Search

Importance: Outcome measurement is an essential component of value-based health care and can aid patient care, quality improvement, and clinical effectiveness evidence generation. The Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema Clinical Practice initiative aims to identify a list of validated, feasible, outcome measurement instruments recommended to measure atopic dermatitis (AD) in the clinical practice setting. The clinical practice set is a list of instruments that clinicians can pick and choose from to suit their needs in the context of clinical care., Objective: To recommend instruments to measure clinical signs of AD in clinical practice., Evidence Review: Following the predefined roadmap, a mixed methods design was implemented and incorporated systematic reviews and qualitative consensus methods. Previous systematic reviews identified few clinical signs instruments with sufficient validation for recommendation. An updated systematic review evaluating the validity of clinical signs instruments informed an international meeting to reach consensus on recommended instruments to measure AD clinical signs in clinical practice. Consensus was defined as less than 30% disagreement. An in-person consensus exercise was held in Montreal, Canada, on October 16, 2022. The 34 attendees included patient and patient advocate research partners, health care professionals, researchers, methodologists, and industry representatives., Findings: The updated systematic review found that the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), Scoring Atopic Dermatitis, and objective Scoring Atopic Dermatitis were the only instruments that demonstrated sufficient performance in all assessed measurement properties. The modified EASI and Signs Global Assessment × Body Surface Area instruments were also recommended. The EASI, Validated Investigator Global Assessment, and Investigator's Global Assessment multiplied by or measured concurrently with a body surface area measure achieved consensus in criteria and were adopted., Conclusions and Relevance: This consensus statement by the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema initiative suggests that when assessing and documenting clinical signs of AD, there are several valid and feasible instruments that can best fit a clinician's specific practice needs. These instruments should improve and standardize the documentation of signs severity, help determine the effect of treatment, facilitate the generation of clinical effectiveness evidence, and enhance the implementation of value-based health care.

Background: The Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative has agreed upon the Core Outcome Set (COS) for use in atopic dermatitis (AD) clinical trials, but additional guidance is needed to maximize its uptake., Objectives: To provide answers to some of the commonly asked questions about using the HOME COS; to provide data to help with the interpretation of trial results; and to support sample size calculations for future trials., Methods and Results: We provide practical guidance on the use of the HOME COS for investigators planning clinical trials in patients with AD. It answers some of the common questions about using the HOME COS, how to access the outcome measurement instruments, what training/resources are needed to use them appropriately and clarifies when the COS is applicable. We also provide exemplar data to inform sample size calculations for eczema trials and encourage standardized data collection and reporting of the COS., Conclusions: By encouraging adoption of the COS and facilitating consistent reporting of outcome data, it is hoped that the results of eczema trials will be more comprehensive and readily combined in meta-analyses and that patient care will subsequently be improved., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists.)

Purpose: Environmental factors such as bathing may play a role in atopic dermatitis (AD) development. This analysis utilized data from the Community Assessment of Skin Care, Allergies, and Eczema (CASCADE) Trial (NCT03409367), a randomized controlled trial of emollient therapy for AD prevention in the general population, to estimate bathing frequency and associated factors within the first 9 weeks of life., Methods: Data were collected from 909 parent/newborn dyads recruited from 25 pediatric and family medicine clinics from the Meta-network Learning and Research Center (Meta-LARC) practice-based research network (PBRN) consortium in Oregon, North Carolina, Colorado, and Wisconsin for the CASCADE trial. Ordinal logistic regression was used to conduct a cross-sectional analysis of the association between bathing frequency (measured in baths per week) and demographic, medical, and lifestyle information about the infant, their family, and their household. Variables were selected using a backwards-stepwise method and estimates from the reduced model are reported in the text., Results: Moisturizer use (OR = 2.03, 95% CI: 1.54-2.68), Hispanic or Latino ethnicity (OR = 1.97, 95% CI: 