1
|
Thomas KS, Batchelor JM, Akram P, Chalmers JR, Haines RH, Meakin GD, Duley L, Ravenscroft JC, Rogers A, Sach TH, Santer M, Tan W, White J, Whitton ME, Williams HC, Cheung ST, Hamad H, Wright A, Ingram JR, Levell NJ, Goulding JMR, Makrygeorgou A, Bewley A, Ogboli M, Stainforth J, Ferguson A, Laguda B, Wahie S, Ellis R, Azad J, Rajasekaran A, Eleftheriadou V, Montgomery AA. Randomized controlled trial of topical corticosteroid and home-based narrowband ultraviolet B for active and limited vitiligo: results of the HI-Light Vitiligo Trial. Br J Dermatol 2020; 184:828-839. [PMID: 33006767 DOI: 10.1111/bjd.19592] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 09/29/2020] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Evidence for the effectiveness of vitiligo treatments is limited. OBJECTIVES To determine the effectiveness of (i) handheld narrowband UVB (NB-UVB) and (ii) a combination of potent topical corticosteroid (TCS) and NB-UVB, compared with TCS alone, for localized vitiligo. METHODS A pragmatic, three-arm, placebo-controlled randomized controlled trial (9-month treatment, 12-month follow-up). Adults and children, recruited from secondary care and the community, aged ≥ 5 years and with active vitiligo affecting < 10% of skin, were randomized 1 : 1 : 1 to receive TCS (mometasone furoate 0·1% ointment + dummy NB-UVB), NB-UVB (NB-UVB + placebo TCS) or a combination (TCS + NB-UVB). TCS was applied once daily on alternating weeks; NB-UVB was administered on alternate days in escalating doses, adjusted for erythema. The primary outcome was treatment success at 9 months at a target patch assessed using the participant-reported Vitiligo Noticeability Scale, with multiple imputation for missing data. The trial was registered with number ISRCTN17160087 on 8 January 2015. RESULTS In total 517 participants were randomized to TCS (n = 173), NB-UVB (n = 169) and combination (n = 175). Primary outcome data were available for 370 (72%) participants. The proportions with target patch treatment success were 17% (TCS), 22% (NB-UVB) and 27% (combination). Combination treatment was superior to TCS: adjusted between-group difference 10·9% (95% confidence interval 1·0%-20·9%; P = 0·032; number needed to treat = 10). NB-UVB alone was not superior to TCS: adjusted between-group difference 5·2% (95% CI - 4·4% to 14·9%; P = 0·29; number needed to treat = 19). Participants using interventions with ≥ 75% expected adherence were more likely to achieve treatment success, but the effects were lost once treatment stopped. Localized grade 3 or 4 erythema was reported in 62 (12%) participants (including three with dummy light). Skin thinning was reported in 13 (2·5%) participants (including one with placebo ointment). CONCLUSIONS Combination treatment with home-based handheld NB-UVB plus TCS is likely to be superior to TCS alone for treatment of localized vitiligo. Combination treatment was relatively safe and well tolerated but was successful in only around one-quarter of participants.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- K S Thomas
- Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - J M Batchelor
- Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - P Akram
- Department of Medical Physics and Clinical Engineering, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK
| | - J R Chalmers
- Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - R H Haines
- Nottingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - G D Meakin
- Nottingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - L Duley
- Nottingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - J C Ravenscroft
- Department of Paediatric Dermatology, Nottingham Children's Hospital, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK
| | - A Rogers
- Department of Medical Physics and Clinical Engineering, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK
| | - T H Sach
- Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
| | - M Santer
- Primary Care and Population Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - W Tan
- Nottingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - J White
- Nottingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - M E Whitton
- Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - H C Williams
- Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - S T Cheung
- Cannock Chase Hospital and New Cross Hospital, The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Wolverhampton, UK
| | - H Hamad
- Cannock Chase Hospital and New Cross Hospital, The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Wolverhampton, UK
| | - A Wright
- St Luke's Hospital, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK
| | - J R Ingram
- Division of Infection and Immunity, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | - N J Levell
- Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Norwich, UK
| | - J M R Goulding
- Solihull Hospital, University Hospitals of Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
| | - A Makrygeorgou
- West Glasgow Ambulatory Care Hospital, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Glasgow, UK
| | - A Bewley
- Barts Health NHS Trust and Queen Mary University London, London, UK
| | - M Ogboli
- Birmingham Children's Hospital, Birmingham Children's Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
| | - J Stainforth
- York Hospital, York Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, York, UK
| | - A Ferguson
- Royal Derby Hospital and the London Road Community Hospital, University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust, Derby, UK
| | - B Laguda
- Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - S Wahie
- University Hospital of North Durham, County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust, Durham, UK
| | - R Ellis
- The James Cook University Hospital, South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Middlesbrough, UK
| | - J Azad
