Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME).Report from the First International Consensus Meeting (HOME 1), 24 July 2010, Munich, Germany

Defining and Measuring the Scope of Atopic Dermatitis

Atopic dermatitis (AD) has no definitive diagnostic test and has a large range of phenotypes, making it a difficult disease to assess and define. However, an agreed-upon definition of AD is important for clinical trials, population-based studies, and clinical practice. Several diagnostic criteria systems have been proposed to fill these needs, with none considered the gold standard. To further aid in standardized assessment of AD patients, numerous disease severity and quality-of-life measurement tools have been proposed. There is similarly no gold standard and efforts are ongoing to develop a single consensus scale. Finally, assessment of AD-associated comorbidities, including allergic/immunologic conditions, psychiatric disorders, and metabolic/cardiac conditions, is important when evaluating this patient population.

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.

An Assessment of Current Clinician-Reported and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Alopecia Areata: A Scoping Review

Although progress has been made in developing outcome measures for AA, the use of these measures remains unstandardized. A scoping review was conducted to identify the clinician-reported outcome measures (ClinROMs) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in assessing and treating AA, the results of which revealed heterogeneity in AA outcome measures. Of 23 research studies ultimately included, only 2 ClinROMs were used by >15% of studies; likewise, of 110 clinical trials evaluated, numerous outcome instruments were used, but only one ClinROM was used by >5% of trials (Severity of Alopecia Tool). These results suggest the need for consensus and standardization in both research and trial settings.

The research status and progress of core outcome set in oral health

The core outcome set (COS) refers to the minimum set of outcomes that should be reported by all clinical trials in a particular health field. The use of COS in clinical studies can reduce the heterogeneity caused by using different outcomes across different clinical studies, facilitate the systematic review of different clinical studies on the same topic, reduce selective reporting bias, and increase the utility of clinical studies. The importance of COS in oral health has recently been recognized. This review summarizes the history, necessity, and key methodological points of COS development, with emphasis on the research status and existing problems in COS development, in the field of oral health.

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.

Protocol for the development of an international Core Outcome Set for treatment trials in adults with epilepsy: the EPilepsy outcome Set for Effectiveness Trials Project (EPSET)

Background

A Core Outcome Set (COS) is a standardised list of outcomes that should be reported as a minimum in all clinical trials. In epilepsy, the choice of outcomes varies widely among existing studies, particularly in clinical trials. This diminishes opportunities for informed decision-making, contributes to research waste and is a barrier to integrating findings in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Furthermore, the outcomes currently being measured may not reflect what is important to people with epilepsy.

Therefore, we aim to develop a COS specific to clinical effectiveness research for adults with epilepsy using Delphi consensus methodology.

Methods

The EPSET Study will comprise of three phases and follow the core methodological principles as outlined by the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative. Phase 1 will include two focused literature reviews to identify candidate outcomes from the qualitative literature and current outcome measurement practice in phase III and phase IV clinical trials. Phase 2 aims to achieve international consensus to define which outcomes should be measured as a minimum in future trials, using a Delphi process including an online consensus meeting involving key stakeholders. Phase 3 will involve dissemination of the ratified COS to facilitate uptake in future trials and the planning of further research to identify the most appropriate measurement instruments to use to capture the COS in research practice.

Discussion

Harmonising outcome measurement across future clinical trials should ensure that the outcomes measured are relevant to patients and health services, and allow for more meaningful results to be obtained.

Core Outcome Set registration

COMET Initiative as study 118.

Protocol for development of a core outcome set for clinical trials in melasma

INTRODUCTION

Melasma is a pigmentation disorder of the skin. Characterised by brown to gray-brown patches on the face and neck, the condition predominantly affects women and has been associated with pregnancy, hormonal variation and sun exposure. Melasma can be disfiguring and anxiety-provoking, and quality of life is often adversely impacted. Management includes sun protection, laser and energy device therapy, topical and oral skin-bleaching agents and chemical peels. While clinical trials of melasma exist, there is a lack of consistency in reported outcomes, which has been a barrier to the aggregation of data in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. This protocol describes a planned process for development of a minimum set of outcomes (ie, 'core outcome set') that should be measured in all clinical trials of melasma.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

An exhaustive list of potential outcomes will be extracted from four sources: (1) systematic literature review of outcomes in clinical trials; (2) semistructured patient interviews; (3) brochures, pamphlets, clinical trial registries, and other published and unpublished sources and documentation; and (4) interviews with non-patient, non-physician stakeholders, including federal regulators, industry scientists and non-physician providers. An international two-round Delphi process will then be performed to identify the outcomes deemed most important to patients and physicians. Subsequently, a consensus meeting will be convened to review and process the results, and to vote on a final set of core outcomes.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval was provided by the Northwestern University Institutional Review Board (protocol ID: STU00201637). This study is registered with both the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials and Cochrane Skin-Core Outcome Set Initiative initiatives, and this protocol is in accordance with the guidelines for protocol development of both groups. All findings from the study described in this protocol will be disseminated to all stakeholders involved in the development process and will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020214189.

Quality of life in patients with allergic and immunologic skin diseases: in the eye of the beholder

Allergic and immunologic skin diseases negatively impact the quality of life (QoL) of affected patients with detrimental consequences. Nonetheless, in everyday clinical practice the evaluation of QoL is often overlooked. Considering the increasing prevalence of atopic dermatitis, allergic contact dermatitis, hereditary angioedema, cutaneous mastocytosis, and urticaria, it is essential to determine the effects of allergic and immunologic skin diseases on QoL. A joint meeting (GET TOGETHER 2021) of the Italian Society of Allergology, Asthma and Clinical Immunology (SIAAIC) and the Italian Society of Allergological, Occupational and Environmental Dermatology (SIDAPA) aimed to summarize the features of the main QoL tools used in these diseases and to describe the extent of QoL impairment as well as the impact of treatments on QoL, particularly biologic therapies. The assessment of QoL in patients with allergic and immunologic skin diseases relies on generic, organ-specific and disease-specific questionnaires. While generic and organ-specific questionnaires allow comparison between different diseases, disease-specific questionnaires are designed and validated for specific cohorts: the QoL Index for Atopic Dermatitis (QoLIAD) and the Childhood Atopic Dermatitis Impact Scale (CADIS) in atopic dermatitis, the ACD-11 in allergic contact dermatitis, the Angioedema QoL Questionnaire (AE-QoL) and the Hereditary Angioedema QoL questionnaire (HAE-QoL) in hereditary angioedema, the Mastocytosis QoL Questionnaires (MCQoL e MQLQ) in cutaneous mastocytosis, and the Chronic Urticaria QoL questionnaire (CU-Q2oL) in urticaria. Among the many factors that variably contribute to QoL impairment, pruritus can represent the leading cause of patient discomfort. Biologic therapies significantly ameliorate QoL in atopic dermatitis, hereditary angioedema, mastocytosis and chronic urticaria. In general, adequate management strategies are essential for improving QoL in patients with allergic and immunologic skin diseases.

