1
|
Greenwell K, Becque T, Sivyer K, Steele M, Denison-Day J, Howells L, Ridd MJ, Roberts A, Lawton S, Langan SM, Hooper J, Wilczynska S, Griffiths G, Sach TH, Little P, Williams HC, Thomas KS, Yardley L, Muller I, Santer M, Stuart B. Online behavioural interventions for children and young people with eczema: a quantitative evaluation. Br J Gen Pract 2024; 74:e379-e386. [PMID: 38316467 PMCID: PMC11104514 DOI: 10.3399/bjgp.2023.0411] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/11/2023] [Accepted: 01/29/2024] [Indexed: 02/07/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Two online behavioural interventions (one website for parents/carers of children with eczema; and one for young people with eczema) have been shown in randomised controlled trials to facilitate a sustained improvement in eczema severity. AIM To describe intervention use and examine potential mediators of intervention outcomes and contextual factors that may influence intervention delivery and outcomes. DESIGN AND SETTING Quantitative process evaluation in UK primary care. METHOD Parents/carers and young people were recruited through primary care. Intervention use was recorded and summarised descriptively. Logistic regression explored sociodemographic and other factors associated with intervention engagement. Mediation analysis investigated whether patient enablement (ability to understand and cope with health issues), treatment use, and barriers to adherence were mediators of intervention effect. Subgroup analysis compared intervention effects among pre-specified participant subsets. RESULTS A total of 340 parents/carers and 337 young people were recruited. Most parents/carers (87%, n = 148/171) and young people (91%, n = 153/168) in the intervention group viewed the core introduction by 24 weeks. At 24 weeks, users had spent approximately 20 minutes on average on the interventions. Among parents/carers, greater intervention engagement was associated with higher education levels, uncertainty about carrying out treatments, and doubts about treatment efficacy at baseline. Among young people, higher intervention use was associated with higher baseline eczema severity. Patient enablement (the ability to understand and cope with health issues) accounted for approximately 30% of the intervention effect among parents/carers and 50% among young people. CONCLUSION This study demonstrated that positive intervention outcomes depended on a modest time commitment from users. This provides further support that the wider implementation of Eczema Care Online is justified.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kate Greenwell
- Primary Care Research Centre, Primary Care, Population Sciences and Medical Education Unit, Faculty of Medicine; Centre for Clinical and Community Applications of Health Psychology, Faculty of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton
| | - Taeko Becque
- Primary Care Research Centre, Primary Care, Population Sciences and Medical Education Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton
| | - Katy Sivyer
- Centre for Clinical and Community Applications of Health Psychology, Faculty of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton
| | - Mary Steele
- Primary Care Research Centre, Primary Care, Population Sciences and Medical Education Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton
| | - James Denison-Day
- Centre for Clinical and Community Applications of Health Psychology, Faculty of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton
| | - Laura Howells
- Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, Lifespan and Population Health, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham
| | - Matthew J Ridd
- Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol
| | - Amanda Roberts
- Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, Lifespan and Population Health, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham
| | - Sandra Lawton
- Queen's Nurse, Department of Dermatology, Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust, Rotherham
| | - Sinéad M Langan
- Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London
| | - Julie Hooper
- Primary Care Research Centre, Primary Care, Population Sciences and Medical Education Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton
| | | | - Gareth Griffiths
- Southampton Clinical Trials Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton
| | - Tracey H Sach
- Primary Care Research Centre, Primary Care, Population Sciences and Medical Education Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton
| | - Paul Little
- Primary Care Research Centre, Primary Care, Population Sciences and Medical Education Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton
| | - Hywel C Williams
- Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, Lifespan and Population Health, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham
| | - Kim S Thomas
- Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, Lifespan and Population Health, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham
| | - Lucy Yardley
- Centre for Clinical and Community Applications of Health Psychology, Faculty of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton; School of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol
| | - Ingrid Muller
- Primary Care Research Centre, Primary Care, Population Sciences and Medical Education Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton
| | - Miriam Santer
- Primary Care Research Centre, Primary Care, Population Sciences and Medical Education Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton
| | - Beth Stuart