1.42-2.72), a parental education level lower than a 4-year college degree (OR = 2.48, 95% CI: 1.70-3.62), living in North Carolina or Wisconsin (compared to Oregon; OR = 2.12 and 1.47, 95% CI: 1.53-2.93 and 1.04-2.08, respectively), and increasing child age (in days; OR = 1.02, 95% CI: 1.01-1.02) were significantly associated with more frequent bathing, while pet ownership (OR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.52-0.87) was significantly associated with less frequent bathing., Conclusions: We found significant ethnic, geographic, and socioeconomic variation in bathing frequency before 9 weeks of age that may be of relevance to AD prevention studies., (© 2023 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Recent discoveries have led to the suggestion that enhancing skin barrier from birth might prevent eczema and food allergy., Objective: To determine the cost-effectiveness of daily all-over-body application of emollient during the first year of life for preventing atopic eczema in high-risk children at 2 years from a health service perspective. We also considered a 5-year time horizon as a sensitivity analysis., Methods: A within-trial economic evaluation using data on health resource use and quality of life captured as part of the BEEP trial alongside the trial data. Parents/carers of 1394 infants born to families at high risk of atopic disease were randomised 1:1 to the emollient group, which were advised to apply emollient (Doublebase Gel or Diprobase Cream) to their child at least once daily to the whole body during the first year of life or usual care. Both groups received advice on general skin care. The main economic outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), defined as incremental cost per percentage decrease in risk of eczema in the primary cost-effectiveness analysis. Secondary analysis, undertaken as a cost-utility analysis, reports incremental cost per Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) where child utility was elicited using the proxy CHU-9D at 2 years., Results: At 2 years, the adjusted incremental cost was £87.45 (95% CI -54.31, 229.27) per participant, whilst the adjusted proportion without eczema was 0.0164 (95% CI -0.0329, 0.0656). The ICER was £5337 per percentage decrease in risk of eczema. Adjusted incremental QALYs were very slightly improved in the emollient group, 0.0010 (95% CI -0.0069, 0.0089). At 5 years, adjusted incremental costs were lower for the emollient group, -£106.89 (95% CI -354.66, 140.88) and the proportion without eczema was -0.0329 (95% CI -0.0659, 0.0002). The 5-year ICER was £3201 per percentage decrease in risk of eczema. However, when inpatient costs due to wheezing were excluded, incremental costs were lower and incremental effects greater in the usual care group., Conclusions: In line with effectiveness endpoints, advice given in the BEEP trial to apply daily emollient during infancy for eczema prevention in high-risk children does not appear cost-effective., (© 2023 The Authors. Clinical & Experimental Allergy published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

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.

Background: Early-onset atopic dermatitis is a strong risk factor for food allergy, suggesting that early effective treatment may prevent transcutaneous sensitization., Objectives: This study tested whether enhanced treatment of atopic dermatitis to clinically affected and unaffected skin is more effective in preventing hen's egg allergy than reactive treatment to clinically affected skin only., Methods: This was a multicenter, parallel-group, open-label, assessor-blind, randomized controlled trial (PACI [Prevention of Allergy via Cutaneous Intervention] study). This study enrolled infants 7-13 weeks old with atopic dermatitis and randomly assigned infants in a 1:1 ratio to enhanced early skin treatment or conventional reactive treatment using topical corticosteroids (TCSs). The primary outcome was the proportion of immediate hen's egg allergy confirmed by oral food challenge at 28 weeks of age., Results: This study enrolled 650 infants and analyzed 640 infants (enhanced [n = 318] or conventional [n = 322] treatment). Enhanced treatment significantly reduced hen's egg allergy compared with the conventional treatment (31.4% vs 41.9%, P = .0028; risk difference: -10.5%, upper bound of a 1-sided CI: -3.0%), while it lowered body weight (mean difference: -422 g, 95% CI: -553 to -292 g) and height (mean difference: -0.8 cm, 95% CI: -1.22 to -0.33 cm) at 28 weeks of age., Conclusions: This study highlighted the potential of well-controlled atopic dermatitis management as a component of a hen's egg allergy prevention strategy. The enhanced treatment protocol of this trial should be modified before it can be considered as an approach to prevent hen's egg allergy in daily practice to avoid the adverse effects of TCSs. After remission induction by TCSs, maintenance therapy with lower potency TCSs or other topical therapies might be considered as alternative proactive treatments to