Postinflammatory hyperpigmentation: protocol for development of a core outcome set for clinical trials

Postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH) is a disorder of pigmentation that is a common presenting complaint, especially in individuals with skin of color. It is associated with a significant psychological burden and decrement of quality of life. Management options include photoprotection, topical lightening agents, and lasers and energy devices. Clinical trials of melasma report a diversity of outcomes, which often impedes synthesis of results across trials, or comparison of results associated with different treatment modalities. This protocol describes the design of a consensus process that would culminate in the development of a core set of outcomes to be assessed in all clinical trials for PIH. A long list of candidate outcomes will be developed through a systematic review, combined with semi-structured interviews with various stakeholders, including patients, scientists, regulators, and health care professionals. This long list of outcomes will be reviewed and refined by a steering committee. Then two rounds of Delphi surveys of patient and physician groups, respectively, will be used to cull the list, with provisional inclusion of those items deemed "important" by 70% of the respondents. A consensus meeting will be held virtually or in person to vote on these items, and also to consider any changes necessary before acceptance of a final core outcome set. Development of a core outcome set for PIH is expected to improve and standardize outcomes reporting in current and future clinical trials. This, in turn, may facilitate aggregation of research results and permit comparison of outcomes across multiple studies.

How to measure itch in atopic dermatitis?

Linked Article:Silverberg et al. Br J Dermatol 2020; 183:891–898.

Measuring atopic eczema symptoms in clinical practice: The first consensus statement from the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema in clinical practice initiative

BACKGROUND

Measuring patient-centered outcomes in clinical practice is valuable for monitoring patients and advancing real-world research. A new initiative from the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) group aims to recommend what might be recorded for atopic eczema patients in routine clinical care.

OBJECTIVES

Prioritize outcome domains to measure atopic eczema in clinical practice and select valid and practical outcome measurement instruments for the highest-priority domain.

METHODS

An online survey of HOME members identified and ranked 21 possible health domains. Suitable instruments were then selected for the top-prioritized domain at the HOME VI meeting, using established consensus processes informed by systematic reviews of instrument quality.

RESULTS

Patient-reported symptoms was the top-prioritized domain. In accordance with psychometric properties and feasibility, there was consensus that the recommended instruments to measure atopic eczema symptoms in clinical practice are the POEM, the PO-SCORAD index, or both. The numeric rating scale for itch received support pending definition and validation in atopic eczema.

CONCLUSION

Following the first step of the HOME Clinical Practice initiative, we endorse using the POEM, the PO-SCORAD index, or both for measuring atopic eczema symptoms in clinical practice. Additional high-priority domains for clinical practice will be assessed at subsequent HOME meetings.

Consensus statements on pediatric atopic dermatitis from dermatology and pediatrics practitioners in Japan: Goals of treatment and topical therapy

BACKGROUND

Pediatric atopic dermatitis (PAD) is a pluricausal disease and is frequently seen in dermatological and pediatric practice. Therefore, it is important to find common views in clinical practice and to promote consensus among practitioners. Aiming to obtain common views among dermatologists and pediatricians and to disseminate them widely in clinical practice, we held the PAD Consensus Forums described herein.

METHODS

Questionnaire surveys of treatment goals and drug therapy were conducted to prepare topics for discussion at the PAD Consensus Forums. Reaching consensus was defined as agreement among at least 70% of the participants.

RESULTS

As a result of discussion among 24 dermatologists and 25 pediatricians, consensus was obtained on 7 topics. These topics configure 3 consensus of treatment goals (Attainment targets were divided into the short/medium term and the long term. Attainment targets were associated with the primary evaluation domains of the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) roadmap, etc.) and 4 consensus of drug therapy (The number of applications of topical anti-inflammatory drugs in the acute phase and selection and ideal intervals between applications of topical anti-inflammatory drugs in proactive therapy, etc.).

CONCLUSIONS

The consensus is expected to help practitioners set appropriate treatment goals in clinical practice and facilitate the choice of drugs for treatment.

