Search

Little attention is paid to disease definition in dermatology and how such definitions come about, yet defining a disease is a fundamental step upon which all subsequent clinical management and prognostic judgements depend. Developing diagnostic criteria is also a critically important step for research purposes so that studies referring to groups of people can be compared in a meaningful way. This short review introduces the concepts of regressive and progressive nosology, and how definitions of a dermatological disease can evolve in a useful way as knowledge about that disease increases. It also highlights the dangers of panchrestons – names that try to explain all yet end up explaining very little. It also considers approaches to disease definition, such as whether a binary yes/no or continuous approach is more appropriate. Conceptual frameworks including essentialistic vs. nominalistic approaches using the biomedical or biopsychosocial perspectives are articulated. The review then illustrates hazards of underdiagnosis and overdiagnosis, and introduces the notion of ‘disease mongering’ – the selling of disease in order to promote the use of medicines. The review concludes with a reaffirmation of the importance of defining dermatological disease, and why any new diagnostic criteria must be shown to increase predictive ability before they are assimilated into clinical practice and research.

Background: Immunosuppressive treatments inhibit vaccine-induced immunity against SARS-CoV-2. We evaluated whether a 2-week interruption of methotrexate treatment immediately after the COVID-19 vaccine booster improved antibody responses against the S1 receptor-binding domain (S1-RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein compared with uninterrupted treatment in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. Methods: We did an open-label, prospective, two-arm, parallel-group, multicentre, randomised, controlled, superiority trial in 26 hospitals in the UK. We recruited adults from rheumatology and dermatology clinics who had been diagnosed with an immune-mediated inflammatory disease (eg, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis with or without arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, atopic dermatitis, polymyalgia rheumatica, and systemic lupus erythematosus) and who were taking low-dose weekly methotrexate (≤25 mg per week) for at least 3 months. Participants also had to have received two primary vaccine doses from the UK COVID-19 vaccination programme. We randomly assigned the participants (1:1), using a centralised validated computer randomisation program, to suspend methotrexate treatment for 2 weeks immediately after their COVID-19 booster (suspend methotrexate group) or to continue treatment as usual (continue methotrexate group). Participants, investigators, clinical research staff, and data analysts were unmasked, while researchers doing the laboratory analyses were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was S1-RBD antibody titres 4 weeks after receiving the COVID-19 booster vaccine dose, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ISRCT, ISRCTN11442263; following the pre-planned interim analysis, recruitment was stopped early. Findings: Between Sept 30, 2021 and March 3, 2022, we recruited 340 participants, of whom 254 were included in the interim analysis and had been randomly assigned to one of the two groups: 127 in the continue methotrexate group and 127 in the suspend methotrexate group. Their mean age was 59·1 years, 155 (61%) were female, 130 (51%) had rheumatoid arthritis, and 86 (34%) had psoriasis with or without arthritis. After 4 weeks, the geometric mean S1-RBD antibody titre was 22 750 U/mL (95% CI 19 314–26 796) in the suspend methotrexate group and 10 798 U/mL (8970–12 997) in the continue methotrexate group, with a geometric mean ratio (GMR) of 2·19 (95% CI 1·57–3·04; p

The UK Dermatology Clinical Trials Network (UK DCTN) was formed in 2002 with the aim of developing and supporting high-quality independent national clinical trials that address prioritized research questions for people with skin disease. Its philosophy is to democratize UK dermatological clinical research and to tackle important clinical questions that industry has no incentive to answer. The network also plays a key role in training and capacity development. Its membership of over 1000 individuals includes dermatology consultants, trainees, dermatology nurses, general practitioners, methodologists and patients. Its organizational structures are lean and include a co-ordinating team based at the Centre of Evidence-Based Dermatology in Nottingham, and an executive with independent members to ensure probity and business progression. A prioritization panel and steering group enable a pipeline of projects to be prioritized and refined for external funding from independent sources. The UK DCTN has supported and completed 12 national clinical trials, attracting investment of over £15 million into UK clinical dermatology research. Trials have covered a range of interventions from drugs such as doxycycline (BLISTER), silk clothing for eczema (CLOTHES) and surgical interventions for hidradenitis suppurativa (THESEUS). Trial results are published in prestigious journals and have global impact. Genuine partnership with patients and carers has been a strong feature of the network since its inception. The UK DCTN is proud of its first 20 years of collaborative work, and aims to remain at the forefront of independent dermatological health technology assessment, as well as expanding into areas including diagnostics, artificial intelligence, efficient studies and innovative designs.

Introduction It is unknown if a temporary break in long-term immune-suppressive treatment after vaccination against COVID-19 improves vaccine response. The objective of this study was to evaluate if a 2-week interruption in low-dose weekly methotrexate treatment after SARS-CoV-2 vaccine boosters enhances the immune response compared with continuing treatment in adults with autoimmune inflammatory conditions. Methods and analysis An open-label, pragmatic, prospective, parallel group, randomised controlled superiority trial with internal feasibility assessment and nested mechanistic substudy will be conducted in rheumatology and dermatology clinics in approximately 25 UK hospitals. The sample size is 560, randomised 1:1 to intervention and usual care arms. The main outcome measure is anti-spike receptor-binding domain (RBD) antibody level, collected at prebooster (baseline), 4 weeks (primary outcome) and 12 weeks (secondary outcome) post booster vaccination. Other secondary outcome measures are patient global assessments of disease activity, disease flares and their treatment, EuroQol 5- dimention 5-level (EQ-5D-5L), self-reported adherence with advice to interrupt or continue methotrexate, neutralising antibody titre against SARS-CoV-2 (mechanistic substudy) and oral methotrexate biochemical adherence (mechanistic substudy). Analysis of B-cell memory and T-cell responses at baseline and weeks 4 and 12 will be investigated subject to obtaining additional funding. The principal analysis will be performed on the groups as randomised (ie, intention to treat). The difference between the study arms in anti-spike RBD antibody level will be estimated using mixed effects model, allowing for repeated measures clustered within participants. The models will be adjusted for randomisation factors and prior SARS-CoV-2 infection status. Ethics and dissemination This study was approved by the Leeds West Research Ethics Committee and Health Research Authority (REC reference: 21/HRA/3483, IRAS 303827). Participants will be required to give written informed consent before taking part in the trial. Dissemination will be via peer review publications, newsletters and conferences. Results will be communicated to policymakers. Trial registration number ISRCTN11442263.

In Part 1 of this 2-part review of the 20th anniversary of the UK Dermatology Clinical Trials Network (UK DCTN), we described its role in developing and supporting clinical trial proposals, elaborating on structure, process and clinical trials activity. This review describes the diverse educational and training activities that the UK DCTN supports. Although not primarily set up as an educational organization, an education and training function emerged organically as the network grew. Education and training also embodies the democratization principle that drove the formation of the UK DCTN, allowing participation from a much wider group of individuals than just senior academics. Far from being a sideline, education and training has now become a major component of the UK DCTN that evolves constantly through changing training curricula and trial methodology developments. Formal UK DCTN training opportunities started in 2007 with competitively awarded annual fellowships for dermatology trainees, followed by similar schemes for general practitioners, Staff and Associate Specialist clinicians and dermatology nurses. These were followed in 2013 by larger groups of trainees who work up specific trial proposals with senior mentors. Finally, a virtual journal club emerged during the pandemic in 2020 in order to reach trainees with little access to academic training. Focused activities with dermatological nurses and patients/carers also take place. Such activities require considerable organization and volunteerism from the co-ordinating centre and former fellows. Education and training has become an essential component for capacity building to develop clinical trials and succession planning for the UK DCTN.

RATIONALE: Clinical trials are the gold standard for testing interventions. COVID-19 has further raised their public profile and emphasised the need to deliver better, faster, more efficient trials for patient benefit. Considerable overlap exists between data required for trials and data already collected routinely in electronic healthcare records (EHRs). Opportunities exist to use these in innovative ways to decrease duplication of effort and speed trial recruitment, conduct and follow-up. APPROACH: The National Institute of Health Research (NIHR), Health Data Research UK and Clinical Practice Research Datalink co-organised a national workshop to accelerate the agenda for 'data-enabled clinical trials'. Showcasing successful examples and imagining future possibilities, the plenary talks, panel discussions, group discussions and case studies covered: design/feasibility; recruitment; conduct/follow-up; collecting benefits/harms; and analysis/interpretation. REFLECTION: Some notable studies have successfully accessed and used EHR to identify potential recruits, support randomised trials, deliver interventions and supplement/replace trial-specific follow-up. Some outcome measures are already reliably collected; others, like safety, need detailed work to meet regulatory reporting requirements. There is a clear need for system interoperability and a 'route map' to identify and access the necessary datasets. Researchers running regulatory-facing trials must carefully consider how data quality and integrity would be assessed. An experience-sharing forum could stimulate wider adoption of EHR-based methods in trial design and execution. DISCUSSION: EHR offer opportunities to better plan clinical trials, assess patients and capture data more efficiently, reducing research waste and increasing focus on each trial's specific challenges. The short-term emphasis should be on facilitating patient recruitment and for postmarketing authorisation trials where research-relevant outcome measures are readily collectable. Sharing of case studies is encouraged. The workshop directly informed NIHR's funding call for ambitious data-enabled trials at scale. There is the opportunity for the UK to build upon existing data science capabilities to identify, recruit and monitor patients in trials at scale.

Objective: An umbrella review summarising all safety data from systematic reviews of topical corticosteroids (TCS) in adults and children with atopic eczema .Methods: Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology map of eczema systematic reviews searched until 7th November 2018 and Epistemonikos until 2nd March 2021. Reviews were included if they assessed safety of TCS in atopic eczema and searched >1 database using a reproducible search strategy. Review quality assessed using AMSTAR-2. PROSPERO registration: CRD42018079409. Results: 38 systematic reviews included, 34 low/critically low quality. Treatment and follow-up usually short (2-4 weeks). Key findings: TCS versus emollient/vehicle: No meta-analyses identified for skin-thinning. Two 2-week randomised controlled trials (RCTs) found no significant increased risk with very potent TCS (0/196 TCS vs 0/33 vehicle in children and 6/109 TCS vs 2/50 vehicle, age unknown). Biochemical adrenal suppression (cortisol) was 3.8% (95% CI 2.4%-5.8%) in a meta-analysis of 11 uncontrolled observational studies (any potency TCS, 522 children). Effects reversed when treatment ceased. TCS versus topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCIs): Meta-analysis showed higher relative risk of skin-thinning with TCS (RR 4.86, 95% CI 1.06-22.28, n=4128, four RCTs, including one 5-year RCT). Eight cases in 2068 participants, 7 using potent TCS. No evidence of growth suppression.Once daily versus more frequent TCS: No meta-analyses identified. No skin-thinning in one RCT (3 weeks potent TCS, n=94) or biochemical adrenal suppression in two RCTs (up to 2 weeks very potent/moderate TCS, n=129).TCS twice/week to prevent flares (‘weekend therapy’) versus vehicle: No meta-analyses identified. No evidence of skin-thinning in five RCTs. One RCT found biochemical adrenal suppression (2/44 children, potent TCS).Conclusions: We found no evidence of harm when TCS used intermittently “as required” to treat flares or “weekend therapy” to prevent flares. However, long-term safety data was limited.

BackgroundFood allergy is thought to develop through transcutaneous sensitization, especially in the presence of skin barrier impairment and inflammation. Regular moisturizer application to infant skin could potentially promote transcutaneous sensitization and the development of food allergy.ObjectivesWe tested this hypothesis in the Enquiring About Tolerance (EAT) study population.MethodsThe EAT study was a population-based randomized clinical trial conducted from January 15, 2008, to August 31, 2015, and recruited 1303 exclusively breastfed 3-month-old infants and their families from England and Wales. At enrollment at 3 months, families completed a questionnaire that included questions about frequency and type of moisturizer applied, use of corticosteroid creams, and parental report of dry skin or eczema. Infants were examined for visible eczema at the enrollment visit.ResultsA statistically significant dose-response relationship was observed between parent-reported moisturization frequency at 3 months of age and the subsequent development of food allergy. Each additional moisturization per week was associated with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.20 (95% CI, 1.13-1.27; P [less than].0005) for developing food allergy. For infants with no visible eczema at the enrollment visit, the corresponding adjusted odds ratio was 1.18 (95% CI, 1.07-1.30; P = .001) and for those with eczema at the enrollment visit, 1.20 (95% CI, 1.11-1.31; P [less than] .0005). Moisturizer frequency showed similar dose-response relationships with the development of both food and aeroallergen sensitization at 36 months.ConclusionsThese findings support the notion that regular application of moisturizers to the skin of young infants may promote the development of food allergy through transcutaneous sensitization.

Importance: Extenuating circumstances can trigger unplanned changes to randomized trials and introduce methodological, ethical, feasibility, and analytical challenges that can potentially compromise the validity of findings. Numerous randomized trials have required changes in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, but guidance for reporting such modifications is incomplete. Objective: As a joint extension for the CONSORT and SPIRIT reporting guidelines, CONSERVE (CONSORT and SPIRIT Extension for RCTs Revised in Extenuating Circumstances) aims to improve reporting of trial protocols and completed trials that undergo important modifications in response to extenuating circumstances. Evidence: A panel of 37 international trial investigators, patient representatives, methodologists and statisticians, ethicists, funders, regulators, and journal editors convened to develop the guideline. The panel developed CONSERVE following an accelerated, iterative process between June 2020 and February 2021 involving (1) a rapid literature review of multiple databases (OVID Medline, OVID EMBASE, and EBSCO CINAHL) and gray literature sources from 2003 to March 2021; (2) consensus-based panelist meetings using a modified Delphi process and surveys; and (3) a global survey of trial stakeholders. Findings: The rapid review yielded 41 673 citations, of which 38 titles were relevant, including emerging guidance from regulatory and funding agencies for managing the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on trials. However, no generalizable guidance for all circumstances in which trials and trial protocols might face unanticipated modifications were identified. The CONSERVE panel used these findings to develop a consensus reporting guidelines following 4 rounds of meetings and surveys. Responses were received from 198 professionals from 34 countries, of whom 90% (n = 178) indicated that they understood the concept definitions and 85.4% (n = 169) indicated that they understood and could use the implementation tool. Feedback from survey respondents was used to finalize the guideline and confirm that the guideline's core concepts were applicable and had utility for the trial community. CONSERVE incorporates an implementation tool and checklists tailored to trial reports and trial protocols for which extenuating circumstances have resulted in important modifications to the intended study procedures. The checklists include 4 sections capturing extenuating circumstances, important modifications, responsible parties, and interim data analyses. Conclusions and Relevance: CONSERVE offers an extension to CONSORT and SPIRIT that could improve the transparency, quality, and completeness of reporting important modifications to trials in extenuating circumstances such as COVID-19.