overcome the safety concerns of TCSs., (Copyright © 2023 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The effectiveness of emollients for preventing atopic dermatitis/eczema is controversial. The Barrier Enhancement for Eczema Prevention trial evaluated the effects of daily emollients during the first year of life on atopic dermatitis and atopic conditions to age 5 years., Methods: 1394 term infants with a family history of atopic disease were randomized (1:1) to daily emollient plus standard skin-care advice (693 emollient group) or standard skin-care advice alone (701 controls). Long-term follow-up at ages 3, 4 and 5 years was via parental questionnaires. Main outcomes were parental report of a clinical diagnosis of atopic dermatitis and food allergy., Results: Parents reported more frequent moisturizer application in the emollient group through to 5 years. A clinical diagnosis of atopic dermatitis between 12 and 60 months was reported for 188/608 (31%) in the emollient group and 178/631 (28%) in the control group (adjusted relative risk 1.10, 95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.30). Although more parents in the emollient group reported food reactions in the previous year at 3 and 4 years, cumulative incidence of doctor-diagnosed food allergy by 5 years was similar between groups (92/609 [15%] emollients and 87/632 [14%] controls, adjusted relative risk 1.11, 95% confidence interval 0.84 to 1.45). Findings were similar for cumulative incidence of asthma and hay fever., Conclusions: Daily emollient application during the first year of life does not prevent atopic dermatitis, food allergy, asthma or hay fever., (© 2022 The Authors. Allergy published by European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Competing Interests: Intérêts concurrents: Hywel Williams est le fondateur de Cochrane Skin et le président du réseau UK Dermatology Clinical Trials. Derek Chu est le coprésident des lignes directrices de 2022 sur les dermatites atopiques de l’American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (AAAAI) et de l’American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. Il est soutenu par la Fondation de l’AAAAI et, auparavant, par une subvention de la Fondation canadienne d’allergie, d’asthme et d’immunologie; la Société canadienne d’allergie et d’immunologie clinique et la société AllerGen NCE Inc. (grâce au soutien du gouvernement du Canada). Aucun autre intérêt concurrent n’a été déclaré.

Importance: Measuring outcomes in clinical practice can aid patient care, quality improvement, and real-world evidence generation. The Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) Clinical Practice initiative is developing a list of validated, feasible instruments to measure atopic eczema in clinical care. Prior work identified symptoms and long-term control as the most important domains to measure in clinical practice. The Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) and the Patient-Oriented Scoring Atopic Dermatitis Index (PO-SCORAD) were recommended by consensus to measure symptoms in clinical practice, but a need for instruments to measure itch intensity specifically was recognized. The HOME group also previously decided that long-term control should be captured by repeated measurements of eczema control. Recommended instruments to measure eczema control in clinical practice have not been defined., Objective: To recommend instruments to measure eczema control and itch intensity in patients with atopic eczema in clinical practice., Evidence Review: Available instruments to measure eczema control and itch intensity were identified through systematic reviews, informing a consensus process held at the HOME VIII virtual online meeting (October 6 and October 9, 2020). Feasibility aspects were highlighted to optimize instrument selection for the clinical practice. Consensus on an instrument was reached if fewer than 30% of the voters disagreed., Findings: Of 7 identified instruments, the Recap of Atopic Eczema (RECAP) and Atopic Dermatitis Control Tool (ADCT) were the recommended instruments to measure eczema control (3 of 63 [5%] and 7 of 69 [10%] of voters disagreed, respectively). A single-question patient global assessment garnered support, but the current available instrument did not reach consensus. Six available itch-intensity instruments were identified. Of them, 3 instruments were recommended by consensus: a peak 24-hour numeric rating scale (NRS)-itch, and 1-week NRS-itch instruments from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Itch Questionnaire, measuring average and peak itch (11 of 63 [17%], 14 of 63 [22%], and 16 of 59 [27%] voters disagreed, respectively)., Conclusions and Relevance: Clinicians and patients are encouraged to incorporate these well-validated, quick-to-perform, and easy-to-use instruments into their clinic, selecting the instruments that best fit their need. These assessments are meant to enhance, not replace, the patient-clinician encounter, and to support real-world research and health care improvement.

