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

Emollient application from birth to prevent eczema in high-risk children: the BEEP RCT

Background

Atopic eczema is a common childhood skin problem linked with asthma, food allergy and allergic rhinitis that impairs quality of life.

Objectives

To determine whether advising parents to apply daily emollients in the first year can prevent eczema and/or other atopic diseases in high-risk children.

Design

A United Kingdom, multicentre, pragmatic, two-arm, parallel-group randomised controlled prevention trial with follow-up to 5 years.

Setting

Twelve secondary and four primary care centres.

Participants

Healthy infants (at least 37 weeks' gestation) at high risk of developing eczema, screened and consented during the third trimester or post delivery.

Interventions

Infants were randomised (1 : 1) within 21 days of birth to apply emollient (Doublebase Gel®; Dermal Laboratories Ltd, Hitchin, UK or Diprobase Cream®) daily to the whole body (excluding scalp) for the first year, plus standard skin-care advice (emollient group) or standard skin-care advice only (control group). Families were not blinded to allocation.

Main outcome measures

Primary outcome was eczema diagnosis in the last year at age 2 years, as defined by the UK Working Party refinement of the Hanifin and Rajka diagnostic criteria, assessed by research nurses blinded to allocation. Secondary outcomes up to age 2 years included other eczema definitions, time to onset and severity of eczema, allergic rhinitis, wheezing, allergic sensitisation, food allergy, safety (skin infections and slippages) and cost-effectiveness.

Results

One thousand three hundred and ninety-four newborns were randomised between November 2014 and November 2016; 693 emollient and 701 control. Adherence in the emollient group was 88% (466/532), 82% (427/519) and 74% (375/506) at 3, 6 and 12 months. At 2 years, eczema was present in 139/598 (23%) in the emollient group and 150/612 (25%) in controls (adjusted relative risk 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 1.16; p = 0.61 and adjusted risk difference -1.2%, 95% confidence interval -5.9% to 3.6%). Other eczema definitions supported the primary analysis. Food allergy (milk, egg, peanut) was present in 41/547 (7.5%) in the emollient group versus 29/568 (5.1%) in controls (adjusted relative risk 1.47, 95% confidence interval 0.93 to 2.33). Mean number of skin infections per child in the first year was 0.23 (standard deviation 0.68) in the emollient group versus 0.15 (standard deviation 0.46) in controls; adjusted incidence rate ratio 1.55, 95% confidence interval 1.15 to 2.09. The adjusted incremental cost per percentage decrease in risk of eczema at 2 years was £5337 (£7281 unadjusted). No difference between the groups in eczema or other atopic diseases was observed during follow-up to age 5 years via parental questionnaires.

Limitations

Two emollient types were used which could have had different effects. The median time for starting emollients was 11 days after birth. Some contamination occurred in the control group (< 20%). Participating families were unblinded and reported on some outcomes.

Conclusions

We found no evidence that daily emollient during the first year of life prevents eczema in high-risk children. Emollient use was associated with a higher risk of skin infections and a possible increase in food allergy. Emollient use is unlikely to be considered cost-effective in this context.

Future research

To pool similar studies in an individual patient data meta-analysis.

Trial registration

This trial is registered as ISRCTN21528841.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 12/67/12) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 29. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

The Treatment of Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer with Image-Guided Superficial Radiation Therapy: An Analysis of 2917 Invasive and In Situ Keratinocytic Carcinoma Lesions

Introduction

An image-guided form of superficial ionizing radiation therapy (IGSRT) is becoming a commonly used alternative to surgery for non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC). However, there is little literature evidence evaluating the efficacy and safety of this approach. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of IGSRT in treating a large number of patients with NMSC.

Methods

The medical records of 1632 stage 0–II patients with 2917 invasive and in situ NMSC lesions treated from years 2017 to 2020 were reviewed. No patients had clinical evidence of regional lymph node or distant disease at presentation.

Results

Treatment, guided by pre-treatment ultrasound imaging to adjust radiation energy and dose, combined with a fractionation treatment schedule of 20 or more treatment fractions, was safe and well tolerated. Of 2917 NMSC lesions treated, local tumor control was achieved in 2897 lesions, representing a 99.3% rate of control.

Conclusion

IGSRT should be considered as a first-line option for treating NMSC tumors in suitable early stage patients. Cure rates observed in this initial period of follow-up are similar, and potentially superior with further follow-up, to traditional superficial radiation therapy (SRT) and surgical options.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40487-021-00138-4.