Interventions for hand eczema

BACKGROUND

Hand eczema is an inflammation of the skin of the hands that tends to run a chronic, relapsing course. This common condition is often associated with itch, social stigma, and impairment in employment. Many different interventions of unknown effectiveness are used to treat hand eczema.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of topical and systemic interventions for hand eczema in adults and children.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following up to April 2018: Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, LILACS, GREAT, and four trials registries. We checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared interventions for hand eczema, regardless of hand eczema type and other affected sites, versus no treatment, placebo, vehicle, or active treatments.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Primary outcomes were participant- and investigator-rated good/excellent control of symptoms, and adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 60 RCTs, conducted in secondary care (5469 participants with mild to severe chronic hand eczema). Most participants were over 18 years old. The duration of treatment was short, generally up to four months. Only 24 studies included a follow-up period. Clinical heterogeneity in treatments and outcome measures was evident. Few studies performed head-to-head comparisons of different interventions. Risk of bias varied considerably, with only five studies at low risk in all domains. Twenty-two studies were industry-funded.Eighteen trials studied topical corticosteroids or calcineurin inhibitors; 10 studies, phototherapy; three studies, systemic immunosuppressives; and five studies, oral retinoids. Most studies compared an active intervention against no treatment, variants of the same medication, or placebo (or vehicle). Below, we present results from the main comparisons.Corticosteroid creams/ointments: when assessed 15 days after the start of treatment, clobetasol propionate 0.05% foam probably improves participant-rated control of symptoms compared to vehicle (risk ratio (RR) 2.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.38 to 3.91; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 3, 95% CI 2 to 8; 1 study, 125 participants); the effect of clobetasol compared to vehicle for investigator-rated improvement is less clear (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.40). More participants had at least one adverse event with clobetasol (11/62 versus 5/63; RR 2.24, 95% CI 0.82 to 6.06), including application site burning/pruritus. This evidence was rated as moderate certainty.When assessed 36 weeks after the start of treatment, mometasone furoate cream used thrice weekly may slightly improve investigator-rated symptom control compared to twice weekly (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.61; 1 study, 72 participants) after remission is reached. Participant-rated symptoms were not measured. Some mild atrophy was reported in both groups (RR 1.76, 95% CI 0.45 to 6.83; 5/35 versus 3/37). This evidence was rated as low certainty.Irradiation with ultraviolet (UV) light: local combination ultraviolet light therapy (PUVA) may lead to improvement in investigator-rated symptom control when compared to local narrow-band UVB after 12 weeks of treatment (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.16; 1 study, 60 participants). However, the 95% CI indicates that PUVA might make little or no difference. Participant-rated symptoms were not measured. Adverse events (mainly erythema) were reported by 9/30 participants in the narrow-band UVB group versus none in the PUVA group. This evidence was rated as moderate certainty.Topical calcineurin inhibitors: tacrolimus 0.1% over two weeks probably improves investigator-rated symptom control measured after three weeks compared to vehicle (14/14 tacrolimus versus 0/14 vehicle; 1 study). Participant-rated symptoms were not measured. Four of 14 people in the tacrolimus group versus zero in the vehicle group had well-tolerated application site burning/itching.A within-participant study in 16 participants compared 0.1% tacrolimus to 0.1% mometasone furoate but did not measure investigator- or participant-rated symptoms. Both treatments were well tolerated when assessed at two weeks during four weeks of treatment.Evidence from these studies was rated as moderate certainty.Oral interventions: oral cyclosporin 3 mg/kg/d probably slightly improves investigator-rated (RR 1.88, 95% CI 0.88 to 3.99; 1 study, 34 participants) or participant-rated (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.69 to 2.27) control of symptoms compared to topical betamethasone dipropionate 0.05% after six weeks of treatment. The risk of adverse events such as dizziness was similar between groups (up to 36 weeks; RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.86, n = 55; 15/27 betamethasone versus 19/28 cyclosporin). The evidence was rated as moderate certainty.Alitretinoin 10 mg improves investigator-rated symptom control compared with placebo (RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.07; NNTB 11, 95% CI 6.3 to 26.5; 2 studies, n = 781) and alitretinoin 30 mg also improves this outcome compared with placebo (RR 2.75, 95% CI 2.20 to 3.43; NNTB 4, 95% CI 3 to 5; 2 studies, n = 1210). Similar results were found for participant-rated symptom control: alitretinoin 10 mg RR 1.73 (95% CI 1.25 to 2.40) and 30 mg RR 2.75 (95% CI 2.18 to 3.48). Evidence was rated as high certainty. The number of adverse events (including headache) probably did not differ between alitretinoin 10 mg and placebo (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.55; 1 study, n = 158; moderate-certainty evidence), but the risk of headache increased with alitretinoin 30 mg (RR 3.43, 95% CI 2.45 to 4.81; 2 studies, n = 1210; high-certainty evidence). Outcomes were assessed between 48 and 72 weeks.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Most findings were from single studies with low precision, so they should be interpreted with caution. Topical corticosteroids and UV phototherapy were two of the major standard treatments, but evidence is insufficient to support one specific treatment over another. The effect of topical calcineurin inhibitors is not certain. Alitretinoin is more effective than placebo in controlling symptoms, but advantages over other treatments need evaluating.Well-designed and well-reported, long-term (more than three months), head-to-head studies comparing different treatments are needed. Consensus is required regarding the definition of hand eczema and its subtypes, and a standard severity scale should be established.The main limitation was heterogeneity between studies. Small sample size impacted our ability to detect differences between treatments.

Defining and measuring 'eczema control': an international qualitative study to explore the views of those living with and treating atopic eczema

Background

Atopic eczema (also known as eczema) is a chronic, inflammatory skin condition that often afflicts patients’ health and well‐being. The Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative recommends that ‘long‐term control of eczema’ is measured in all clinical trials 3 months or longer in duration. However, little has been published on what eczema control means to those living with or treating atopic eczema.

Objectives

To (i) develop understanding of what eczema control means to patients, carers and clinicians and (ii) explore the feasibility and acceptability of different ways of measuring eczema control in the long term.

Methods

Online focus groups explored patients/carers experiences in the UK, the United States, the Netherlands, France, Sweden and Japan, and an international online survey gathered views of clinicians. The framework method was used to analyse the focus groups, and thematic analysis was used to analyse survey data. All findings were integrated into a theoretical framework to create overarching themes that cut across these diverse groups.

Results

Eight focus groups with patients (16 years+) and eight groups with carers of children took place (N = 97). Sixty‐two people took part in the survey. Eczema control was described as a multifaceted construct involving changes in disease activity, the treatment and management of the condition and psychological, social and physical functioning. Patient/carer measurement allows personal accounts and frequent measurement, whilst clinician measurement was deemed less subjective. The burden on patients/carers and issues for analysing and interpreting data should be considered.

Conclusions

This study formed the basis of judging the content validity and feasibility of measurement instruments/methods to assess control of eczema in clinical trials. This online approach to an international qualitative study is an example of how core outcome set developers with limited resources can engage with multiple stakeholder groups on an international basis to inform consensus meeting discussions.

Symptoms and diagnosis of anxiety and depression in atopic dermatitis in U.S. adults

Background

The relationship between atopic dermatitis (AD), anxiety and depression in the U.S. adult population is not well established.

Objectives

To determine the relationship of AD and its severity with symptoms and diagnosis of anxiety and depression in U.S. adults.