- Centre for Evaluation and Methods, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Sach TH, Onoja M, Clarke H, Santer M, Muller I, Becque T, Stuart B, Hooper J, Steele M, Wilczynska S, Ridd MJ, Roberts A, Ahmed A, Yardley L, Little P, Greenwell K, Sivyer K, Nuttall J, Griffiths G, Lawton S, Langan SM, Howells L, Leighton P, Williams HC, Thomas KS. Cost-effectiveness of two online interventions supporting self-care for eczema for parents/carers and young people. THE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH ECONOMICS : HEPAC : HEALTH ECONOMICS IN PREVENTION AND CARE 2024:10.1007/s10198-023-01649-9. [PMID: 38194207 DOI: 10.1007/s10198-023-01649-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/17/2023] [Accepted: 11/14/2023] [Indexed: 01/10/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To estimate the cost-effectiveness of online behavioral interventions (EczemaCareOnline.org.uk) designed to support eczema self-care management for parents/carers and young people from an NHS perspective. METHODS Two within-trial economic evaluations, using regression-based approaches, adjusting for baseline and pre-specified confounder variables, were undertaken alongside two independent, pragmatic, parallel group, unmasked randomized controlled trials, recruiting through primary care. Trial 1 recruited 340 parents/carers of children aged 0-12 years and Trial 2 337 young people aged 13-25 years with eczema scored ≥ 5 on Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM). Participants were randomized (1:1) to online intervention plus usual care or usual care alone. Resource use, collected via medical notes review, was valued using published unit costs in UK £Sterling 2021. Quality-of-life was elicited using proxy CHU-9D in Trial 1 and self-report EQ-5D-5L in Trial 2. RESULTS The intervention was dominant (cost saving and more effective) with a high probability of cost-effectiveness (> 68%) in most analyses. The exception was the complete case cost-utility analysis for Trial 1 (omitting participants with children aged < 2), with adjusted incremental cost savings of -£34.15 (95% CI - 104.54 to 36.24) and incremental QALYs of - 0.003 (95% CI - 0.021 to 0.015) producing an incremental cost per QALY of £12,466. In the secondary combined (Trials 1 and 2) cost-effectiveness analysis, the adjusted incremental cost was -£20.35 (95% CI - 55.41 to 14.70) with incremental success (≥ 2-point change on POEM) of 10.3% (95% CI 2.3-18.1%). CONCLUSION The free at point of use online eczema self-management intervention was low cost to run and cost-effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION This trial was registered prospectively with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN79282252). URL www.EczemaCareOnline.org.uk .
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tracey H Sach
- Health Economics Group, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK.
- Primary Care Research Centre, Faculty of Medicine, Population Sciences and Medical Education, University of Southampton, Aldermoor Close, Southampton, SO16 5ST, UK.
| | - Mary Onoja
- Health Economics Group, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK
| | - Holly Clarke
- Health Economics Group, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK
| | - Miriam Santer
- Primary Care Research Centre, Faculty of Medicine, Population Sciences and Medical Education, University of Southampton, Aldermoor Close, Southampton, SO16 5ST, UK
| | - Ingrid Muller
- Primary Care Research Centre, Faculty of Medicine, Population Sciences and Medical Education, University of Southampton, Aldermoor Close, Southampton, SO16 5ST, UK
| | - Taeko Becque
- Primary Care Research Centre, Faculty of Medicine, Population Sciences and Medical Education, University of Southampton, Aldermoor Close, Southampton, SO16 5ST, UK
| | - Beth Stuart
- Primary Care Research Centre, Faculty of Medicine, Population Sciences and Medical Education, University of Southampton, Aldermoor Close, Southampton, SO16 5ST, UK
- Pragmatic Trials Unit, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, Yvonne Carter Building, 58 Turner Street, London, E1 2AB, UK
| | - Julie Hooper
- Primary Care Research Centre, Faculty of Medicine, Population Sciences and Medical Education, University of Southampton, Aldermoor Close, Southampton, SO16 5ST, UK
| | - Mary Steele
- Primary Care Research Centre, Faculty of Medicine, Population Sciences and Medical Education, University of Southampton, Aldermoor Close, Southampton, SO16 5ST, UK
| | - Sylvia Wilczynska
- King's Clinical Trial Unit, King's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, 16 De Crespigny Park, London, SE5 8AB, UK
| | - Matthew J Ridd
- Centre for Academic Primary Care, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK
| | - Amanda Roberts
- Patient and Public Contributor, Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Applied Health Services Research Building (Building Number 42), University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK
| | - Amina Ahmed
- Patient and Public Contributor, Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Applied Health Services Research Building (Building Number 42), University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK
| | - Lucy Yardley
- Centre for Clinical and Community Applications of Health Psychology, Faculty of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Paul Little
- Primary Care Research Centre, Faculty of Medicine, Population Sciences and Medical Education, University of Southampton, Aldermoor Close, Southampton, SO16 5ST, UK
| | - Kate Greenwell
- Primary Care Research Centre, Faculty of Medicine, Population Sciences and Medical Education, University of Southampton, Aldermoor Close, Southampton, SO16 5ST, UK
