Search

Background: Atopic eczema (AE) is a common skin problem that impairs quality of life and is associated with the development of other atopic diseases including asthma, food allergy and allergic rhinitis. AE treatment is a significant cost burden for health care providers. The purpose of the trial is to investigate whether daily application of emollients for the first year of life can prevent AE developing in high-risk infants (first-degree relative with asthma, AE or allergic rhinitis).Methods: This is a protocol for a pragmatic, two-arm, randomised controlled, multicentre trial. Up to 1400 term infants at high risk of developing AE will be recruited through the community, primary and secondary care in England. Participating families will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive general infant skin-care advice, or general skin-care advice plus emollients with advice to apply daily to the infant for the first year of life. Families will not be blinded to treatment allocation. The primary outcome will be a blinded assessment of AE at 24 months of age using the UK Working Party Diagnostic Criteria for Atopic Eczema. Secondary outcomes are other definitions of AE, time to AE onset, severity of AE (EASI and POEM), presence of other allergic diseases including food allergy, asthma and hay fever, allergic sensitisation, quality of life, cost-effectiveness and safety of the emollients. Subgroup analyses are planned for the primary outcome according to filaggrin genotype and the number of first-degree relatives with AE and other atopic diseases. Families will be followed up by online and postal questionnaire at 3, 6, 12 and 18 months with a face-to-face visit at 24 months. Long-term follow-up until 60 months will be via annual questionnaires.Discussion: This trial will demonstrate whether skin-barrier enhancement through daily emollient for the first year of life can prevent AE from developing in high-risk infants. If effective, this simple and cheap intervention has the potential to result in significant cost savings for health care providers throughout the world by preventing AE and possibly other associated allergic diseases.Trial Registration: ISRCTN registry; ID: ISRCTN21528841 . Registered on 25 July 2014. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Eczema is a chronic, itchy skin condition that can have a large impact on the quality of life of patients and their families. People with eczema are often keen to try out non-pharmacological therapies like silk therapeutic garments that could reduce itching or the damage caused by scratching. However, the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these garments in the management of eczema has yet to be proven. The CLOTHES Trial will test the hypothesis that 'silk therapeutic garments plus standard eczema care' is superior to 'standard care alone' for children with moderate to severe eczema. Methods/Design: Parallel group, observer-blind, pragmatic, multi-centre randomised controlled trial of 6 months' duration. Three hundred children aged 1 to 15 years with moderate to severe eczema will be randomised (1:1) to receive silk therapeutic garments plus standard eczema care, or standard eczema care alone. Primary outcome is eczema severity, as assessed by trained and blinded investigators at 2, 4 and 6 months (using the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI)). Secondary outcomes include: patient-reported eczema symptoms (collected weekly for 6 months to capture long-term control); global assessment of severity; quality of life of the child, family and main carer; use of standard eczema treatments (emollients, corticosteroids applied topically, calcineurin inhibitors applied topically and wet wraps); frequency of infections; and cost-effectiveness. The acceptability and durability of the clothing will also be assessed, as will adherence to wearing the garments. A nested qualitative study will assess the views of a subset of children wearing the garments and their parents, and those of healthcare providers and commissioners. Randomisation uses a computer-generated sequence of permuted blocks of randomly varying size, stratified by recruiting hospital and child's age (< 2 years; 2 to 5 years; > 5 years), and concealed using a secure web-based system. The sequence of treatment allocations will remain concealed until randomisation and data collection are complete. Recruitment is taking place from November 2013 to May 2015, and the trial will be completed in 2016. Full details of results will be published in the National Institute for Health Research Journal series. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Eczema (syn. Atopic Eczema or Atopic Dermatitis) is a chronic, relapsing, itchy skin condition which probably results from a combination of genetic and environmental factors. The Global Resource of EczemA Trials (GREAT) is a collection of records of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for eczema treatment produced from a highly sensitive search of six reference databases. We sought to assess the sensitivity of the GREAT database as a tool to save future researchers repeating extensive bibliographic searches. Methods: All Cochrane systematic review on treatments for eczema and five non-Cochrane systematic reviews on eczema were identified as a reference set to assess the utility of the GREAT database in identifying randomised controlled trials (RCTs). RCTs included in the systematic reviews were checked for inclusion in the GREAT database by two independent authors. A third author resolved any disagreements. Results: Five Cochrane and six non-Cochrane systematic reviews containing a total of 105 RCTs of eczema treatments were included. Of these, 95 fitted the inclusion criteria for the GREAT database and 88 were published from 2000 onwards. Of the 88 eligible studies, 92% were found in the GREAT database. Seven trials were not included in the GREAT database - two of these were reported within a review paper and one as an abstract with no trial results. Conclusions: The sensitivity of the GREAT database for trials from 2000 onwards was high (75/88 trials, 94%). Sensitivity for the period prior to 2000 was less sensitive, due to differences in how the trials were identified prior to this time. 