Competing Interests: Competing interests: Hywel Williams is the founder of Cochrane Skin and network chair of the UK Dermatology Clinical Trials Network. Derek Chu is the 2022 atopic dermatitis guideline co-chair with the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI) and the American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. He is supported by the AAAAI Foundation, and previously, by funding from the Canadian Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology Foundation; the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology; and AllerGen NCE (via Government of Canada). No other competing interests were declared.

In Part 1 of this two-part review, conceptual frameworks for defining skin diseases were articulated. In this review, the main approaches that can be used to develop diagnostic criteria for skin disease are summarized, using atopic dermatitis (AD) as an example. Different frameworks for defining skin disease for research purposes are articulated, including statistical, prognostic, operational, clinical and epidemiological approaches. All share the common aim of attempting to develop criteria that enable meaningful comparisons between groups of people. The desirable attributes of a good definition are described: diagnostic criteria should measure what they are meant to measure; the results should be the same for different assessors; the criteria should be coherent with what is known about that disease; they should reflect some degree of morbidity and not pick up subclinical disease; they should be easy to administer; and they should be applicable to a range of people of different ages, sexes/genders and ethnicities. Consensus-based criteria are contrasted with epidemiological derivation methods that assess the performance of diagnostic criteria in relation to a reference standard. The sensitivity and specificity of a disease definition is explained, along with how the trade-off between these two properties can vary, depending on the purpose of the study and the study setting. The review closes with some reflections on when it is appropriate to consider splitting a disease into more than one category and how diagnostic criteria can be interpreted in the clinical setting., (© 2022 The Authors. Clinical and Experimental Dermatology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists.)

Background: To our knowledge, there are no trials comparing emollients commonly used for childhood eczema. We aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness and safety of the four main emollient types: lotions, creams, gels, and ointments., Methods: We did a pragmatic, individually randomised, parallel group, phase 4 superiority trial in 77 general practice surgeries in England. Children aged between 6 months and 12 years with eczema (Patient Orientated Eczema Measure [POEM] score >2) were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1; stratified by centre and minimised by baseline POEM score and age, using a web-based system) to lotions, creams, gels, or ointments. Clinicians and parents were unmasked. The initial emollient prescription was for 500 g or 500 mL, to be applied twice daily and as required. Subsequent prescriptions were determined by the family. The primary outcome was parent-reported eczema severity over 16 weeks (weekly POEM), with analysis as randomly assigned regardless of adherence, adjusting for baseline and stratification variables. Safety was assessed in all randomly assigned participants. This trial was registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN84540529., Findings: Between Jan 19, 2018, and Oct 31, 2019, 12 417 children were assessed for eligibility, 550 of whom were randomly assigned to a treatment group (137 to lotion, 140 to cream, 135 to gel, and 138 to ointment). The numbers of participants who contributed at least two POEM scores and were included in the primary analysis were 131 in the lotion group, 137 in the cream group, 130 in the gel group, and 126 in the ointment group. Baseline median age was 4 years (IQR 2-8); 255 (46%) participants were girls, 295 (54%) were boys; 473 (86%) participants were White; and the mean POEM score was 9·3 (SD 5·5). There was no difference in eczema severity between emollient types over 16 weeks (global p value=0·77), with adjusted POEM pairwise differences of: cream versus lotion 0·42 (95% CI -0·48 to 1·32), gel versus lotion 0·17 (-0·75 to 1·09), ointment versus lotion -0·01 (-0·93 to 0·91), gel versus cream -0·25 (-1·15 to 0·65), ointment versus cream -0·43 (-1·34 to 0·48), and ointment versus gel -0·18 (-1·11 to 0·75). This result remained unchanged following multiple imputation, sensitivity, and subgroup analyses. The total number of adverse events did not significantly differ between the treatment groups (lotions 49 [36%], creams 54 [39%], gels 54 [40%], and ointments 48 [35%]; p=0·79), although stinging was less common with ointments (12 [9%] of 138 participants) than lotions (28 [20%] of 137), creams (24 [17%] of 140), or gels (25 [19%] of 135)., Interpretation: We found no difference in effectiveness between the four main types of emollients for childhood eczema. Users need to be able to choose from a range of emollients to find one that they are more likely to use effectively., Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests LH currently acts as a consultant for the University of Oxford on an educational grant funded by Pfizer, unrelated to the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Core outcome sets are critically important outcomes that should be measured in clinical trials. Their absence in atopic dermatitis is a form of research waste and impedes combining evidence to inform patient care. Here, we