Methods

A cross‐sectional, population‐based study of 2893 adults was performed. AD was determined using modified U.K. Diagnostic Criteria.

Results

Adults with AD vs. those without AD had higher mean Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale anxiety (HADS‐A) (7·7 vs. 5·6) and depression (HADS‐D) (6·0 vs. 4·3) scores and higher prevalences of abnormal (≥ 11) HADS‐A (28·6% vs. 15·5%) and HADS‐D (13·5% vs. 9·0%) scores. In multivariable linear and logistic regression models controlling for sociodemographics, AD was associated with significantly higher mean HADS‐A and HADS‐D scores (7·7 and 6·0) and higher odds of abnormal HADS‐A [odds ratio (OR) 2·19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1·65–2·91] and HADS‐D scores (OR 1·50, 95% CI 1·04–2·17) (P ≤ 0·03 for all). Mean and abnormal HADS‐A and HADS‐D scores were increased in moderate and severe/very severe self‐reported global AD severity, Patient‐Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), Patient‐Oriented Scoring AD (PO‐SCORAD), PO‐SCORAD itch and sleep (P < 0·0001 for all). All respondents with severe PO‐SCORAD, POEM and PO‐SCORAD itch had borderline or abnormal HADS‐A and HADS‐D scores. Adults with AD vs. those without AD had higher prevalence of self‐reported healthcare‐diagnosed anxiety or depression in the past year (40·0% vs. 17·5%). Many adults with AD who had borderline and/or abnormal HADS‐A or HADS‐D scores reported no diagnosis of anxiety or depression.

Conclusions

AD is associated with significantly increased anxiety and depression, which may go undiagnosed.

What's already known about this topic?

Previous studies found higher rates of anxiety and depression in clinical cohorts of patients with atopic dermatitis.

What does this study add?

This study found dramatically higher rates of anxiety and depression among adults with atopic dermatitis in the U.S. population, which was primarily driven by atopic dermatitis severity.

Anxiety and depression often go undiagnosed in adults with atopic dermatitis.

Linked Comment: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.18252.

https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.18278 available online

https://www.bjdonline.com/article/Chronic-urticaria-and-osteoporosis-a-longitudinal-community-based-cohort-study-of-11944-patients/

Content and construct validity, predictors, and distribution of self-reported atopic dermatitis severity in US adults

BACKGROUND

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is associated with skin lesions, multiple symptoms, and effect of quality of life, all of which factor into disease severity. Self-reported global AD severity may be a valid severity assessment for epidemiologic research.

OBJECTIVE

To validate self-reported global AD severity in a representative cohort of adults with AD.

METHODS

Preliminary probing-cognitive interviews were performed (n = 8). Next, a cross-sectional US population-based survey study of adults with AD was performed. AD was diagnosed using an adap/tation of the UK Working Party criteria (n = 602). AD severity was assessed using self-reported global AD severity (mild, moderate, severe), Patient-Oriented Scoring AD (PO-SCORAD), Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS)-itch, NRS-sleep, NRS-pain, and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS).

RESULTS

Self-reported global AD severity had good content validity. Self-reported global AD severity had strong correlations with PO-SCORAD (Spearman correlation ρ = 0.61) and objective PO-SCORAD (ρ = 0.61); moderate correlations with POEM (ρ = 0.54), NRS-itch (ρ = 0.44), NRS-pain (ρ = 0.46), and HADS (ρ = 0.41); and weak correlation with NRS-sleep (ρ = .32) (P < .001 for all). Consistent and significant correlations were observed in stratified analyses by age, sex, race/ethnicity, and level of education. There were stepwise increases of PO-SCORAD, NRS-itch, NRS-sleep, NRS-pain, POEM, and HADS with increasing self-reported global AD severity (Kruskal-Wallis test, P < .01). There was weak-moderate concordance between self-reported AD severity and established severity strata for PO-SCORAD (ρ = 0.44), NRS-itch (ρ = 0.30), and POEM (ρ = 0.43). Rather, self-reported global AD severity was best predicted by a combination of PO-SCORAD, POEM, NRS-itch, NRS-pain, and HADS. No differential item reporting was found by age, sex, or race/ethnicity.

CONCLUSION

Self-reported AD severity simultaneously assesses multiple AD constructs and appears to be sufficiently valid for assessing AD severity in clinical and epidemiologic studies.

Measurement properties of three assessments of burden used in atopic dermatitis in adults

BACKGROUND

Standardized quality-of-life (QoL) assessments can provide important and clinically relevant information. There is currently a lack of standardization in QoL assessments used in atopic dermatitis (AD).

OBJECTIVES

To determine the content validity, construct validity, internal consistency, differential reporting, responsiveness, floor or ceiling effects and feasibility of the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), Itchy Quality of Life (ItchyQoL) and 5-dimensions (5-D) itch scales for assessing burden of AD in adults and to compare their performance.

METHODS

Self-administered questionnaires and skin examination were performed in 340 adults with AD in a dermatology practice setting.

RESULTS

DLQI, ItchyQoL and 5-D all had good content validity. DLQI, mean ItchyQoL and 5-D itch all had strong correlations with frequency of AD symptoms (Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure) and intensity of itch (numerical rating scale for itch), and moderate correlations with AD severity (Eczema Area and Severity Index and Scoring Atopic Dermatitis) (Spearman correlations, P < 0·001 for all). DLQI and 5-D itch showed good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0·89 and 0·84), although ItchyQoL appeared to have several redundant items (alpha = 0·96). Uniform and nonuniform differential item functioning by age, sex and/or race/ethnicity was found for multiple items in DLQI, ItchyQoL and 5-D itch. DLQI, ItchyQoL and 5-D itch scores all demonstrated responsiveness, although ItchyQoL demonstrated the greatest responsiveness. There were no floor or ceiling effects for total scores. The median times for completion of DLQI, ItchyQoL and 5-D itch were 2 min.

CONCLUSIONS

The DLQI, ItchyQoL and 5-D itch scales all showed good content and construct validity, and responsiveness in the assessment of AD in adults, and were feasible for use in clinical trials and practice.

Patient burden and quality of life in atopic dermatitis in US adults: A population-based cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

The patient burden and quality of life (QOL) impact of atopic dermatitis (AD) in the United States population is not well established.