- The James Cook University Hospital, South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Middlesbrough, UK
| | - A Rajasekaran
- Birmingham City Hospital, Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust, Birmingham, UK
| | | | - A A Montgomery
- Nottingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Batchelor JM, Thomas KS, Akram P, Azad J, Bewley A, Chalmers JR, Cheung ST, Duley L, Eleftheriadou V, Ellis R, Ferguson A, Goulding JM, Haines RH, Hamad H, Ingram JR, Laguda B, Leighton P, Levell N, Makrygeorgou A, Meakin GD, Millington A, Ogboli M, Rajasekaran A, Ravenscroft JC, Rogers A, Sach TH, Santer M, Stainforth J, Tan W, Wahie S, White J, Whitton ME, Williams HC, Wright A, Montgomery AA. Home-based narrowband UVB, topical corticosteroid or combination for children and adults with vitiligo: HI-Light Vitiligo three-arm RCT. Health Technol Assess 2020; 24:1-128. [PMID: 33245043 PMCID: PMC7750863 DOI: 10.3310/hta24640] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Systematic reviews suggest that narrowband ultraviolet B light combined with treatments such as topical corticosteroids may be more effective than monotherapy for vitiligo. OBJECTIVE To explore the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of topical corticosteroid monotherapy compared with (1) hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B light monotherapy and (2) hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B light/topical corticosteroid combination treatment for localised vitiligo. DESIGN Pragmatic, three-arm, randomised controlled trial with 9 months of treatment and a 12-month follow-up. SETTING Sixteen UK hospitals - participants were recruited from primary and secondary care and the community. PARTICIPANTS Adults and children (aged ≥ 5 years) with active non-segmental vitiligo affecting ≤ 10% of their body area. INTERVENTIONS Topical corticosteroids [mometasone furoate 0.1% (Elocon®, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Merck & Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA) plus dummy narrowband ultraviolet B light]; narrowband ultraviolet B light (narrowband ultraviolet B light plus placebo topical corticosteroids); or combination (topical corticosteroids plus narrowband ultraviolet B light). Topical corticosteroids were applied once daily on alternate weeks and narrowband ultraviolet B light was administered every other day in escalating doses, with a dose adjustment for erythema. All treatments were home based. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome was self-assessed treatment success for a chosen target patch after 9 months of treatment ('a lot less noticeable' or 'no longer noticeable' on the Vitiligo Noticeability Scale). Secondary outcomes included blinded assessment of primary outcome and percentage repigmentation, onset and maintenance of treatment response, quality of life, side effects, treatment burden and cost-effectiveness (cost per additional successful treatment). RESULTS In total, 517 participants were randomised (adults, n = 398; and children, n = 119; 52% male; 57% paler skin types I-III, 43% darker skin types IV-VI). At the end of 9 months of treatment, 370 (72%) participants provided primary outcome data. The median percentage of narrowband ultraviolet B light treatment-days (actual/allocated) was 81% for topical corticosteroids, 77% for narrowband ultraviolet B light and 74% for combination groups; and for ointment was 79% for topical corticosteroids, 83% for narrowband ultraviolet B light and 77% for combination. Target patch location was head and neck (31%), hands and feet (32%), and rest of the body (37%). Target patch treatment 'success' was 20 out of 119 (17%) for topical corticosteroids, 27 out of 123 (22%) for narrowband ultraviolet B light and 34 out of 128 (27%) for combination. Combination treatment was superior to topical corticosteroids (adjusted risk difference 10.9%, 95% confidence interval 1.0% to 20.9%; p = 0.032; number needed to treat = 10). Narrowband ultraviolet B light was not superior to topical corticosteroids (adjusted risk difference 5.2%, 95% confidence interval -4.4% to 14.9%; p = 0.290; number needed to treat = 19). The secondary outcomes supported the primary analysis. Quality of life did not differ between the groups. Participants who adhered to the interventions for > 75% of the expected treatment protocol were more likely to achieve treatment success. Over 40% of participants had lost treatment response after 1 year with no treatment. Grade 3 or 4 erythema was experienced by 62 participants (12%) (three of whom were using the dummy) and transient skin thinning by 13 participants (2.5%) (two of whom were using the placebo). We observed no serious adverse treatment effects. For combination treatment compared with topical corticosteroids, the unadjusted incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £2328.56 (adjusted £1932) per additional successful treatment (from an NHS perspective). LIMITATIONS Relatively high loss to follow-up limits the interpretation of the trial findings, especially during the post-intervention follow-up phase. CONCLUSION Hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B light plus topical corticosteroid combination treatment is superior to topical corticosteroids alone for treatment of localised vitiligo. Combination treatment was relatively safe and well tolerated, but was effective in around one-quarter of participants only. Whether or not combination treatment is cost-effective depends on how much decision-makers are willing to pay for the benefits observed. FUTURE WORK Development and testing of new vitiligo treatments with a greater treatment response and longer-lasting effects are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN17160087. FUNDING This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 64. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Collapse
|