articulate the rationale for core outcome sets in atopic dermatitis and review the work of the international Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema group from its inception in Munich, 2010. We describe core domain determination (what should be measured), to instrument selection (how domains should be measured), culminating in the complete core outcome measurement set in Tokyo, 2019. Using a "road map," Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema includes diverse research methods including Delphi and nominal group techniques informed by systematic reviews of properties of candidate instruments. The 4 domains and recommended instruments for including in all clinical trials of atopic dermatitis are patient symptoms, measured by Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure and peak Numerical Rating Scale 11 for itch intensity over 24 hours, clinical signs measured using the Eczema Area and Severity Index, quality of life measured by the Dermatology Life Quality Index series for adults, children, and infants, and long-term control measured by either Recap of atopic eczema or Atopic Dermatitis Control Tool., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Eczema affects one in five children in the UK. Regular application of emollients is routinely recommended for children with eczema. There are four main emollient types, but no clear evidence of which is best. The current 'trial and error' approach to find suitable emollients can be frustrating for parents, children, and clinicians., Aim: To identify how parents and children experience and evaluate emollients., Design and Setting: Qualitative interview study, nested within a primary care trial of emollients (Best Emollients for Eczema [BEE] trial)., Method: Semi-structured interviews with children with eczema and their parents were conducted. Participants were purposively sampled on emollient type (lotion, cream, gel, or ointment), age, and eczema severity., Results: Forty-four parents were interviewed, with children participating in 24 of those interviews. There was no clear preference for any one emollient type. The strongest theme was the variation of experience in each of the four types. Participants focused on thickness and absorbency, both positively and negatively, to frame their evaluations. Effectiveness and acceptability were both considered when evaluating an emollient but effectiveness was the primary driver for continued use. For some, participating in the trial had changed their knowledge and behaviour of emollients, resulting in use that was more regular and for a longer duration., Conclusion: There is no one emollient that is suitable for everyone, and parents/children prioritise different aspects of emollients. Future research could evaluate decision aids and/or tester pots of different types, which could enable clinicians and parents/children to work collaboratively to identify the best emollient for them., (© The Authors.)

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., (© The Authors.)

Importance: Atopic eczema is characterized by a heterogenous waxing and waning course, with variable age of onset and persistence of symptoms. Distinct patterns of disease activity such as early-onset/resolving and persistent disease have been identified throughout childhood; little is known about patterns into adulthood., Objective: This study aimed to identify subtypes of atopic eczema based on patterns of disease activity through mid-adulthood, to examine whether early life risk factors and participant characteristics are associated with these subtypes, and to determine whether subtypes are associated with other atopic diseases and general health in mid-adulthood., Design, Setting, and Participants: This study evaluated members of 2 population-based birth cohorts, the 1958 National Childhood Development Study (NCDS) and the 1970 British Cohort Study (BCS70). Participant data were collected over the period between 1958 and 2016. Data were analyzed over the period between 2018 and 2020., Main Outcomes and Measures: Subtypes of atopic eczema were identified based on self-reported atopic eczema period prevalence at multiple occasions. These subtypes were the outcome in models of early life characteristics and an exposure variable in models of midlife health., Results: Latent class analysis identified 4 subtypes of atopic eczema with distinct patterns of disease activity among 15 939 individuals from the NCDS (51.4% male, 75.4% White) and 14 966 individuals from the BCS70 (51.6% male, 78.8% White): rare/no (88% to 91%), decreasing (4%), increasing (2% to 6%), and persistently high (2% to 3%) probability of reporting prevalent atopic eczema with age. Sex at birth and early life factors, including social class, region of residence, tobacco smoke exposure, and breastfeeding, predicted differences between the 3 atopic eczema subtypes and the infrequent/no atopic eczema group, but only female sex differentiated the high and decreasing probability subtypes (odds ratio [OR], 1.99; 95% CI, 1.66-2.38). Individuals in the high subtype were most likely to experience asthma and rhinitis, and those in the increasing subtype were at higher risk of poor self-reported general (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.09-1.53) and mental (OR 1.45; 95% CI, 1.23-1.72) health in midlife., Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cohort study suggest that extending the window of observation beyond childhood may reveal clear subtypes of atopic eczema based on patterns of disease activity. A newly identified subtype with increasing probability of activity in adulthood warrants additional attention given observed associations with poor self-reported health in midlife.

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., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

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 were searched until 7 November 2018 and Epistemonikos until 2 March 2021. Reviews were included if they assessed the safety of TCS in atopic eczema and searched > 1 database using a reproducible search strategy. Review quality was assessed using version 2 of 'A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews' (AMSTAR 2 tool)., Results: 38 systematic reviews included, 34 low/critically low quality. Treatment and follow-up were 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% to 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: Meta-analysis showed higher relative risk of skin thinning with TCS (4.86, 95% CI 1.06 to 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: W e found no evidence of harm when TCS were used intermittently 'as required' to treat flares or 'weekend therapy' to prevent flares. However, long-term safety data were limited., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42018079409., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Authors are coapplicants on an NIHR Programme Grants for Applied Research (P-PG-0216-20007) which funded this overview. The aim of the Programme Grant is to develop an intervention to support eczema self-care and the results of this overview will contribute to this intervention. MJR is funded by an NIHR Post-Doctoral Research Fellowship (PDF-2014-07-013). SML is supported by a Wellcome Senior Clinical fellowship in Science (205039/Z/16/Z). HCW was an author on four included reviews, and KST was an author on one included review., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: Eczema and food allergy start in infancy and have shared genetic risk factors that affect skin barrier. We aimed to evaluate whether skincare interventions can prevent eczema or food allergy., Design: A prospectively planned individual participant data meta-analysis was carried out within a Cochrane systematic review to determine whether skincare interventions in term infants prevent eczema or food allergy., Data Sources: Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and trial registries to July 2020., Eligibility Criteria for Selected Studies: Included studies were randomized controlled trials of infants <1 year with healthy skin comparing a skin intervention with a control, for prevention of eczema and food allergy outcomes between 1 and 3 years., Results: Of the 33 identified trials, 17 trials (5823 participants) had relevant outcome data and 10 (5154 participants) contributed to IPD meta-analysis. Three of seven trials contributing to primary eczema analysis were at low risk of bias, and the single trial contributing to primary food allergy analysis was at high risk of bias. Interventions were mainly emollients, applied for the first 3-12 months. Skincare interventions probably do not change risk of eczema by age 1-3 years (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.81, 1.31; I 2 =41%; moderate certainty; 3075 participants, 7 trials). Sensitivity analysis found heterogeneity was explained by increased eczema in a trial of daily bathing as part of the intervention. It is unclear whether skincare interventions increase risk of food allergy by age 1-3 years (RR 2.53, 95% CI 0.99 to 6.47; very low certainty; 996 participants, 1 trial), but they probably increase risk of local skin infections (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.02, 1.77; I 2 =0%; moderate certainty; 2728 participants, 6 trials)., Conclusion: Regular emollients during infancy probably do not prevent eczema and probably increase local skin infections., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic inflammatory skin disease with periods of flares and remission. Designing personalized treatment strategies for AD is challenging, given the apparent unpredictability and large variation in AD symptoms and treatment responses within and across individuals. Better prediction of AD severity over time for individual patients could help to select optimum timing and type of treatment for improving disease control., Objective: We aimed to develop a proof of principle mechanistic machine learning model that predicts the patient-specific evolution of AD severity scores on a daily basis., Methods: We designed a probabilistic predictive model and trained it using Bayesian inference with the longitudinal data from two published clinical studies. The data consisted of daily recordings of AD severity scores and treatments used by 59 and 334 AD children over 6 months and 16 weeks, respectively. Validation of the predictive model was conducted in a forward-chaining setting., Results: Our model was able to predict future severity scores at the individual level and improved chance-level forecast by 60%. Heterogeneous patterns in severity trajectories were captured with patient-specific parameters such as the