Adding emollient bath additives to standard eczema management for children with eczema: the BATHE RCT

Frequent oil baths and skin barrier during infancy in the PreventADALL study

BACKGROUND

In the general population randomized controlled trial PreventADALL, frequent emollient bath additives from 2 weeks of age did not prevent atopic dermatitis, while the effect on skin barrier function throughout infancy is not established.

OBJECTIVES

The primary aim of this exploratory substudy was to assess the effect of mineral-based oil baths on transepidermal water loss (TEWL) and dry skin through infancy, and secondarily to explore if filaggrin (FLG) mutations modified the effect.

METHODS

Overall, 2153 infants were included and randomized to either the 'Skin intervention' (SI) group (n = 995) (oil bath 4 times weekly from 2 weeks through 8 months) or 'No skin intervention' (NSI) group (n = 1158), with TEWL measurements at 3, 6 and/or 12 months of age. Information on FLG mutation status was available for 1683 of these infants. Effects of the skin intervention on TEWL and dry skin through infancy were assessed by mixed-effects regression modelling. Background characteristics and protocol adherence were collected from electronic questionnaires, birth records and weekly diaries.

RESULTS

The TEWL (95% confidence interval) was on average 0.42 g m-2 h-1 (0.13-0.70, P = 0.004) higher in the SI group compared with the NSI group through the first year of life, with significantly higher levels at 3 months [8.6 (8.3-9.0) vs. 7.6 (7.3-7.9)], but similar at 6 and 12 months. Dry skin was observed significantly more often in the NSI group compared with the SI group at 3 months (59% vs. 51%) and at 6 months of age (63% vs. 53%), while at 12 months of age, the difference was no longer significant. At 3 months, the TEWL of FLG mutation carriers was similar to the TEWL in the SI group. No interaction between SI and FLG mutation was found in the first year of life.

CONCLUSIONS

Infants given frequent oil baths from 2 weeks of age had reduced skin barrier function through infancy compared with controls, largely attributed to higher TEWL at 3 months of age, while the skin at 3 and 6 months appeared less dry in infants subjected to the skin intervention.

Abrocitinib, tralokinumab and upadacitinib for treating moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis

Background

Atopic dermatitis is a chronic relapsing inflammatory skin condition. One of the most common skin disorders in children, atopic dermatitis typically manifests before the age of 5 years, but it can develop at any age. Atopic dermatitis is characterised by dry, inflamed skin accompanied by intense itchiness (pruritus).

Objectives

To appraise the clinical and cost effectiveness of abrocitinib, tralokinumab and upadacitinib within their marketing authorisations as alternative therapies for treating moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis compared to systemic immunosuppressants (first-line ciclosporin A or second-line dupilumab and baricitinib).

Data sources

Studies were identified from an existing systematic review (search date 2019) and update searches of electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) to November 2021, from bibliographies of retrieved studies, clinical trial registers and evidence provided by the sponsoring companies of the treatments under review.

Methods

A systematic review of the clinical effectiveness literature was carried out and a network meta-analysis undertaken for adults and adolescents at different steps of the treatment pathway. The primary outcome of interest was a combined response of Eczema Area and Severity Index 50 + Dermatology Life Quality Index ≥ 4; where this was consistently unavailable for a step in the pathway, an analysis of Eczema Area and Severity Index 75 was conducted. A de novo economic model was developed to assess cost effectiveness from the perspective of the National Health Service in England. The model structure was informed through systematic review of the economic literature and by consulting clinical experts. Effectiveness data were obtained from the network meta-analysis. Costs and utilities were obtained from the evidence provided by sponsoring companies and standard UK sources.

Results

Network meta-analyses indicate that abrocitinib 200 mg and upadacitinib 30 mg may be more effective, and tralokinumab may be less effective than dupilumab and baricitinib as second-line systemic therapies. Abrocitinib 100 mg and upadacitinib 15 mg have a more similar effectiveness to dupilumab. Upadacitinib 30 and 15 mg are likely to be more effective than ciclosporin A as a first-line therapy. Upadacitinib 15 mg, abrocitinib 200 and 100 mg may be more effective than dupilumab in adolescents. The cost effectiveness of abrocitinib and upadacitinib for both doses is dependent on the subgroup of interest. Tralokinumab can be considered cost-effective as a second-line systemic therapy owing to greater cost savings per quality-adjusted life-year lost.

Conclusions

The primary strength of the analysis of the three new drugs compared with current practice for each of the subpopulations is the consistent approach to the assessment of clinical and cost effectiveness. However, the conclusions are limited by the high uncertainty around the clinical effectiveness and lack of data for the primary outcome for comparisons with baricitinib and for the adolescent and adult first-line populations.

Future work and limitations

The most significant limitation that Eczema Area and Severity Index 50 + Dermatology Life Quality Index ≥ 4 could not be obtained for the adolescent and adult first-line systemic treatment populations is due to a paucity of data for dupilumab and ciclosporin A. A comparison of the new drugs against one another in addition to current practice would be beneficial to provide a robust view on which treatments are the most cost-effective.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42021266219.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme (NIHR award ref: 135138) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 4. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Comparison of lotions, creams, gels and ointments for the treatment of childhood eczema: the BEE RCT

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.

Critical Players and Therapeutic Targets in Chronic Itch

Chronic itch is one of the most prominent clinical characteristics of diverse systematic diseases. It is a devastating sensation in pathological diseases. Despite its importance, there are no FDA-labelled drugs specifically geared toward chronic itch. The associated complex pathogenesis and diverse causes escalate chronic itch to being one of the top challenges in healthcare. Humanized antibodies against IL-13, IL-4, and IL-31 proved effective in treatment of itch-associated atopic dermatitis but remain to be validated in chronic itch. There are still no satisfactory anti-itch therapeutics available toward itch-related neuropeptides including GRP, BNP, SST, CGRP, and SP. The newly identified potential itch targets including OSM, NMB, glutamate, periostin, and Serpin E1 have opened new avenues for therapeutic development. Proof-of-principle studies have been successfully performed on antagonists against these proteins and their receptors in itch treatment in animal models. Their translational interventions in humans need to be evaluated. It is of great importance to summarize and compare the newly emerging knowledge on chronic itch and its pathways to promote the development of novel anti-itch therapeutics. The goal of this review is to analyze the different physiologies and pathophysiologies of itch mediators, whilst assessing their suitability as new targets and discussing future therapeutic development.

Atopic Dermatitis: Conventional and Integrative Medicine

Although Western medicine and ideas about atopic dermatitis (AD) have become popular in many Asian countries, local beliefs about the disease and its treatment often prevail. The multi- racial background of these countries as well as the influence of the diverse religions (such as Taoism and Ramadan) in these regions often lead to diverse belief systems about the causes of AD (such as the Chi concept, also known as the balance of yin and yang) and the types of treatment (e.g. herbal remedies, topical versus concoctions, and decoctions). In addition, many of the cultural practices are preserved among the Southeast Asian minorities residing in the United Kingdom and North America. Eastern treatments typically take a holistic approach to AD and emphasize the psychosomatic component of the disorder. This overview provides a summary of the difference between conventional, complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine in terms of epidemiology, aetiology, therapy, and prognosis in children with AD. There are a number of similarities in genetic and environmental factors in epidemiology and aetiology; however, differences exist in terms of the concept of management. Complementary and alternative medicine, traditional Chinese medicine, and integrative medicine usage are not only prevalent among the Asian population but are also becoming more popular and accepted in Western societies.

Barrier defect in atopic dermatitis - possibilities and limits of basic skin therapy

The increased permeability of the skin barrier towards environmental factors such as allergens is considered a key factor in the pathogenesis of atopic dermatitis (AD). Strengthening the skin barrier through basic skin therapy represents the basis of any therapy for AD. It is well known that genetic factors as well as the skin inflammation itself contribute to the weakening of the barrier; here, recent studies have led to a deeper understanding of the complex structures of the epidermis. The possibility of counteracting the disease preventively by the use of basic skin therapy from birth on has been studied intensively in recent years. This article summarizes recent findings on the effects of basic skin therapy as a primary and secondary preventive measure.

Comprehensive review of statistical methods for analysing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) used as primary outcomes in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published by the UK's Health Technology Assessment (HTA) journal (1997-2020)

OBJECTIVES

To identify how frequently patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used as primary and/or secondary outcomes in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and to summarise what statistical methods are used for the analysis of PROs.

DESIGN

Comprehensive review.

SETTING

RCTs funded and published by the United Kingdom's (UK) National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme.

DATA SOURCES AND ELIGIBILITY

HTA reports of RCTs published between January 1997 and December 2020 were reviewed.

DATA EXTRACTION

Information relating to PRO use and analysis methods was extracted.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The frequency of using PROs as primary and/or secondary outcomes; statistical methods that were used for the analysis of PROs as primary outcomes.