- Centre for Clinical and Community Applications of Health Psychology, Faculty of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
- School of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, 12A Priory Rd, Bristol, BS8 1TU, UK
| | - Katy Sivyer
- Centre for Clinical and Community Applications of Health Psychology, Faculty of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
- School of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, 12A Priory Rd, Bristol, BS8 1TU, UK
| | - Jacqui Nuttall
- Southampton Clinical Trial Unit, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
| | - Gareth Griffiths
- Southampton Clinical Trial Unit, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
| | - Sandra Lawton
- Dermatology, The Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust, Rotherham, UK
| | - Sinéad M Langan
- Department of Non-Communicable Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Laura Howells
- Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Applied Health Services Research Building (Building Number 42), University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK
| | - Paul Leighton
- Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Applied Health Services Research Building (Building Number 42), University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK
| | - Hywel C Williams
- Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Applied Health Services Research Building (Building Number 42), University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK
| | - Kim S Thomas
- Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Applied Health Services Research Building (Building Number 42), University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Brown H, Singleton HJ. Atopic eczema and the barriers to treatment adherence for children: a literature review. Nurs Child Young People 2023; 35:21-27. [PMID: 37066679 DOI: 10.7748/ncyp.2023.e1459] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 09/02/2022] [Indexed: 04/18/2023]
Abstract
Atopic eczema is a chronic, non-contagious, relapsing inflammatory skin condition commonly seen in children and adults. Children with atopic eczema often endure complex skincare regimens that can keep the condition under control when managed effectively. Nonadherence, particularly to topical treatments, is one of the most common causes of treatment failure in atopic eczema. This literature review aimed to explore the barriers that influence treatment adherence in children and young people with atopic eczema and identify recommendations for practice. Six studies were included in the literature review and three themes were identified: relationships, medicines concerns and information deficits. Healthcare professionals should strive to develop trusting relationships with parents and understand the barriers to treatment adherence. Individualised conversations and education about medicines concerns, understanding the psychosocial effects of atopic eczema on children and families, and providing clear, consistent advice can be beneficial.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hayley Brown
- Dorset County Hospital, Dorchester, England and former student, Bournemouth University, Bournemouth, England
| | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Ridd MJ, Wells S, MacNeill SJ, Sanderson E, Webb D, Banks J, Sutton E, Shaw AR, Wilkins Z, Clayton J, Roberts A, Garfield K, Liddiard L, Barrett TJ, Lane JA, Baxter H, Howells L, Taylor J, Hay AD, Williams HC, Thomas KS, Santer M. Comparison of lotions, creams, gels and ointments for the treatment of childhood eczema: the BEE RCT. Health Technol Assess 2023; 27:1-120. [PMID: 37924282 PMCID: PMC10679965 DOI: 10.3310/gzqw6681] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Emollients are recommended for children with eczema (atopic eczema/dermatitis). A lack of head-to-head comparisons of the effectiveness and acceptability of the different types of emollients has resulted in a 'trial and error' approach to prescribing. Objective To compare the effectiveness and acceptability of four commonly used types of emollients for the treatment of childhood eczema. Design Four group, parallel, individually randomised, superiority randomised clinical trials with a nested qualitative study, completed in 2021. A purposeful sample of parents/children was interviewed at ≈ 4 and ≈ 16 weeks. Setting Primary care (78 general practitioner surgeries) in England. Participants Children aged between 6 months and 12 years with eczema, of at least mild severity, and with no known sensitivity to the study emollients or their constituents. Interventions Study emollients sharing the same characteristics in the four types of lotion, cream, gel or ointment, alongside usual care, and allocated using a web-based randomisation system. Participants were unmasked and the researcher assessing the Eczema Area Severity Index scores was masked. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure scores over 16 weeks. The secondary outcomes were Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure scores over 52 weeks, Eczema Area Severity Index score at 16 weeks, quality of life (Atopic Dermatitis Quality of Life, Child Health Utility-9 Dimensions and EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, scores), Dermatitis Family Impact and satisfaction levels at 16 weeks. Results A total of 550 children were randomised to receive lotion (analysed for primary outcome 131/allocated 137), cream (137/140), gel (130/135) or ointment (126/138). At baseline, 86.0% of participants were white and 46.4% were female. The median (interquartile range) age was 4 (2-8) years and the median Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure score was 9.3 (SD 5.5). There was no evidence of a