'Dual' filtering for new records has recently become part of the GREAT database methodology and should further improve the sensitivity of the database in time. The GREAT database can be considered as a primary source for future systematic reviews including randomised controlled trials of eczema treatments, but searches should be supplemented by checking reference lists for eligible trials, searching trial registries and contacting pharmaceutical companies for unpublished studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Cancer detection using sniffer dogs is a potential technology for clinical use and research. Our study sought to determine whether dogs could be trained to discriminate the odour of urine from men with prostate cancer from controls, using rigorous testing procedures and well-defined samples from a major research hospital. Methods We attempted to train ten dogs by initially rewarding them for finding and indicating individual prostate cancer urine samples (Stage 1). If dogs were successful in Stage 1, we then attempted to train them to discriminate prostate cancer samples from controls (Stage 2). The number of samples used to train each dog varied depending on their individual progress. Overall, 50 unique prostate cancer and 67 controls were collected and used during training. Dogs that passed Stage 2 were tested for their ability to discriminate 15 (Test 1) or 16 (Tests 2 and 3) unfamiliar prostate cancer samples from 45 (Test 1) or 48 (Tests 2 and 3) unfamiliar controls under double-blind conditions. Results Three dogs reached training Stage 2 and two of these learnt to discriminate potentially familiar prostate cancer samples from controls. However, during double-blind tests using new samples the two dogs did not indicate prostate cancer samples more frequently than expected by chance (Dog A sensitivity 0.13, specificity 0.71, Dog B sensitivity 0.25, specificity 0.75). The other dogs did not progress past Stage 1 as they did not have optimal temperaments for the sensitive odour discrimination training. Conclusions Although two dogs appeared to have learnt to select prostate cancer samples during training, they did not generalise on a prostate cancer odour during robust double-blind tests involving new samples. Our study illustrates that these rigorous tests are vital to avoid drawing misleading conclusions about the abilities of dogs to indicate certain odours. Dogs may memorise the individual odours of large numbers of training samples rather than generalise on a common odour. The results do not exclude the possibility that dogs could be trained to detect prostate cancer. We recommend that canine olfactory memory is carefully considered in all future studies and rigorous double-blind methods used to avoid confounding effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: Pyoderma gangrenosum (PG) is a rare inflammatory skin disorder characterised by painful and rapidly progressing skin ulceration. PG can be extremely difficult to treat and patients often require systemic immunosuppression. Recurrent lesions of PG are common, but the relative rarity of this condition means that there is a lack of published evidence regarding its treatment. A systematic review published in 2005 found no randomised controlled trials (RCTs) relating to the treatment of PG. Since this time, one small RCT has been published comparing infliximab to placebo, but none of the commonly used systemic treatments for PG have been formally assessed. The UK Dermatology Clinical Trials Network's STOP GAP Trial has been designed to address this lack of trial evidence. Methods: The objective is to assess whether oral ciclosporin is more effective than oral prednisolone for the treatment of PG. The trial design is a two-arm, observer-blind, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial comparing ciclosporin (4 mg/kg/day) to prednisolone (0.75 mg/kg/day). A total of 140 participants are to be recruited over a period of 4 years, from up to 50 hospitals in the UK and Eire. Primary outcome of velocity of healing at 6 weeks is assessed blinded to treatment allocation (using digital images of the ulcers). Secondary outcomes include: (i) timeto healing; (ii) global assessment of improvement; (iii) PG inflammation assessment scale score; (iv) self-reportedpain; (v) health-related quality of life; (vi) time to recurrence; (vii) treatment failures; (viii) adverse reactions to study medications; and (ix) cost effectiveness/utility. Patients with a clinical diagnosis of PG (excluding granulomatous PG);measurable ulceration (that is, not pustular PG); and patients aged over 18 years old who are able to give informed consent are included in the trial. Randomisation is by computer generated code using permuted blocks of randomly varying size, stratified by lesion size, and presence or absence of underlying systemic disease (for example, rheumatoid arthritis).Patients who require topical therapy are asked to enter a parallel observational study (case series). If topical therapy fails and systemic therapy is required, participants are then considered for inclusion in the randomised trial.Trial registration: Current controlled trials: ISRCTN35898459. Eudract No.2008-008291-14. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: The Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS) tool is intended to be used in the design phase of trials to help investigative teams design trials in-line with their purpose. Our team applied this tool to an ongoing trial (BLISTER) to determine whether the initial suggestion among some team members that the trial could be described as largely pragmatic was the consensus.Methods: Each of the six members of the BLISTER trial team was sent a blank PRECIS wheel to independently complete. The results obtained were averaged and plotted on a single PRECIS wheel to illustrate the degree of pragmatism of the trial.Results: The trial team found that the design of the trial was closest to the pragmatic end of the pragmatic explanatory continuum. The strongest consensus was found on the 'flexibility of the comparison intervention' and 'practitioner adherence' domains (SD= 13). The trial team appeared to disagree most on the 'eligibility criteria' (SD= 35)and 'participant compliance' (SD= 31) domains, although the large standard deviations were a result of a single outlier in the two domains.Conclusion: The PRECIS tool can be used to retrospectively determine the pragmatism of a trial provided enough expertise and information on the trial is available. Illustrating the design of a trial on the PRECIS wheel can help research users more easily identify studies of interest. We hope our recommendations for applying this useful tool will encourage others to consider using it when designing, conducting and reporting studies.Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN13704604 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The SINS trial (Controlled Clinical Trials ISRCTN48755084; Eudract No. 2004-004506-24) is a randomised controlled trial evaluating long term success of excisional surgery vs. imiquimod 5% cream for low risk nodular and superficial basal cell carcinoma (BCC). The trial included a discrete choice experiment questionnaire to explore patient preferences of a cream versus surgery for the treatment of their skin cancer. Methods: The self-completed questionnaire was administered at baseline to 183 participants, measuring patients’ strength of preferences when choosing either alternative ‘surgery’ or ‘imiquimod cream’ instead of a fixed ‘current situation’ option (of surgical excision as standard practice in UK). The treatments were described according to: cost, chance of complete clearance, side effects and appearance. Participants had to choose between various scenarios. Analysis was performed using a mixed logit model, which took into account the impact of previous BCC treatment and sample preference variability. Results: The analysis showed that respondents preferred ‘imiquimod cream’ to their ‘current situation’ or ‘surgery’, regardless of previous experience of BCC symptoms and treatment. Respondents were more likely to be worried about their cosmetic outcomes and side effects they might experience over and above their chance of clearance and cost. Those with no experience of surgery (compared with experience) valued more the choice of ‘imiquimod cream’ (£1013 vs £781). All treatment characteristics were significant determinants of treatment choice, and there was significant variability in the population preferences for all of them. Conclusions: Patients with BCC valued more ‘imiquimod cream’ than alternative ‘surgery’ options, and all treatment characteristics were important for their choice of care. Understanding how people with a BCC value alternative interventions may better inform the development of health care interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Massive duplication of effort occurs when researchers all over the world undertake extensive searches for randomized controlled trials when preparing systematic reviews, when developing evidence-based guidelines and when applying for research funding for eczema treatments. Such duplication wastes valuable resources. Searching for randomized controlled trials of eczema is a laborious task involving scrutiny of thousands of individual references from diverse electronic databases in order to obtain a few papers of interest. Clinicians and patients who wish to find out more about a particular treatment are at risk of missing the relevant evidence if they are not trained in electronic bibliographic searching. Systematic reviews cannot be relied upon to comprehensively inform current optimal eczema treatments due to incomplete coverage and because many may be out of date. An international, publically available and comprehensive resource which brings together all randomized controlled trials on eczema treatment using a highly sensitive search has the potential to release more filtered knowledge about patient care to those who need it most and to significantly shorten the duration and costs of many clinical eczema research and guideline projects. Description: The Global Resource of EczemA Trials brings together information on all randomized controlled trials of eczema treatments published from the beginning of 2000 up to the end of 2010 and will be updated every month. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in The Cochrane Library and the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, AMED and CINHAL databases. We included 268 RCTs (24th March 2011) covering over 70 different treatment interventions. The structure of the Global Resource of Eczema Trials allows the user as much, or as little, specificity when retrieving information on trials as they wish, in an easy to use format. For each trial, the database gives the citation for the published report and also provides enough information to enable a user to decide whether the trial is worth further scrutiny. Conclusions: The Global Resource of Eczema Trials has been created to facilitate knowledge mobilization into healthcare and to reduce wastage of research time through unnecessary duplication. The collective time saved by research groups around the world can now be used to make strides in optimising the treatment of eczema, in order to further benefit people with eczema. The database can be accessed free of charge at http://www.greatdatabase.org.uk [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Basal cell carcinoma is the commonest human cancer. Despite increasing incidence it remains poorly researched. While not life threatening it can cause significant cosmetic disfigurement. Imiquimod, a cream which enhances the body's immune response, may help deal with the number of cases that occur in low-risk sites, especially when good cosmetic results and home use without surgery are needed. This study aims 1. To compare excisional surgery with imiquimod cream for nodular or superficial basal cell carcinoma in low risk sites, with respect to 3 year clinical clearance, cost-effectiveness and cosmetic results. 2. To ascertain if certain phenotypic features and gene polymorphisms predict tumour responsiveness to treatment. Methods/Design: Five hundred participants with low risk nodular or superficial basal cell carcinoma will be recruited from hospitals to this multi-centre, randomised, parallel group, controlled phase III trial. Treatment in the imiquimod group is for 6 weeks for superficial basal cell carcinoma and 12 weeks for nodular basal cell carcinoma. Both treatment groups are followed up in clinic for 3 years. Primary outcome variable: the proportion of participants with clinical evidence of success (no recurrence) at 3 years. The primary outcome will be compared between the two treatment groups. Secondary outcomes include: i) clinical success at 1, 2 and 5 years, ii) time to first recurrence, iii) cosmetic appearance of lesion site after treatment, iv) level of pain, and v) cost-effectiveness. Safety and tolerability data will also be reported. Discussion: This study protocol describes a pragmatic randomised controlled trial which it is hoped will address the above uncertainties. Three-year results will be available towards the end of 2010. Trial registration: Meta-register: NCT00066872, Eudract No. 2004-004506-24, ISRCTN48755084. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the course of producing the 2009 NHS Evidence - skin disorders Annual Evidence Update on Acne Vulgaris, 25 randomised controlled trials were examined. From these, at least 12 potentially serious problems of trial reporting were identified. Several trials concluded no effect of a treatment yet they were insufficiently powered to exclude potentially useful benefits. There were examples of duplicate publication and "salami publication", as well as two trials being combined and reported as one. In some cases, an incorrect "within-groups" statistical comparison was made and one trial report omitted original efficacy data and included only P values. Both of the non-inferiority studies examined failed to pre-specify a non-inferiority margin. Trials reported as "double-blind" compared treatments that were dissimilar in appearance or had differing adverse effect profiles. In one case an intention-to-treat analysis was not performed and there was a failure to account for all of the randomized participants. Trial results were made to sound more impressive by selective outcome reporting, emphasizing the statistical significance of treatment effects that were clinically insignificant, and by the use of larger-sounding odds ratios rather than rate ratios for common events. Most of the reporting problems could have been avoided by use of the CONSORT guidelines and prospective trial registration on a public clinical trials database. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Instruments for field diagnosis of eczema are increasingly used, and it is essential to understand specific limitations to make best use of their strengths. Our objective was to assess the validity of ISAAC and UK Working Party criteria for field diagnosis of eczema in children. Methods: We performed a cohort study in urban Brazil. Parents/guardians of 1,419 children answered ISAAC phase II questionnaire. Children were examined for skin lesions (UKWP protocol). Two dermatologists examined most cases of eczema (according to ISAAC or UKWP), and a sample without eczema. Results: Agreement between repeat questionnaires on the filter question was poor (kappa = 0.4). Agreement between the 2 dermatologists was fair (kappa = 0.6). False positive reports included scabies in 39% of ISAAC cases and 33% of UKWP cases. Sensitivity and PPV were low (ISAAC: 37.1% and 16.1%; UKWP: 28.6% and 23.8%). Specificity and NPV were high (ISAAC: 90.0% and 96.6%; UKWP: 95.3% and 96.2%). One-year prevalence of eczema was 11.3% (ISAAC), 5.9% (UKWP) and 4.9% (adjusted dermatologist diagnosis). Point prevalence of scabies (alone or not) was 43%, 33% and 18%, in eczemas according to ISAAC, to UKWP and to dermatologists. The reasons why children with eczema were not identified by ISAAC or UKWP were wrongly denying dry skin, itchy rash or personal history of atopic diseases. A limitation is that questionnaire was already validated in Brazil, but not field tested in this specific setting. Conclusions: Studies using UKWP or ISAAC criteria should include a validation arm, to contribute to the understanding of potential limitations of their use in different contexts and to explore solutions. We list specific recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This paper describes the results of a feasibility study for a randomised controlled trial (RCT). Methods: Twenty-nine members of the UK Dermatology Clinical Trials Network (UK DCTN) expressed an interest in recruiting for this study. Of these, 17 obtained full ethics and Research & Development (R&D) approval, and 15 successfully recruited patients into the study. A total of 70 participants with a diagnosis of cellulitis of the leg were enrolled over a 5-month period. These participants were largely recruited from medical admissions wards, although some were identified from dermatology, orthopaedic, geriatric and general surgery wards. Data were collected on patient demographics, clinical features and willingness to take part in a future RCT. Results: Despite being a relatively common condition, cellulitis patients were difficult to locate through our network of UK DCTN clinicians. This was largely because patients were rarely seen by dermatologists, and admissions were not co-ordinated centrally. In addition, the impact of the proposed exclusion criteria was high; only 26 (37%) of those enrolled in the study fulfilled all of the inclusion criteria for the subsequent RCT, and were willing to be randomised to treatment. Of the 70 participants identified during the study as having cellulitis of the leg (as confirmed by a dermatologist), only 59 (84%) had all 3 of the defining features of: i) erythema, ii) oedema, and iii) warmth with acute pain/tenderness upon examination. Twenty-two (32%) patients experienced a previous episode of cellulitis within the last 3 years. The median time to recurrence (estimated as the time since the most recent previous attack) was 205 days (95% CI 102 to 308). Service users were generally supportive of the trial, although several expressed concerns about taking antibiotics for lengthy periods, and felt that multiple morbidity/old age would limit entry into a 3-year study. Conclusion: This pilot study has been crucial in highlighting some key issues for the conduct of a future RCT. As a result of these findings, changes have been made to i) the planned recruitment strategy, ii) the proposed inclusion criteria and ii) the definition of cellulitis for use in the future trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This paper introduces the new National Library for Health Skin Conditions Specialist Library http://www.library.nhs.uk/skin. Description: The aims, scope and audience of the new NLH Skin Conditions Specialist Library, and the composition and functions of its core Project Team, Editorial Team and Stakeholders Group are described. The Library's collection building strategy, resource and information types, editorial policies, quality checklist, taxonomy for content indexing, organisation and navigation, and user interface are all presented in detail. The paper also explores the expected impact and utility of the new Library, as well as some possible future directions for further development. Conclusion: The Skin Conditions Specialist Library is not just another new Web site that dermatologists might want to add to their Internet favourites then forget about it. It is intended to be a practical, "one-stop shop" dermatology information service for everyday practical use, offering high quality, up-to-date resources, and adopting robust evidence-based and knowledge management approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Just like you would not buy a car without key information such as service history, you would not "buy" a clinical trial report without key information such as concealment of allocation. Implementation of the updated CONSORT 2010 statement enables the reader to see exactly what was done in a trial, to whom and when. A fully "CONSORTed" trial report does not necessarily mean the trial is a good one, but at least the reader can make a judgement. Clear reporting is a pre-requisite for judgement of study quality. The CONSORT statement evolves as empirical research moves on. CONSORT 2010 is even clearer than before and includes some new items with a particular emphasis on selective reporting of outcomes. The challenge is for everyone to use it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS) tool is intended to be used in the design phase of trials to help investigative teams design trials in-line with their purpose. Our team applied this tool to an ongoing trial (BLISTER) to determine whether the initial suggestion among some team members that the trial could be described as largely pragmatic was the consensus., Methods: Each of the six members of the BLISTER trial team was sent a blank PRECIS wheel to independently complete. The results obtained were averaged and plotted on a single PRECIS wheel to illustrate the degree of pragmatism of the trial., Results: The trial team found that the design of the trial was closest to the pragmatic end of the pragmatic-explanatory continuum. The strongest consensus was found on the 'flexibility of the comparison intervention' and 'practitioner adherence' domains (SD = 13). The trial team appeared to disagree most on the 'eligibility criteria' (SD = 35) and 'participant compliance' (SD = 31) domains, although the large standard deviations were a result of a single outlier in the two domains., Conclusion: The PRECIS tool can be used to retrospectively determine the pragmatism of a trial provided enough expertise and information on the trial is available. Illustrating the design of a trial on the PRECIS wheel can help research users more easily identify studies of interest. We hope our recommendations for applying this useful tool will encourage others to consider using it when designing, conducting and reporting studies., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN13704604.