RESULTS

In this review, 37.6% (114/303) of trials used PROs as primary outcomes, and 82.8% (251/303) of trials used PROs as secondary outcomes from 303 NIHR HTA reports of RCTs. In the 114 RCTs where the PRO was the primary outcome, the most used PRO was the Short-Form 36 (8/114); the most popular methods for multivariable analysis were linear mixed model (45/114), linear regression (29/114) and analysis of covariance (13/114); logistic regression was applied for binary and ordinal outcomes in 14/114 trials; and the repeated measures analysis was used in 39/114 trials.

CONCLUSION

The majority of trials used PROs as primary and/or secondary outcomes. Conventional methods such as linear regression are widely used, despite the potential violation of their assumptions. In recent years, there is an increasing trend of using complex models (eg, with mixed effects). Statistical methods developed to address these violations when analysing PROs, such as beta-binomial regression, are not routinely used in practice. Future research will focus on evaluating available statistical methods for the analysis of PROs.

Atopic dermatitis

Atopic dermatitis is a common inflammatory skin disorder characterised by recurrent eczematous lesions and intense itch. The disorder affects people of all ages and ethnicities, has a substantial psychosocial impact on patients and relatives, and is the leading cause of the global burden from skin disease. Atopic dermatitis is associated with increased risk of multiple comorbidities, including food allergy, asthma, allergic rhinitis, and mental health disorders. The pathophysiology is complex and involves a strong genetic predisposition, epidermal dysfunction, and T-cell driven inflammation. Although type-2 mechanisms are dominant, there is increasing evidence that the disorder involves multiple immune pathways. Currently, there is no cure, but increasing numbers of innovative and targeted therapies hold promise for achieving disease control, including in patients with recalcitrant disease. We summarise and discuss advances in our understanding of the disease and their implications for prevention, management, and future research.

Topical and Oral Therapies for Childhood Atopic Dermatitis and Plaque Psoriasis

BACKGROUND

Treatment of atopic dermatitis and psoriasis in children is difficult due to lack of standardized treatment guidelines and few FDA-approved treatment options. Treatments approved for adults may be used off-label in pediatric patients.

OBJECTIVE

This review evaluates the topical and oral treatment options available, including off-label uses, and provides a basic therapeutic guideline for pediatric atopic dermatitis and psoriasis.

METHODS

A PubMed review of topical and systemic treatments for pediatric psoriasis and atopic dermatitis with information regarding age, efficacy, dosing, contra-indications, adverse events, and off-label treatments.

RESULTS

The search identified seven topical and five systemic treatments that are routinely employed to treat pediatric atopic dermatitis and psoriasis.

LIMITATIONS

Standardized guidelines regarding treatment choice, dosing, and long-term safety are scarce. Reviews may be subject to ascertainment bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Current treatment guidelines are based on clinical experience and expert advice with few treatments officially approved for atopic dermatitis and psoriasis in children.

Understanding economic evidence for the prevention and treatment of atopic eczema

BACKGROUND

Atopic eczema is an inflammatory skin condition, with a similar impact on health-related quality of life as other chronic diseases. Increasing pressures on resources within the National Health Service increase the importance of having good economic evidence to inform their allocation.

OBJECTIVES

To educate dermatologists about economic methods with reference to currently available economic evidence on eczema.

METHODS

The role of different types of economic evidence is illustrated by evidence found in a systematic literature search conducted across 12 online databases up to 22 May 2017. Primary empirical studies either reporting the results of a cost-of-illness study or evaluating the cost, utility or full economic evaluation of interventions for preventing or treating eczema were included. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for eligibility and performed data abstraction, with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. Evidence tables of results were produced for narrative discussion. The reporting quality of economic evaluations was assessed.

RESULTS

Seventy-eight studies (described in 80 papers) were deemed eligible. Thirty-three (42%) were judged to be economic evaluations, 12 (15%) cost analyses, six (8%) utility analyses, 26 (33%) cost-of-illness studies and one a feasibility study (1%). The calcineurin inhibitors tacrolimus and pimecrolimus, as well as barrier creams, had the most economic evidence available. Partially hydrolysed infant formula was the most commonly evaluated prevention.

CONCLUSIONS

The current level of economic evidence for interventions aimed at preventing and treating eczema is limited compared with that available for clinical outcomes, suggesting that greater collaboration between clinicians and economists might be beneficial.