OBJECTIVE

To elucidate the patient burden of AD in the US population.

METHODS

A cross-sectional, population-based study of 602 adults was performed. Atopic dermatitis was determined using modified UK Diagnostic Criteria for AD. Its severity was assessed using self-reported global AD severity, Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), Patient-Oriented Scoring AD (PO-SCORAD), PO-SCORAD-itch, and sleep. Quality of life was assessed using short-form (SF-)12 mental and physical health scores and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI).

RESULTS

Adults with AD reported higher proportions of having only fair/poor overall health (25.8% vs. 15.8%), being somewhat/very dissatisfied with life (16.7% vs 11.4%), lower weighted mean (standard deviation [SD]) SF-12 mental (45.9 [9.9] vs 50.9 [9.2]) and physical health subscores (53.0 [2.5] vs 53.5 [2.3]) and higher DLQI (4.9 [6.5] vs 1.1 [2.8]). In multivariable regression models adjusting for sociodemographics and multiple comorbid health disorders, significant stepwise decreases by AD severity (self-reported, POEM, PO-SCORAD) of overall health, life satisfaction, SF-12 mental health, and increases of DLQI scores were seen. The SF-12 physical health scores were only associated with moderate AD. Concurrently, severe PO-SCORAD, POEM, or PO-SCORAD-itch was associated with very low mean SF-12 mental health (34.7) and high DLQI scores (24.7). Atopic dermatitis commonly limited lifestyle (51.3%), led to avoidance of social interaction (39.1%), and impacted activities (43.3%). The most burdensome AD symptoms were itch (54.4%), excessive dryness/scaling (19.6%), and red/inflamed skin (7.2%).

CONCLUSION

These data support the heavy burden that AD places on patients, particularly those with moderate and severe AD.

Comparison of patient (POEM), observer (EASI, SASSAD, TIS) and corneometry measures of emollient effectiveness in children with eczema: findings from the COMET feasibility trial

BACKGROUND

Eczema affects around 20% of children, but multiple different outcome measures have hampered research into the effectiveness of different treatments.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the change in scores and correlations within and between five measures of eczema severity: Patient-Orientated Eczema Measure (POEM), Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), Six Area, Six Sign Atopic Dermatitis (SASSAD), Three Item Severity (TIS) and skin hydration (corneometry).

METHODS

Data from a feasibility trial that randomized young children with eczema to one of four emollients were used. Participants were followed for 3 months (84 days). Descriptive statistics (by emollient over time) and Spearman's correlation coefficients comparing scores at each time point and absolute change (between adjacent time points) for each outcome measure were calculated.

RESULTS

In total, 197 children, mean ± SD age 21·7 ± 12·8 months, were randomized. POEM and TIS appeared to capture a range of eczema severity at baseline, but only POEM had close approximation to normal distribution. Mean POEM, EASI, SASSAD and TIS scores improved month by month, with POEM showing the greatest sensitivity (effect size 0·42). Correlations within POEM, EASI, SASSAD and TIS were moderate to good, decreasing over time. Correlations between measures were strongest for EASI, SASSAD and TIS. By contrast, corneometry scores were more variable, correlated less well over time and were poorly correlated with the other measures.

CONCLUSIONS

Except for corneometry, all measures appear to change in relation to emollient use over time and correlate well with themselves. POEM demonstrated the greatest range of scores at baseline and change in eczema severity over the first 28 days.

Systematic review of atopic dermatitis disease definition in studies using routinely collected health data

BACKGROUND

Routinely collected electronic health data obtained for administrative and clinical purposes are increasingly used to study atopic dermatitis (AD). Methods for identifying AD patients in routinely collected electronic health data differ, and it is unknown how this might affect study results.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate how patients with AD have been identified in studies using routinely collected electronic health data, to determine whether these methods were validated and to estimate how the method for identifying patients with AD affected variability in prevalence estimates.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase and Web of Science for studies using routinely collected electronic health data that reported on AD as a primary outcome. Studies of localized AD and other types of dermatitis were excluded. The protocol for this review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42016037968).

RESULTS

In total, 59 studies met eligibility criteria. Medical diagnosis codes for inclusion and exclusion, number of occasions of a code, type of provider associated with a code and prescription data were used to identify patients with AD. Only two studies described validation of their methods and no study reported on disease severity. Prevalence estimates ranged from 0·18% to 38·33% (median 4·91%) and up to threefold variation in prevalence was introduced by differences in the method for identifying patients with AD.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review highlights the need for clear reporting of methods for identifying patients with AD in routinely collected electronic health data to allow for meaningful interpretation and comparison of results.

Patient-reported outcomes and quality of life measures in atopic dermatitis

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a complex and heterogeneous disorder with a profound symptom burden and harmful impact on multiple domains of quality of life (QOL). Many different patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures exist to assess clinical manifestations and QOL impairment in AD, but none comprehensively assess all aspects of the disease. This review addresses the PRO and QOL measures currently used in AD and their properties, strengths, weaknesses, and feasibility for assessing AD in randomized controlled trials and clinical practice. Currently, the patient-oriented eczema measure (POEM) has emerged as a preferred PRO for AD clinical manifestations, though no single instrument has developed as a preferred QOL measure. Validated PRO and QOL measures should be incorporated in all clinical trials of AD and in clinical practice where feasible.

Report from the fifth international consensus meeting to harmonize core outcome measures for atopic eczema/dermatitis clinical trials (HOME initiative)

This is the report from the fifth meeting of the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema initiative (HOME V). The meeting was held on 12-14 June 2017 in Nantes, France, with 81 participants. The main aims of the meeting were (i) to achieve consensus over the definition of the core domain of long-term control and how to measure it and (ii) to prioritize future areas of research for the measurement of the core domain of quality of life (QoL) in children. Moderated whole-group and small-group consensus discussions were informed by presentations of qualitative studies, systematic reviews and validation studies. Small-group allocations were performed a priori to ensure that each group included different stakeholders from a variety of geographical regions. Anonymous whole-group voting was carried out using handheld electronic voting pads according to predefined consensus rules. It was agreed by consensus that the long-term control domain should include signs, symptoms, quality of life and a patient global instrument. The group agreed that itch intensity should be measured when assessing long-term control of eczema in addition to the frequency of itch captured by the symptoms domain. There was no recommendation of an instrument for the core outcome domain of quality of life in children, but existing instruments were assessed for face validity and feasibility, and future work that will facilitate the recommendation of an instrument was agreed upon.

Increased attention-deficit/hyperactivity symptoms in atopic dermatitis are associated with history of antihistamine use

BACKGROUND

Epidemiologic evidence indicates a relevant association between atopic dermatitis (AD) and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Underlying mechanisms and ways to best identify subgroups of AD patients at risk for ADHD are poorly understood.

AIMS OF THE STUDY

To compare sociodemographic, clinical and psychosocial characteristics of children with AD, ADHD, comorbid AD/ADHD and age-matched healthy controls and to investigate aspects of AD related to ADHD symptoms.

METHODS

Applying a factorial design, we investigated 4 groups of children aged 6-12 years: AD-only (ie, without ADHD), ADHD-only (ie, without AD), AD + ADHD and healthy controls (HC; ie, no AD/no ADHD). Using validated instruments, ADHD symptoms and other behavioural problems, quality of life, parenting stress and sleeping problems were compared between groups. In children with AD-only, clinical signs (objective SCORAD), symptoms (POEM, VAS pruritus, VAS sleeping problems) and previous treatment of AD were assessed to investigate disease patterns related to ADHD symptoms.

RESULTS

Compared to HC (n = 47), children with AD-only (n = 42), ADHD-only (n = 34) and comorbid AD + ADHD (n = 31) had significantly increased behavioural problems and decreased quality of life. Children with AD-only had significantly higher levels of ADHD symptoms than HC. In children with AD-only, previous use of antihistamines was significantly associated with increased ADHD symptoms (OR 1.88; 95% CI 1.04-3.39). Current clinical signs and AD symptoms were unrelated to the level of ADHD symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Even if the clinical diagnosis of ADHD is excluded, children with AD show increased levels of ADHD symptoms. Further investigations need to determine whether early antihistamine exposure is a major risk factor for ADHD or a surrogate for previous AD severity and/or associated sleeping problems.

Systematic Review of Diagnostic Criteria Used in Atopic Dermatitis Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Numerous diagnostic criteria for atopic dermatitis are used in clinical trials, which may limit comparison of results.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to determine the most commonly used atopic dermatitis diagnostic criteria in randomized controlled trials internationally.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials with a pharmacological intervention from 2007 to 2016. Cochrane Library, EMBASE, GREAT, LILACS, MEDLINE, and Scopus were searched. Two authors independently performed the study selection and data extraction.

RESULTS

Two hundred and twelve randomized controlled trials met inclusion/exclusion criteria. Overall, ten different diagnostic criteria were used. The Hanifin and Rajka criteria were most commonly used (41.0%), followed by the UK refinement of the Hanifin and Rajka criteria (9.0%), Japanese Dermatological Association criteria (4.2%), and American Academy of Dermatology criteria (3.8%). No diagnostic criteria were specified in 37.3% of randomized controlled trials. The Hanifin and Rajka criteria were the most commonly used atopic dermatitis diagnostic criteria in clinical trials of topical and systemic interventions, across all years between 2007 and 2016, in pediatric and adult populations, in most countries and regions internationally.

CONCLUSIONS

The results highlight the lack of uniformity and documentation of atopic dermatitis diagnostic criteria in randomized controlled trials for atopic dermatitis. We recommend harmonizing the diagnostic criteria for atopic dermatitis in future randomized controlled trials.

Development of a core outcome set for clinical trials in basal cell carcinoma: study protocol for a systematic review of the literature and identification of a core outcome set using a Delphi survey

Background

Basal cell carcinoma is the most common skin cancer worldwide. Treatment options include both surgical and topical modalities. Although risk of metastasis is low, basal cell carcinoma can be invasive and infiltrate important underlying structures such as bone or cartilage. While many clinical trials examining therapies for basal cell carcinoma exist, the lack of consensus in outcome reporting across all trials poses a concern. Proper evaluation and comparison of treatment modalities is challenging. In order to address the inconsistencies present, this project aims to determine a core set of outcomes which should be evaluated in all clinical trials of basal cell carcinoma.

Methods/design

Outcomes will be extracted over four phases: (1) a systematic literature review, (2) patient interviews, (3) other published sources, and (4) stakeholder involvement. Potential outcomes will then be examined by the Steering Committee, who may add or remove outcomes. The Delphi process will then be performed to condense the list of outcomes generated. Two rounds of Delphi surveys will be performed with two groups of participants – physicians and patients. A consensus meeting with relevant stakeholders will be conducted after the Delphi exercise to further select outcomes, taking into account participant scores. By the end of the meeting, members will vote and decide on a final recommended set of core outcomes. For the duration of the study, we will be in collaboration with both the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative and the Cochrane Skin Group – Core Outcome Set Initiative (CSG-COUSIN).

Discussion

This study aims to develop a core outcome set to guide assessment in clinical trials on basal cell carcinoma. The end-goal is to improve the consistency of outcome reporting and allow proper evaluation of treatment effectiveness.

Development of a core outcome set for clinical trials in squamous cell carcinoma: study protocol for a systematic review of the literature and identification of a core outcome set using a Delphi survey

Background

Squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) is a common skin cancer that poses a risk of metastasis. Clinical investigations into SCC treatment are common, but the outcomes reported are highly variable, omitted, or clinically irrelevant. The outcome heterogeneity and reporting bias of these studies leave clinicians unable to accurately compare studies. Core outcome sets (COSs) are an agreed minimum set of outcomes recommended to be measured and reported in all clinical trials of a given condition or disease. Although COSs are under development for several dermatologic conditions, work has yet to be done to identify core outcomes specific for SCC.

Methods/design

Outcome extraction for COS generation will occur via four methods: (1) systematic literature review; (2) patient interviews; (3) other published sources; and (4) input from stakeholders in medicine, pharmacy, and other relevant industries. The list of outcomes will be revaluated by the Measuring PRiority Outcome Variables via Excellence in Dermatologic surgery (IMPROVED) Steering Committee. Delphi processes will be performed separately by expert clinicians and patients to condense the list of outcomes generated. A consensus meeting with relevant stakeholders will be conducted after the Delphi exercise to further select outcomes, taking into account participant scores. At the end of the meeting, members will vote and decide on a final recommended set of core outcomes. The Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) organization and the Cochrane Skin Group - Core Outcome Set Initiative (CSG-COUSIN) will serve as advisers throughout the COS generation process.

Discussion

Comparison of clinical trials via systematic reviews and meta-analyses is facilitated when investigators study outcomes that are relevant and similar. The aim of this project is to develop a COS to guide use for future clinical trials.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2069-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The COMET Handbook: version 1.0

The selection of appropriate outcomes is crucial when designing clinical trials in order to compare the effects of different interventions directly. For the findings to influence policy and practice, the outcomes need to be relevant and important to key stakeholders including patients and the public, health care professionals and others making decisions about health care. It is now widely acknowledged that insufficient attention has been paid to the choice of outcomes measured in clinical trials. Researchers are increasingly addressing this issue through the development and use of a core outcome set, an agreed standardised collection of outcomes which should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in all trials for a specific clinical area.Accumulating work in this area has identified the need for guidance on the development, implementation, evaluation and updating of core outcome sets. This Handbook, developed by the COMET Initiative, brings together current thinking and methodological research regarding those issues. We recommend a four-step process to develop a core outcome set. The aim is to update the contents of the Handbook as further research is identified.

A review of patient and carer participation and the use of qualitative research in the development of core outcome sets

Background

To be meaningful, a core outcome set (COS) should be relevant to all stakeholders including patients and carers. This review aimed to explore the methods by which patients and carers have been included as participants in COS development exercises and, in particular, the use and reporting of qualitative methods.

Methods

In August 2015, a search of the Core Outcomes Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database was undertaken to identify papers involving patients and carers in COS development. Data were extracted to identify the data collection methods used in COS development, the number of health professionals, patients and carers participating in these, and the reported details of qualitative research undertaken.

Results

Fifty-nine papers reporting patient and carer participation were included in the review, ten of which reported using qualitative methods. Although patients and carers participated in outcome elicitation for inclusion in COS processes, health professionals tended to dominate the prioritisation exercises. Of the ten qualitative papers, only three were reported as a clear pre-designed part of a COS process. Qualitative data were collected using interviews, focus groups or a combination of these. None of the qualitative papers reported an underpinning methodological framework and details regarding data saturation, reflexivity and resource use associated with data collection were often poorly reported. Five papers reported difficulty in achieving a diverse sample of participants and two reported that a large and varied range of outcomes were often identified by participants making subsequent rating and ranking difficult.

Conclusions

Consideration of the best way to include patients and carers throughout the COS development process is needed. Additionally, further work is required to assess the potential role of qualitative methods in COS, to explore the knowledge produced by different qualitative data collection methods, and to evaluate the time and resources required to incorporate qualitative methods into COS development.

Measurement properties of quality-of-life measurement instruments for infants, children and adolescents with eczema: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Quality of life (QoL) is one of the core outcome domains identified by the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative to be assessed in every eczema trial. There is uncertainty about the most appropriate QoL instrument to measure this domain in infants, children and adolescents.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically evaluate the measurement properties of existing measurement instruments developed and/or validated for the measurement of QoL in infants, children and adolescents with eczema.

METHODS

A systematic literature search in PubMed and Embase, complemented by a thorough hand search of reference lists, retrieved studies on measurement properties of eczema QoL instruments for infants, children and adolescents. For all eligible studies, we judged the adequacy of the measurement properties and the methodological study quality with the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. Results from different studies were summarized in a best-evidence synthesis and formed the basis to assign four degrees of recommendation.

RESULTS

Seventeen articles, three of which were found by hand search, were included. These 17 articles reported on 24 instruments. No instrument can be recommended for use in all eczema trials because none fulfilled all required adequacy criteria. With adequate internal consistency, reliability and hypothesis testing, the U.S. version of the Childhood Atopic Dermatitis Impact Scale (CADIS), a proxy-reported instrument, has the potential to be recommended depending on the results of further validation studies. All other instruments, including all self-reported ones, lacked significant validation data.

CONCLUSIONS

Currently, no QoL instrument for infants, children and adolescents with eczema can be highly recommended. Future validation research should primarily focus on the CADIS, but also attempt to broaden the evidence base for the validity of self-reported instruments.

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

BACKGROUND

Symptoms have been identified as a core outcome domain for atopic eczema (AE) trials. Various instruments exist to measure symptoms in AE, but they vary in quality and there is a lack of standardization between clinical trials. Our objective was to systematically evaluate the quality of the evidence on the measurement properties of AE symptom instruments, thereby informing consensus discussions within the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative regarding the most appropriate instruments for the core outcome domain symptoms.

METHODS

Using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist and predefined criteria for good measurement properties on identified development and validation studies of AE symptom instruments, a best evidence synthesis was performed to draw an overall conclusion on quality of the instruments and to provide recommendations.

RESULTS

Eighteen instruments were identified and evaluated. When the quality and results of the studies were considered, only five of these instruments had sufficient validation data to consider them for the core outcome set for the core outcome domain symptoms. These were the paediatric Itch Severity Scale (ISS), Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), Patient-Oriented SCOring Atopic Dermatitis (PO-SCORAD), Self-Administered Eczema Area and Severity Index (SA-EASI) and adapted SA-EASI.

CONCLUSIONS

ISS (paediatric version), POEM, PO-SCORAD, SA-EASI and adapted SA-EASI are currently the most appropriate instruments and therefore have the potential to be recommended as core symptom instrument in future clinical trials. These findings will be utilized for the development of a core outcome set for AE.

A programme of research to set priorities and reduce uncertainties for the prevention and treatment of skin disease

Background

Skin diseases are very common and can have a large impact on the quality of life of patients and caregivers. This programme addressed four diseases: (1) eczema, (2) vitiligo, (3) squamous cell skin cancer (SCC) and (4) pyoderma gangrenosum (PG).

Objective

To set priorities and reduce uncertainties for the treatment and prevention of skin disease in our four chosen diseases.

Design

Mixed methods including eight systematic reviews, three prioritisation exercises, two pilot randomised controlled trials (RCTs), three feasibility studies, two core outcome initiatives, four funding proposals for national RCTs and one completed national RCT.

Setting

Secondary care, primary care and the general population.

Participants

Patients (and their caregivers) with eczema, vitiligo, SCC and PG, plus health-care professionals with an interest in skin disease.

Interventions

Our three intervention studies included (1) barrier enhancement using emollients from birth to prevent eczema (pilot RCT); (2) handheld narrowband ultraviolet light B therapy for treating vitiligo (pilot RCT); and (3) oral ciclosporin (Neoral®, Novartis Pharmaceuticals) compared with oral prednisolone for managing PG (pragmatic national RCT).

Results

Systematic reviews included two overarching systematic reviews of RCTs of treatments for eczema and vitiligo, an umbrella review of systematic reviews of interventions for the prevention of eczema, two reviews of treatments for SCC (one included RCTs and the second included observational studies), and three reviews of outcome measures and outcome reporting. Three prioritisation partnership exercises identified 26 priority areas for future research in eczema, vitiligo and SCC. Two international consensus initiatives identified four core domains for future eczema trials and seven core domains for vitiligo trials. Two pilot RCTs and three feasibility studies critically informed development of four trial proposals for external funding, three of which are now funded and one is pending consideration by funders. Our pragmatic RCT tested the two commonly used systemic treatments for PG (prednisolone vs. ciclosporin) and found no difference in their clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness. Both drugs showed limited benefit. Only half of the participants’ ulcers had healed by 6 months. For those with healed ulcers, recurrence was common (30%). Different side effect profiles were noted for each drug, which can inform clinical decisions on an individual patient basis. Three researchers were trained to PhD level and a dermatology patient panel was established to ensure patient involvement in all aspects of the programme.

Conclusions

Findings from this programme of work have already informed clinical guidelines and patient information resources. Feasibility studies have ensured that large national pragmatic trials will now be conducted on important areas of treatment uncertainty that address the needs of patients and the NHS. There is scope for considerable improvement in terms of trial design, conduct and reporting for RCTs of skin disease, which can be improved through wider collaboration, registration of trial protocols and complete reporting and international consensus over core outcome sets. Three national trials have now been funded as a result of this work. Two international initiatives to establish how best to measure the core outcome domains for eczema and vitiligo are ongoing.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials Barrier Enhancement for Eczema Prevention (BEEP) (ISRCTN84854178 and NCT01142999), Study of Treatments fOr Pyoderma GAngrenosum Patients (STOP GAP) (ISRCTN35898459) and Hand Held NB-UVB for Early or Focal Vitiligo at Home (HI-Light Pilot Trial) (NCT01478945).

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full inProgramme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 4, No. 18. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Atopic dermatitis, atopic eczema, or eczema? A systematic review, meta-analysis, and recommendation for uniform use of 'atopic dermatitis'

BACKGROUND

The lack of standardized nomenclature for atopic dermatitis (AD) creates unnecessary confusion for patients, healthcare providers, and researchers. It also negatively impacts accurate communication of research in the scientific literature. We sought to determine the most commonly used terms for AD.

METHODS

A systematic review of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS (1945-2016) for the terms AD, atopic eczema (AE), and multiple other eczematous disorders.

RESULTS

In MEDLINE, 33 060 were identified, of which 21 299 (64.4%) publications used the term 'AD', 15 510 (46.9%) 'eczema', and only 2471 (7.5%) AE. Most of these publications used the term AD (82.0%) or eczema (70.8%) without additional nomenclature; only 1.2% used AE alone. Few publications used the terminology 'childhood eczema', 'flexural eczema', 'infantile eczema', 'atopic neurodermatitis', or 'Besnier's prurigo'. AD was rarely used until the late 1970s, after which it became the most commonly used of the three terms and continuously increased until 2015. Atopic eczema decreased between 2008 and 2015. Atopic dermatitis was the most commonly used term in studies across almost all publication types, languages, and journals.

CONCLUSION

Atopic dermatitis is the most commonly used term and appears to be increasing in popularity. Given that eczema is a nonspecific term that describes the morphological appearance of several forms of dermatitis, we strongly suggest the use of a more specific term, AD, in publications, healthcare clinician training, and patient education. Support from researchers, reviewers, and editors is key to success.

Development of a core outcome set for clinical trials in rosacea: study protocol for a systematic review of the literature and identification of a core outcome set using a Delphi survey

BACKGROUND

Rosacea is a chronic inflammatory disorder affecting millions of individuals worldwide. Diagnosis is based on signs and symptoms with management and treatment aimed to suppress inflammatory lesions, erythema, and telangiectasia. While many clinical trials of rosacea exist, the lack of consensus in outcome reporting across all trials poses a concern. Proper evaluation and comparison of treatment modalities is challenging. In order to address the inconsistencies present, this project aims to determine a core set of outcomes which should be evaluated in all clinical trials of rosacea.

METHODS/DESIGN

This project will utilize a methodology similar to previous core outcome set research. A long list of outcomes will be extracted over four phases: (1) systematic literature review, (2) patient interviews, (3) other published sources, and (4) stakeholder involvement. Potential outcomes will be examined by the Steering Committee to provide further insight. The Delphi process will then be performed to prioritize and condense the list of outcomes generated. Two homogenous groups of physicians and patients will participate in two consecutive rounds of Delphi surveys. A consensus meeting, composed of physicians, patients, and stakeholders, will be conducted after the Delphi exercise to further select outcomes, taking into account participant scores. By the end of the meeting, members will vote and decide on a final recommended set of core outcomes. For the duration of the study, we will be in collaboration with both the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) and Cochrane Skin Group - Core Outcome Set Initiative (CSG-COUSIN).

DISCUSSION

This study aims to develop a core outcome set to guide assessment in clinical trials of rosacea. The end-goal is to improve the reliability and consistency of outcome reporting, thereby allowing sufficient evaluation of treatment effectiveness and patient satisfaction.