difference in mean Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure scores over the first 16 weeks between emollient types (global p = 0.765): adjusted Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure pairwise differences - cream-lotion 0.42 (95% confidence interval -0.48 to 1.32), gel-lotion 0.17 (95% confidence interval -0.75 to 1.09), ointment-lotion -0.01 (95% confidence interval -0.93 to 0.91), gel-cream -0.25 (95% confidence interval -1.15 to 0.65), ointment-cream -0.43 (95% confidence interval -1.34 to 0.48) and ointment-gel -0.18 (95% confidence interval -1.11 to 0.75). There was no effect modification by parent expectation, age, disease severity or the application of UK diagnostic criteria, and no differences between groups in any of the secondary outcomes. Median weekly use of allocated emollient, non-allocated emollient and topical corticosteroids was similar across groups. Overall satisfaction was highest for lotions and gels. There was no difference in the number of adverse reactions and there were no significant adverse events. In the nested qualitative study (n = 44 parents, n = 25 children), opinions about the acceptability of creams and ointments varied most, yet problems with all types were reported. Effectiveness may be favoured over acceptability. Parents preferred pumps and bottles over tubs and reported improved knowledge about, and use of, emollients as a result of taking part in the trial. Limitations Parents and clinicians were unmasked to allocation. The findings may not apply to non-study emollients of the same type or to children from more ethnically diverse backgrounds. Conclusions The four emollient types were equally effective. Satisfaction with the same emollient types varies, with different parents/children favouring different ones. Users need to be able to choose from a range of emollient types to find one that suits them. Future work Future work could focus on how best to support shared decision-making of different emollient types and evaluations of other paraffin-based, non-paraffin and 'novel' emollients. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN84540529 and EudraCT 2017-000688-34. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (HTA 15/130/07) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 19. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthew J Ridd
- Centre for Academic Primary Care, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Sian Wells
- Centre for Academic Primary Care, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | | | | | - Douglas Webb
- Centre for Academic Primary Care, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Jonathan Banks
- National Institute for Health and Care Research Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care West, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - Eileen Sutton
- Centre for Academic Primary Care, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Alison Rg Shaw
- Centre for Academic Primary Care, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Zoe Wilkins
- Centre for Academic Primary Care, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Julie Clayton
- Centre for Academic Primary Care, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Amanda Roberts
- Nottingham Support Group for Carers of Children with Eczema, Nottingham, UK
| | | | - Lyn Liddiard
- Centre for Academic Primary Care, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Tiffany J Barrett
- South West Medicines Information and Training, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - J Athene Lane
- Bristol Randomised Trials Collaboration, Bristol Trials Centre, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Helen Baxter
- Centre for Academic Primary Care, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Laura Howells
- Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Jodi Taylor
- Bristol Trials Centre, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Alastair D Hay
- Centre for Academic Primary Care, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Hywel C Williams
- Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Kim S Thomas
- Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Miriam Santer
- Primary Care Research Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Baker A, Mitchell EJ, Partlett C, Thomas KS. Evaluating the effect of weekly patient-reported symptom monitoring on trial outcomes: results of the Eczema Monitoring Online randomized controlled trial. Br J Dermatol 2023; 189:180-187. [PMID: 37194567 DOI: 10.1093/bjd/ljad163] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/27/2023] [Revised: 05/10/2023] [Accepted: 05/13/2023] [Indexed: 05/18/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are commonly used in eczema clinical trials. Several trials have used PROMs weekly for symptom monitoring. However, the increased frequency of patient-reported symptom monitoring may prompt participants to enhance the self-management of eczema and increase standard topical treatment use that can lead to improvements in outcomes over time. This is concerning as weekly symptom monitoring may constitute an unplanned intervention, which may mask small treatment effects and make it difficult to identify changes in the eczema resulting from the treatment under investigation. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the effect of weekly patient-reported symptom monitoring on participants' outcomes and to inform the design of future eczema trials. METHODS This was an online parallel-group nonblinded randomized controlled trial. Parents/carers of children with eczema and young people and adults with eczema were recruited online, excluding people scoring < 3 points on the Patient Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), to avoid floor effects. Electronic PROMs were used for data collection. Participants were allocated using online randomization (1 : 1) to weekly POEM for 7 weeks (intervention) or no POEM during this period (control). The primary outcome was change in eczema severity based on POEM scores, assessed at baseline and week 8. Secondary outcomes included change in standard topical treatment use and data completeness at follow-up. Analyses were conducted according to randomized groups in those with complete data at week 8. RESULTS A total of 296 participants were randomized from 14 September 2021 to 16 January 2022 (71% female, 77% white, mean age 26.7 years). The follow-up completion rate was 81.7% [n = 242; intervention group, n = 118/147 (80.3%); control group n = 124/149 (83.2%)]. After adjusting for baseline disease severity and age, eczema severity improved in the intervention group (mean difference in POEM score -1.64, 95% confidence interval -2.91 to -0.38; P = 0.01). No between-group differences were noted in the use of standard topical treatments and data completeness at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS Weekly patient-reported symptom monitoring led to a small perceived improvement in eczema severity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Arabella Baker
- Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology
- Nottingham Clinical Trials Unit, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Eleanor J Mitchell
- Nottingham Clinical Trials Unit, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Christopher Partlett
- Nottingham Clinical Trials Unit, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Santer M, Muller I, Becque T, Stuart B, Hooper J, Steele M, Wilczynska S, Sach TH, Ridd MJ, Roberts A, Ahmed A, Yardley L, Little P, Greenwell K, Sivyer K, Nuttall J, Griffiths G, Lawton S, Langan SM, Howells LM, Leighton P, Williams HC, Thomas KS. Eczema Care Online behavioural interventions to support self-care for children and young people: two independent, pragmatic, randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2022; 379:e072007. [PMID: 36740888 DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2022-072007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Miriam Santer
- Primary Care Research Centre, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton SO16 5ST, UK
| | - Ingrid Muller
- Primary Care Research Centre, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton SO16 5ST, UK
| | - Taeko Becque
- Primary Care Research Centre, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton SO16 5ST, UK
| | - Beth Stuart
- Primary Care Research Centre, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton SO16 5ST, UK
- Centre for Evaluation and Methods, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Julie Hooper
- Primary Care Research Centre, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton SO16 5ST, UK
| | - Mary Steele
- Primary Care Research Centre, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton SO16 5ST, UK
| | - Sylvia Wilczynska
- King's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, London, UK
| | - Tracey H Sach
- Health Economics Group, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
| | - Matthew J Ridd
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Amanda Roberts
- Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Amina Ahmed
- Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Lucy Yardley
- School of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
- School of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Paul Little
- Primary Care Research Centre, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton SO16 5ST, UK
| | - Kate Greenwell
- School of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Katy Sivyer
- School of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Jacqui Nuttall
- Southampton Clinical Trial Unit, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
| | - Gareth Griffiths
- Southampton Clinical Trial Unit, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
| | | | - Sinéad M Langan
- Department of Non-communicable Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Laura M Howells
- Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Paul Leighton
- Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Hywel C Williams
- Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Kim S Thomas
- Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Greenwell K, Sivyer K, Howells L, Steele M, Ridd MJ, Roberts A, Ahmed A, Lawton S, Langan SM, Hooper J, Wilczynska S, Leighton P, Griffiths G, Sach T, Little P, Williams HC, Thomas KS, Yardley L, Santer M, Muller I. '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. Br J Dermatol 2022; 188:506-513. [PMID: 36745562 DOI: 10.1093/bjd/ljac115] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Revised: 11/21/2022] [Accepted: 11/26/2022] [Indexed: 01/22/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kate Greenwell
- Centre for Clinical and Community Applications of Health Psychology, Faculty of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Katy Sivyer
- Centre for Clinical and Community Applications of Health Psychology, Faculty of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Laura Howells
- Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, Lifespan and Population Health, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Mary Steele
- Primary Care Research Centre, Primary Care, Population Sciences and Medical Education Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Matthew J Ridd
- Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Amanda Roberts
- Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, Lifespan and Population Health, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Amina Ahmed
- Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, Lifespan and Population Health, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Sandra Lawton
- Department of Dermatology, Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust, Rotherham, UK
| | - Sinéad M Langan
- Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Julie Hooper
- Primary Care Research Centre, Primary Care, Population Sciences and Medical Education Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Sylvia Wilczynska
- Primary Care Research Centre, Primary Care, Population Sciences and Medical Education Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Paul Leighton
- Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, Lifespan and Population Health, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | | | - Tracey Sach
- Health Economics Group, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, UK
| | - Paul Little
- Primary Care Research Centre, Primary Care, Population Sciences and Medical Education Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Hywel C Williams
- Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, Lifespan and Population Health, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Kim S Thomas
- Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, Lifespan and Population Health, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Lucy Yardley
- Centre for Clinical and Community Applications of Health Psychology, Faculty of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.,School of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Miriam Santer
- Primary Care Research Centre, Primary Care, Population Sciences and Medical Education Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Ingrid Muller
- Primary Care Research Centre, Primary Care, Population Sciences and Medical Education Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Flohr C. How we treat atopic dermatitis now and how that will change over the next 5 years. Br J Dermatol 2022; 188:718-725. [PMID: 36715500 DOI: 10.1093/bjd/ljac116] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/19/2022] [Revised: 11/21/2022] [Accepted: 11/26/2022] [Indexed: 01/22/2023]
Abstract
We live in exciting times in atopic dermatitis therapeutics, with many novel treatments in the clinical trial pipeline. Frustratingly, most of these trials are vehicle- or placebo-controlled, rather than head-to-head comparisons. Network meta-analyses can rank treatments against each other, even for placebo-controlled studies, aiding evidence-based guideline formulation and clinical decision-making. Treatment registries are an important additional vehicle to collect 'real-world' data on the long-term (cost) effectiveness and safety of the new drugs, outside of the stringent and short-term settings of clinical trials. As further agents enter clinical practice, the need for biomarkers of treatment response and drug safety becomes more pressing to move us towards personalized medicine and to avoid wasting healthcare resources. This review takes stock of our current treatment armamentarium for atopic dermatitis, highlights important gaps in our knowledge - including the relatively low number of studies conducted in children - and maps out how our treatment approaches for atopic dermatitis can become more targeted and holistic in the future.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carsten Flohr
- St John's Institute of Dermatology, Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Sivyer K, Teasdale E, Greenwell K, Steele M, Ghio D, Ridd MJ, Roberts A, Chalmers JR, Lawton S, Langan SM, Cowdell F, Le Roux E, Wilczynska S, Williams HC, Thomas KS, Yardley L, Santer M, Muller I. Supporting families managing childhood eczema: developing and optimising eczema care online using qualitative research. Br J Gen Pract 2022; 72:e378-e389. [PMID: 35577586 PMCID: PMC9119812 DOI: 10.3399/bjgp.2021.0503] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/20/2021] [Accepted: 02/01/2022] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Childhood eczema is often poorly controlled owing to underuse of emollients and topical corticosteroids (TCS). Parents/carers report practical and psychosocial barriers to managing their child's eczema, including child resistance. Online interventions could potentially support parents/carers; however, rigorous research developing such interventions has been limited. AIM To develop an online behavioural intervention to help parents/carers manage and co-manage their child's eczema. DESIGN AND SETTING Intervention development using a theory-, evidence-, and person-based approach (PBA) with qualitative research. METHOD A systematic review and qualitative synthesis of studies (n = 32) and interviews with parents/carers (n = 30) were used to identify barriers and facilitators to effective eczema management, and a prototype intervention was developed. Think-aloud interviews with parents/carers (n = 25) were then used to optimise the intervention to increase its acceptability and feasibility. RESULTS Qualitative research identified that parents/carers had concerns about using emollients and TCS, incomplete knowledge and skills around managing eczema, and reluctance to transitioning to co-managing eczema with their child. Think-aloud interviews highlighted that, while experienced parents/carers felt they knew how to manage eczema, some information about how to use treatments was still new. Techniques for addressing barriers included providing a rationale explaining how emollients and TCS work, demonstrating how to use treatments, and highlighting that the intervention provided new, up-to-date information. CONCLUSION Parents/carers need support in effectively managing and co-managing their child's eczema. The key output of this research is Eczema Care Online for Families, an online intervention for parents/carers of children with eczema, which is being evaluated in a randomised trial.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Katy Sivyer
- Department of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton; lecturer, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth
| | | | | | | | - Daniela Ghio
- University of Manchester, Manchester; research fellow, University of Southampton, Southampton
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Lucy Yardley
- University of Bristol, Bristol; professor of health psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
10
|
Greenwell K, Ghio D, Sivyer K, Steele M, Teasdale E, Ridd MJ, Roberts A, Chalmers JR, Lawton S, Langan S, Cowdell F, Le Roux E, Wilczynska S, Jones H, Whittaker E, Williams HC, Thomas KS, Yardley L, Santer M, Muller I. Eczema Care Online: development and qualitative optimisation of an online behavioural intervention to support self-management in young people with eczema. BMJ Open 2022; 12:e056867. [PMID: 35443955 PMCID: PMC9021764 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-056867] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/08/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To describe the development of Eczema Care Online (ECO), an online behaviour change intervention for young people with eczema (phase I); and explore and optimise the acceptability of ECO among this target group using think-aloud interviews (phase II). METHODS Theory-based, evidence-based and person-based approaches to intervention development were used. In phase I, a qualitative systematic review and qualitative interviews developed an in-depth understanding of the needs and challenges of young people with eczema. Guiding principles highlighted key intervention design objectives and features to address the needs of this target group to maximise user engagement. Behavioural analysis and logic modelling developed ECO's hypothesised programme theory. In phase II, qualitative think-aloud interviews were carried out with 28 young people with eczema and the intervention was optimised based on their feedback. RESULTS The final intervention aimed to reduce eczema severity by supporting treatment use (emollients, topical corticosteroids/topical calcineurin inhibitors), management of irritants/triggers, emotional management and reducing scratching. Generally, young people expressed positive views of intervention content and design in think-aloud interviews. Quotes and stories from other young people with eczema and ECO's focus on living with eczema (not just topical treatments) were valuable for normalising eczema. Young people believed ECO addressed knowledge gaps they had from childhood and the safety information about topical corticosteroids was reassuring. Negative feedback was used to modify ECO. CONCLUSIONS A prototype of the ECO intervention was developed using rigorous and complementary intervention development approaches. Subsequent think-aloud interviews helped optimise the intervention, demonstrated ECO is likely to be acceptable to this target group, and provided support for our guiding principles including key design objectives and features to consider when developing interventions for this population. A randomised controlled trial and process evaluation of the intervention is underway to assess effectiveness and explore user engagement with the intervention's behavioural goals.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kate Greenwell
- Centre for Clinical and Community Applications of Health Psychology, Faculty of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Daniela Ghio
- Division of Psychology & Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Katy Sivyer
- Centre for Clinical and Community Applications of Health Psychology, Faculty of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
- Department of Psychology, Faculty of Science and Health, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK
| | - Mary Steele
- Centre for Clinical and Community Applications of Health Psychology, Faculty of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Emma Teasdale
- School of Primary Care, Population Health and Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Matthew J Ridd
- Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Amanda Roberts
- Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Joanne R Chalmers
- Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Sandra Lawton
- Department of Dermatology, Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust, Rotherham, UK
| | - Sinead Langan
- Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Fiona Cowdell
- Faculty of Health Education and Life Sciences, Birmingham City University, Birmingham, UK
| | - Emma Le Roux
- School of Life and Medical Sciences, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK
| | - Sylvia Wilczynska
- School of Primary Care, Population Health and Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Hannah Jones
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | | | - H C Williams
- Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Kim Suzanne Thomas
- Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Lucy Yardley
- Centre for Clinical and Community Applications of Health Psychology, Faculty of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
- Centre for Academic Primary Care, School of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Miriam Santer
- School of Primary Care, Population Health and Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Ingrid Muller
- School of Primary Care, Population Health and Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Steele M, Howells L, Santer M, Sivyer K, Lawton S, Roberts A, Teasdale E, Muller I, Greenwell K. How has the COVID-19 pandemic affected eczema self-management and help seeking? A qualitative interview study with young people and parents/carers of children with eczema. SKIN HEALTH AND DISEASE 2021; 1:e59. [PMID: 34514465 PMCID: PMC8420339 DOI: 10.1002/ski2.59] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/21/2021] [Revised: 06/07/2021] [Accepted: 06/15/2021] [Indexed: 01/31/2023]
Abstract
Background Eczema can have a considerable impact on quality of life. Treatments can improve this, but management is complex. Barriers to eczema self‐management may be impacted upon by environmental context, such as the COVID‐19 pandemic. Objectives To explore experiences of eczema, self‐management, and accessing healthcare and advice during the COVID‐19 pandemic among young people with eczema and parents/carers of children with eczema. Methods Qualitative semi‐structured interviews were carried out with 36 participants recruited from general practices as part of randomised controlled trials of online eczema resources. Results Changes to everyday life—Periods of staying at home due to the pandemic alter the burden of eczema, with reports of an improved routine and application of topical treatments for many, but difficulties with handwashing for others. Parents/carers reported improved eczema control due to closures of educational settings. Young people reported higher stress that may have triggered eczema flare‐ups. Changes to access to advice and treatment—There was a reluctance to seek medical appointments in a non‐emergency situation. Participants reported a lack of trust in the outcome of telephone consultations because health professionals were unable to see or feel the skin. Delays or difficulties when obtaining appointments and treatments caused frustration. Access to an online eczema resource was reported to have extra value in the context of the pandemic. Conclusion Changes to lifestyle and access to healthcare during the pandemic have affected eczema and self‐management. Healthcare settings may want to consider providing extra reassurance around remote consultations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M Steele
- Primary Care, Population Sciences and Medical Education Faculty of Medicine University of Southampton Southampton UK.,Centre for Clinical and Community Applications of Health Psychology School of Psychology Faculty of Environmental and Life Sciences University of Southampton Southampton UK
| | - L Howells
- Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology School of Medicine University of Nottingham Nottingham UK
| | - M Santer
- Primary Care, Population Sciences and Medical Education Faculty of Medicine University of Southampton Southampton UK
| | - K Sivyer
- Department of Psychology Faculty of Science and Health University of Portsmouth Portsmouth UK
| | - S Lawton
- Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust Rotherham UK
| | - A Roberts
- Nottingham Support Group for Carers of Children with Eczema Nottingham UK
| | - E Teasdale
- Primary Care, Population Sciences and Medical Education Faculty of Medicine University of Southampton Southampton UK
| | - I Muller
- Primary Care, Population Sciences and Medical Education Faculty of Medicine University of Southampton Southampton UK
| | - K Greenwell
- Centre for Clinical and Community Applications of Health Psychology School of Psychology Faculty of Environmental and Life Sciences University of Southampton Southampton UK
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Olabi B, Williams HC. Evidence-based management of eczema: five things that should be done more and five things that should be dropped. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol 2021; 21:386-393. [PMID: 33993140 DOI: 10.1097/aci.0000000000000750] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW We provide readers with an evidence-informed opinion on current treatments for eczema (atopic dermatitis) with the intention of improving patient care. We suggest five treatment aspects that should be promoted and five that should be demoted. Evidence sources include key randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews. RECENT FINDINGS Under-treatment of eczema can be countered by more aggressive use of topical therapies including the 'get control then keep control' regimen, and systemics for severe disease, supplemented with good patient education. Topical corticosteroids should be used once daily rather than twice daily. Topical calcineurin inhibitors are useful for sensitive sites. There is little evidence to support the continued use of oral antihistamines, oral or topical antistaphylococcal treatments for infected eczema or probiotics for treating eczema. Nonpharmacological treatments including silk clothing, ion-exchange water softeners and emollient bath additives have not been shown to benefit eczema patients. Despite promising pilot studies, large trials suggest that emollients from birth do not prevent eczema and may result in harms such as increased skin infections and food allergy. SUMMARY New evidence-based insights on existing and newer treatments allow clinicians the opportunity to change their practice in a way that enhances patients' quality of life.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bayanne Olabi
- Biosciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle
| | - Hywel C Williams
- Centre of Evidence-Based Dermatology at the University of Nottingham, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|