Pyoderma gangrenosum

Pyoderma gangrenosum (PG) is a rare neutrophilic dermatosis that presents with rapidly developing, painful skin ulcers hallmarked by undermined borders and peripheral erythema. Epidemiological studies indicate that the average age of PG onset is in the mid-40s, with an incidence of a few cases per million person-years. PG is often associated with a variety of other immune-mediated diseases, most commonly inflammatory bowel disease and rheumatoid arthritis. The cause of PG is not well understood, but PG is generally considered an autoinflammatory disorder. Studies have focused on the role of T cells, especially at the wound margin; these cells may support the destructive autoinflammatory response by the innate immune system. PG is difficult to diagnose as several differential diagnoses are possible; in addition to clinical examination, laboratory tests of biopsied wound tissue are required for an accurate diagnosis, and new validated diagnostic criteria will facilitate the process. Treatment of PG typically starts with fast-acting immunosuppressive drugs (corticosteroids and/or cyclosporine) to reduce inflammation followed by the addition of more slowly acting immunosuppressive drugs with superior adverse event profiles, including biologics (in particular, anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) agents). Appropriate wound care is also essential. Future research should focus on PG-specific outcome measures and PG quality-of-life studies.

Scoping systematic review of treatments for eczema

Background

Eczema is a very common chronic inflammatory skin condition.

Objectives

To update the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) systematic review of treatments for atopic eczema, published in 2000, and to inform health-care professionals, commissioners and patients about key treatment developments and research gaps.

Data sources

Electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) were searched from the end of 2000 to 31 August 2013. Retrieved articles were used to identify further randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

Review methods

Studies were filtered according to inclusion criteria and agreed by consensus in cases of uncertainty. Abstracts were excluded and non-English-language papers were screened by international colleagues and data were extracted. Only RCTs of treatments for eczema were included, as other forms of evidence are associated with higher risks of bias. Inclusion criteria for studies included availability of data relevant to the therapeutic management of eczema; mention of randomisation; comparison of two or more treatments; and prospective data collection. Participants of all ages were included. Eczema diagnosis was determined by a clinician or according to published diagnostic criteria. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk-of-bias tool. We used a standardised approach to summarising the data and the assessment of risk of bias and we made a clear distinction between what the studies found and our own interpretation of study findings.

Results

Of 7198 references screened, 287 new trials were identified spanning 92 treatments. Trial reporting was generally poor (randomisation method: 2% high, 36% low, 62% unclear risk of bias; allocation concealment: 3% high, 15% low, 82% unclear risk of bias; blinding of the intervention: 15% high, 28% low, 57% unclear risk of bias). Only 22 (8%) trials were considered to be at low risk of bias for all three criteria. There was reasonable evidence of benefit for the topical medications tacrolimus, pimecrolimus and various corticosteroids (with tacrolimus superior to pimecrolimus and corticosteroids) for both treatment and flare prevention; oral ciclosporin; oral azathioprine; narrow band ultraviolet B (UVB) light; Atopiclair™ and education. There was reasonable evidence to suggest no clinically useful benefit for twice-daily compared with once-daily topical corticosteroids; corticosteroids containing antibiotics for non-infected eczema; probiotics; evening primrose and borage oil; ion-exchange water softeners; protease inhibitor SRD441 (Serentis Ltd); furfuryl palmitate in emollient; cipamfylline cream; andMycobacterium vaccaevaccine. Additional research evidence is needed for emollients, bath additives, antibacterials, specialist clothing and complementary and alternative therapies. There was no RCT evidence for topical corticosteroid dilution, impregnated bandages, soap avoidance, bathing frequency or allergy testing.

Limitations

The large scope of the review coupled with the heterogeneity of outcomes precluded formal meta-analyses. Our conclusions are still limited by a profusion of small, poorly reported studies.

Conclusions

Although the evidence base of RCTs has increased considerably since the last NIHR HTA systematic review, the field is still severely hampered by poor design and reporting problems including failure to register trials and declare primary outcomes, small sample size, short follow-up duration and poor reporting of risk of bias. Key areas for further research identified by the review include the optimum use of emollients, bathing frequency, wash products, allergy testing and antiseptic treatments. Perhaps the greatest benefit identified is the use of twice weekly anti-inflammatory treatment to maintain disease remission. More studies need to be conducted in a primary care setting where most people with eczema are seen in the UK. Future studies need to use the same core set of outcomes that capture patient symptoms, clinical signs, quality of life and the chronic nature of the disease.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme.