we recognize that new information about adverse events may change that recommendation.

Measuring Atopic Eczema Control and Itch Intensity in Clinical Practice: A Consensus Statement From the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema in Clinical Practice (HOME-CP) Initiative

Importance

Measuring outcomes in clinical practice can aid patient care, quality improvement, and real-world evidence generation. The Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) Clinical Practice initiative is developing a list of validated, feasible instruments to measure atopic eczema in clinical care. Prior work identified symptoms and long-term control as the most important domains to measure in clinical practice. The Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) and the Patient-Oriented Scoring Atopic Dermatitis Index (PO-SCORAD) were recommended by consensus to measure symptoms in clinical practice, but a need for instruments to measure itch intensity specifically was recognized. The HOME group also previously decided that long-term control should be captured by repeated measurements of eczema control. Recommended instruments to measure eczema control in clinical practice have not been defined.

Objective

To recommend instruments to measure eczema control and itch intensity in patients with atopic eczema in clinical practice.

Evidence Review

Available instruments to measure eczema control and itch intensity were identified through systematic reviews, informing a consensus process held at the HOME VIII virtual online meeting (October 6 and October 9, 2020). Feasibility aspects were highlighted to optimize instrument selection for the clinical practice. Consensus on an instrument was reached if fewer than 30% of the voters disagreed.

Findings

Of 7 identified instruments, the Recap of Atopic Eczema (RECAP) and Atopic Dermatitis Control Tool (ADCT) were the recommended instruments to measure eczema control (3 of 63 [5%] and 7 of 69 [10%] of voters disagreed, respectively). A single-question patient global assessment garnered support, but the current available instrument did not reach consensus. Six available itch-intensity instruments were identified. Of them, 3 instruments were recommended by consensus: a peak 24-hour numeric rating scale (NRS)-itch, and 1-week NRS-itch instruments from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Itch Questionnaire, measuring average and peak itch (11 of 63 [17%], 14 of 63 [22%], and 16 of 59 [27%] voters disagreed, respectively).

Conclusions and Relevance

Clinicians and patients are encouraged to incorporate these well-validated, quick-to-perform, and easy-to-use instruments into their clinic, selecting the instruments that best fit their need. These assessments are meant to enhance, not replace, the patient-clinician encounter, and to support real-world research and health care improvement.

Skin care interventions in infants for preventing eczema and food allergy

BACKGROUND

Eczema and food allergy are common health conditions that usually begin in early childhood and often occur in the same people. They can be associated with an impaired skin barrier in early infancy. It is unclear whether trying to prevent or reverse an impaired skin barrier soon after birth is effective for preventing eczema or food allergy.

OBJECTIVES

Primary objective To assess the effects of skin care interventions such as emollients for primary prevention of eczema and food allergy in infants. Secondary objective To identify features of study populations such as age, hereditary risk, and adherence to interventions that are associated with the greatest treatment benefit or harm for both eczema and food allergy.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed an updated search of the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase in September 2021. We searched two trials registers in July 2021. We checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews, and scanned conference proceedings to identify further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs).  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs of skin care interventions that could potentially enhance skin barrier function, reduce dryness, or reduce subclinical inflammation in healthy term (> 37 weeks) infants (≤ 12 months) without pre-existing eczema, food allergy, or other skin condition. Eligible comparisons were standard care in the locality or no treatment. Types of skin care interventions could include moisturisers/emollients; bathing products; advice regarding reducing soap exposure and bathing frequency; and use of water softeners. No minimum follow-up was required.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

This is a prospective individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures, and primary analyses used the IPD dataset. Primary outcomes were cumulative incidence of eczema and cumulative incidence of immunoglobulin (Ig)E-mediated food allergy by one to three years, both measured at the closest available time point to two years. Secondary outcomes included adverse events during the intervention period; eczema severity (clinician-assessed); parent report of eczema severity; time to onset of eczema; parent report of immediate food allergy; and allergic sensitisation to food or inhalant allergen.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 33 RCTs comprising 25,827 participants. Of these, 17 studies randomising 5823 participants reported information on one or more outcomes specified in this review.  We included 11 studies, randomising 5217 participants, in one or more meta-analyses (range 2 to 9 studies per individual meta-analysis), with 10 of these studies providing IPD; the remaining 6 studies were included in the narrative results only.   Most studies were conducted at children's hospitals. Twenty-five studies, including all those contributing data to meta-analyses, randomised newborns up to age three weeks to receive a skin care intervention or standard infant skin care. Eight of the 11 studies contributing to meta-analyses recruited infants at high risk of developing eczema or food allergy, although the definition of high risk varied between studies. Durations of intervention and follow-up ranged from 24 hours to three years. All interventions were compared against no skin care intervention or local standard care. Of the 17 studies that reported information on our prespecified outcomes, 13 assessed emollients. We assessed most of the evidence in the review as low certainty and had some concerns about risk of bias. A rating of some concerns was most often due to lack of blinding of outcome assessors or significant missing data, which could have impacted outcome measurement but was judged unlikely to have done so. We assessed the evidence for the primary food allergy outcome as high risk of bias due to the inclusion of only one trial, where findings varied based on different assumptions about missing data. Skin care interventions during infancy probably do not change the risk of eczema by one to three years of age (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.31; risk difference 5 more cases per 1000 infants, 95% CI 28 less to 47 more; moderate-certainty evidence; 3075 participants, 7 trials) or time to onset of eczema (hazard ratio 0.86, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.14; moderate-certainty evidence; 3349 participants, 9 trials). Skin care interventions during infancy may increase the risk of IgE-mediated food allergy by one to three years of age (RR 2.53, 95% CI 0.99 to 6.49; low-certainty evidence; 976 participants, 1 trial) but may not change risk of allergic sensitisation to a food allergen by age one to three years (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.71; low-certainty evidence; 1794 participants, 3 trials). Skin care interventions during infancy may slightly increase risk of parent report of immediate reaction to a common food allergen at two years (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.61; low-certainty evidence; 1171 participants, 1 trial); however, this was only seen for cow's milk, and may be unreliable due to over-reporting of milk allergy in infants. Skin care interventions during infancy probably increase risk of skin infection over the intervention period (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.75; risk difference 17 more cases per 1000 infants, 95% CI one more to 38 more; moderate-certainty evidence; 2728 participants, 6 trials) and may increase the risk of infant slippage over the intervention period (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.99; low-certainty evidence; 2538 participants, 4 trials) and stinging/allergic reactions to moisturisers (RR 2.24, 95% 0.67 to 7.43; low-certainty evidence; 343 participants, 4 trials), although CIs for slippages and stinging/allergic reactions were wide and include the possibility of no effect or reduced risk. Preplanned subgroup analyses showed that the effects of interventions were not influenced by age, duration of intervention, hereditary risk, filaggrin (FLG) mutation, chromosome 11 intergenic variant rs2212434, or classification of intervention type for risk of developing eczema. We could not evaluate these effects on risk of food allergy. Evidence was insufficient to show whether adherence to interventions influenced the relationship between skin care interventions and eczema or food allergy development.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on low- to moderate-certainty evidence, skin care interventions such as emollients during the first year of life in healthy infants are probably not effective for preventing eczema; may increase risk of food allergy; and probably increase risk of skin infection. Further study is needed to understand whether different approaches to infant skin care might prevent eczema or food allergy.

Emollients for prevention of atopic dermatitis; 5-year findings from the BEEP randomised trial

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of emollients for preventing atopic dermatitis/eczema is controversial. The Barrier Enhancement for Eczema Prevention trial evaluated the effects of daily emollients during the first year of life on atopic dermatitis and atopic conditions to age 5 years.

METHODS

1394 term infants with a family history of atopic disease were randomised (1:1) to daily emollient plus standard skin-care advice (693 emollient group) or standard skin-care advice alone (701 controls). Long-term follow-up at ages 3, 4 and 5 years was via parental questionnaires. Main outcomes were parental report of a clinical diagnosis of atopic dermatitis and food allergy.

RESULTS

Parents reported more frequent moisturiser application in the emollient group through to 5 years. A clinical diagnosis of atopic dermatitis between 12 and 60 months was reported for 188/608 (31%) in the emollient group and 178/631 (28%) in the control group (adjusted relative risk 1.10, 95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.30). Although more parents in the emollient group reported food reactions in the previous year at 3 and 4 years, cumulative incidence of doctor diagnosed food allergy by 5 years was similar between groups (92/609 (15%) emollients and 87/632 (14%) controls, adjusted relative risk 1.11, 95% confidence interval 0.84 to 1.45). Findings were similar for cumulative incidence of asthma and hay fever.

CONCLUSIONS

Daily emollient application during the first year of life does not prevent atopic dermatitis, food allergy, asthma or hay fever.

On the definition of dermatological disease. Part 1: conceptual frameworks

Little attention is paid to disease definition in dermatology and how such definitions come about, yet defining a disease is a fundamental step upon which all subsequent clinical management and prognostic judgements depend. Developing diagnostic criteria is also a critically important step for research purposes so that studies referring to groups of people can be compared in a meaningful way. This short review introduces the concepts of regressive and progressive nosology, and how definitions of a dermatological disease can evolve in a useful way as knowledge about that disease increases. It also highlights the dangers of panchrestons - names that try to explain all yet end up explaining very little. It also considers approaches to disease definition, such as whether a binary yes/no or continuous approach is more appropriate. Conceptual frameworks including essentialistic vs. nominalistic approaches using the biomedical or biopsychosocial perspectives are articulated. The review then illustrates hazards of underdiagnosis and overdiagnosis, and introduces the notion of 'disease mongering' - the selling of disease in order to promote the use of medicines. The review concludes with a reaffirmation of the importance of defining dermatological disease, and why any new diagnostic criteria must be shown to increase predictive ability before they are assimilated into clinical practice and research.

On the definition of dermatological disease. Part 2: approaches for defining dermatological diseases

In Part 1 of this two-part review, conceptual frameworks for defining skin diseases were articulated. In this review, the main approaches that can be used to develop diagnostic criteria for skin disease are summarized, using atopic dermatitis (AD) as an example. Different frameworks for defining skin disease for research purposes are articulated, including statistical, prognostic, operational, clinical and epidemiological approaches. All share the common aim of attempting to develop criteria that enable meaningful comparisons between groups of people. The desirable attributes of a good definition are described: diagnostic criteria should measure what they are meant to measure; the results should be the same for different assessors; the criteria should be coherent with what is known about that disease; they should reflect some degree of morbidity and not pick up subclinical disease; they should be easy to administer; and they should be applicable to a range of people of different ages, sexes/genders and ethnicities. Consensus-based criteria are contrasted with epidemiological derivation methods that assess the performance of diagnostic criteria in relation to a reference standard. The sensitivity and specificity of a disease definition is explained, along with how the trade-off between these two properties can vary, depending on the purpose of the study and the study setting. The review closes with some reflections on when it is appropriate to consider splitting a disease into more than one category and how diagnostic criteria can be interpreted in the clinical setting.

Is vaccination against Covid-19 associated with autoimmune rheumatic disease flare? A self-controlled case series analysis

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the association between vaccination against Covid-19 and autoimmune rheumatic disease (AIRD) flare.

METHODS

Patients with AIRDs vaccinated against Covid-19 who consulted for disease flare between 01/12/2020 and 31/12/2021 were ascertained in Clinical Practice Research Datalink (Aurum). AIRD flare was defined as consultation for AIRD with corticosteroid prescription on the same day or the next day. Vaccination was defined using date of vaccination and product code. The observation period was partitioned into vaccine-exposed (21-days after vaccination), pre-vaccination (7-days before vaccination), and remaining vaccine-unexposed periods. Participants contributed data with multiple vaccinations and outcomes. Season adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using self-controlled case-series analysis.

RESULTS

Data for 3554 AIRD cases, 72% female, mean age 65 years, and 68.3% with rheumatoid arthritis were included. Covid-19 vaccination was associated with significantly fewer AIRD flares in the 21-day vaccine-exposed period when all vaccinations were considered (aIRR(95%CI) 0.89(0.80-0.98)). Using dose-stratified analyses there was a statistically significant negative association in 21-days after first Covid-19 vaccination but no association after the second or third Covid-19 vaccinations (aIRR(95%CI) 0.76(0.66-0.89), 0.94(0.79-1.11) and 1.01(0.85-1.20) respectively). On AIRD type stratified analyses, vaccination was not associated with disease flares. Vaccination without or after SARS-CoV-2 infection, and with vectored DNA or mRNA vaccines associated with comparable reduced risk of AIRD flares in the vaccine-exposed period after first Covid-19 vaccination.

CONCLUSION

Vaccination against Covid-19 was not associated with increased AIRD flares regardless of prior Covid-19, AIRD type, and whether mRNA or DNA vaccination technology were used.

Effect of a 2-week interruption in methotrexate treatment versus continued treatment on COVID-19 booster vaccine immunity in adults with inflammatory conditions (VROOM study): a randomised, open label, superiority trial

BACKGROUND

Immunosuppressive treatments inhibit vaccine-induced immunity against SARS-CoV-2. We evaluated whether a 2-week interruption of methotrexate treatment immediately after the COVID-19 vaccine booster improved antibody responses against the S1 receptor-binding domain (S1-RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein compared with uninterrupted treatment in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.

METHODS

We did an open-label, prospective, two-arm, parallel-group, multicentre, randomised, controlled, superiority trial in 26 hospitals in the UK. We recruited adults from rheumatology and dermatology clinics who had been diagnosed with an immune-mediated inflammatory disease (eg, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis with or without arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, atopic dermatitis, polymyalgia rheumatica, and systemic lupus erythematosus) and who were taking low-dose weekly methotrexate (≤25 mg per week) for at least 3 months. Participants also had to have received two primary vaccine doses from the UK COVID-19 vaccination programme. We randomly assigned the participants (1:1), using a centralised validated computer randomisation program, to suspend methotrexate treatment for 2 weeks immediately after their COVID-19 booster (suspend methotrexate group) or to continue treatment as usual (continue methotrexate group). Participants, investigators, clinical research staff, and data analysts were unmasked, while researchers doing the laboratory analyses were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was S1-RBD antibody titres 4 weeks after receiving the COVID-19 booster vaccine dose, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ISRCT, ISRCTN11442263; following the pre-planned interim analysis, recruitment was stopped early.

FINDINGS

Between Sept 30, 2021 and March 3, 2022, we recruited 340 participants, of whom 254 were included in the interim analysis and had been randomly assigned to one of the two groups: 127 in the continue methotrexate group and 127 in the suspend methotrexate group. Their mean age was 59·1 years, 155 (61%) were female, 130 (51%) had rheumatoid arthritis, and 86 (34%) had psoriasis with or without arthritis. After 4 weeks, the geometric mean S1-RBD antibody titre was 22 750 U/mL (95% CI 19 314-26 796) in the suspend methotrexate group and 10 798 U/mL (8970-12 997) in the continue methotrexate group, with a geometric mean ratio (GMR) of 2·19 (95% CI 1·57-3·04; p<0·0001; mixed-effects model). The increased antibody response in the suspend methotrexate group was consistent across methotrexate dose, administration route, type of immune-mediated inflammatory disease, age, primary vaccination platform, and history of SARS-CoV-2 infection. There were no intervention-related serious adverse events.

INTERPRETATION

A 2-week interruption of methotrexate treatment for people with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases resulted in enhanced boosting of antibody responses after COVID-19 vaccination. This intervention is simple, low-cost, and easy to implement, and could potentially translate to increased vaccine efficacy and duration of protection for susceptible groups.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Detecting Eczema Areas in Digital Images: An Impossible Task?

Assessing the severity of atopic dermatitis (AD, or eczema) traditionally relies on a face-to-face assessment by healthcare professionals and may suffer from inter- and intra-rater variability. With the expanding role of telemedicine, several machine learning algorithms have been proposed to automatically assess AD severity from digital images. Those algorithms usually detect and then delineate (segment) AD lesions before assessing lesional severity and are trained using the data of AD areas detected by healthcare professionals. To evaluate the reliability of such data, we estimated the inter-rater reliability of AD segmentation in digital images. Four dermatologists independently segmented AD lesions in 80 digital images collected in a published clinical trial. We estimated the inter-rater reliability of the AD segmentation using the intraclass correlation coefficient at the pixel and the area levels for different resolutions of the images. The average intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.45 ( standard error = 0.04 ) corresponding to a poor agreement between raters, whereas the degree of agreement for AD segmentation varied from image to image. The AD segmentation in digital images is highly rater dependent even among dermatologists. Such limitations need to be taken into consideration when AD segmentation data are used to train machine learning algorithms that assess eczema severity.