short-term persistence of AD severity and responsiveness to topical steroids, calcineurin inhibitors and step-up treatment., Conclusions: Our proof of principle model successfully predicted the daily evolution of AD severity scores at an individual level and could inform the design of personalized treatment strategies that can be tested in future studies. Our model-based approach can be applied to other diseases with apparent unpredictability and large variation in symptoms and treatment responses such as asthma., (© 2020 The Authors. Clinical & Experimental Allergy published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Despite advances in atopic dermatitis (AD) treatments, research into AD prevention has been slow. Systematic reviews of prevention strategies promoting exclusive and prolonged breastfeeding, or interventions that reduce ingested or airborne allergens during pregnancy and after birth have generally not shown convincing benefit. Maternal/infant supplements such as Vitamin D have also not shown any benefit with the possible exception of omega-3 fatty acids. Systematic reviews suggest that probiotics could reduce AD incidence by around 20%, although the studies are quite variable and might benefit from individual patient data meta-analysis. Skin barrier enhancement from birth to prevent AD and food allergy has received recent interest, and results from national trials are awaited. It is possible that trying to influence major immunological changes that characterise AD at birth through infant-directed interventions may be too late, and more attention might be directed at fetal programming in utero.

Background: Measuring patient-centered outcomes in clinical practice is valuable for monitoring patients and advancing real-world research. A new initiative from the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) group aims to recommend what might be recorded for atopic eczema patients in routine clinical care., Objectives: Prioritize outcome domains to measure atopic eczema in clinical practice and select valid and practical outcome measurement instruments for the highest-priority domain., Methods: An online survey of HOME members identified and ranked 21 possible health domains. Suitable instruments were then selected for the top-prioritized domain at the HOME VI meeting, using established consensus processes informed by systematic reviews of instrument quality., Results: Patient-reported symptoms was the top-prioritized domain. In accordance with psychometric properties and feasibility, there was consensus that the recommended instruments to measure atopic eczema symptoms in clinical practice are the POEM, the PO-SCORAD index, or both. The numeric rating scale for itch received support pending definition and validation in atopic eczema., Conclusion: Following the first step of the HOME Clinical Practice initiative, we endorse using the POEM, the PO-SCORAD index, or both for measuring atopic eczema symptoms in clinical practice. Additional high-priority domains for clinical practice will be assessed at subsequent HOME meetings., (Copyright © 2020 American Academy of Dermatology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Skin barrier dysfunction precedes eczema development. We tested whether daily use of emollient in the first year could prevent eczema in high-risk children., Methods: We did a multicentre, pragmatic, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial in 12 hospitals and four primary care sites across the UK. Families were approached via antenatal or postnatal services for recruitment of term infants (at least 37 weeks' gestation) at high risk of developing eczema (ie, at least one first-degree relative with parent-reported eczema, allergic rhinitis, or asthma, diagnosed by a doctor). Term newborns with a family history of atopic disease were randomly assigned (1:1) to application of emollient daily (either Diprobase cream or DoubleBase gel) for the first year plus standard skin-care advice (emollient group) or standard skin-care advice only (control group). The randomisation schedule was created using computer-generated code (stratified by recruiting centre and number of first-degree relatives with atopic disease) and participants were assigned to groups using an internet-based randomisation system. The primary outcome was eczema at age 2 years (defined by UK working party criteria) with analysis as randomised regardless of adherence to allocation for participants with outcome data collected, and adjusting for stratification variables. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN21528841. Data collection for long-term follow-up is ongoing, but the trial is closed to recruitment., Findings: 1394 newborns were randomly assigned to study groups between Nov 19, 2014, and Nov 18, 2016; 693 were assigned to the emollient group and 701 to the control group. Adherence in the emollient group was 88% (466 of 532) at 3 months, 82% (427 of 519) at 6 months, and 74% (375 of 506) at 12 months in those with complete questionnaire data. At age 2 years, eczema was present in 139 (23%) of 598 infants with outcome data collected in the emollient group and 150 (25%) of 612 infants in the control group (adjusted relative risk 0·95 [95% CI 0·78 to 1·16], p=0·61; adjusted risk difference -1·2% [-5·9 to 3·6]). Other eczema definitions supported the results of the primary analysis. Mean number of skin infections per child in year 1 was 0·23 (SD 0·68) in the emollient group versus 0·15 (0·46) in the control group; adjusted incidence rate ratio 1·55 (95% CI 1·15 to 2·09)., Interpretation: We found no evidence that daily emollient during the first year of life prevents eczema in high-risk children and some evidence to suggest an increased risk of skin infections. Our study shows that families with eczema, asthma, or allergic rhinitis should not use daily emollients to try and prevent eczema in their newborn., Funding: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Atopic eczema onset is described primarily in early childhood, and the frequency and characteristics of adult-onset disease remain controversial., Objective: We sought to determine the proportion of subjects who report atopic eczema symptoms between birth and midadulthood and to examine demographic, immunologic, and genetic factors associated with period of symptom onset., Methods: We conducted a longitudinal study using data from 2 nationally representative community-based birth cohorts from the United Kingdom: the British Cohort Studies 1958 and 1970. Subjects were followed from birth through age 42 to 50 years. The primary outcome was the age period of self-reported atopic eczema symptom onset based on repeated measures of self-reported atopic eczema at each survey wave., Results: The annual period prevalence of atopic eczema ranged from 5% to 15% in 2 cohorts of more than 17,000 participants each followed from birth through middle age. There was no clear trend in prevalence by age, and among adults reporting active atopic eczema during a given year, only 38% had symptom onset reported in childhood. When compared with subjects whose eczema started in childhood, those with adult-onset disease were more likely to be women, from Scotland or Northern England, of lower childhood socioeconomic group, smokers in adulthood, and less likely to have a history of asthma. In a subanalysis using data from the 1958 cohort only, genetic mutations previously associated with atopic eczema, including filaggrin-null mutations, and allergen-specific IgE were more common among those with childhood-onset disease., Conclusion: Rates of self-reported atopic eczema remain high after childhood, and adult-onset atopic eczema has different risk factor associations than childhood-onset eczema., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Some previously described environmental associations for atopic eczema may be due to reverse causation. We explored the role of reverse causation by comparing individual- and school-level results for multiple atopic eczema risk factors. The International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood (i.e, ISAAC) Phase Three surveyed children in schools (the sampling unit) regarding atopic eczema symptoms and potential risk factors. We assessed the effect of these risk factors on atopic eczema symptoms using mixed-effect logistic regression models, first with individual-level exposure data and second with school-level exposure prevalence. Overall, 546,348 children from 53 countries were included. At ages 6-7 years, the strongest individual-level associations were with current paracetamol use (odds ratio [OR] = 1.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.37-1.54), which persisted at school-level (OR = 1.55, 95% CI = 1.10-2.21), early-life antibiotics (OR = 1.41, 95% CI = 1.34-1.48), and early-life paracetamol use (OR = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.21-1.36), with the former persisting at the school level, whereas the latter was no longer observed (OR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.00-1.82 and OR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.69-1.28, respectively). At ages 13-14 years, the strongest associations at the individual level were with current paracetamol use (OR = 1.57, 95% CI = 1.51-1.63) and open-fire cooking (OR = 1.46, 95% CI = 1.33-1.62); both were stronger at the school level (OR = 2.57, 95% CI = 1.84-3.59 and OR = 2.38, 95% CI = 1.52-3.73, respectively). Association with exposure to heavy traffic (OR = 1.31, 95% CI = 1.27-1.36) also persisted at the school level (OR = 1.40, 95% CI = 1.07-1.82). Most individual- and school-level effects were consistent, tending to exclude reverse causation., (Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Little is known about the burden of atopic dermatitis (AD) encountered in US primary care practices and the frequency and type of skin care practices routinely used in children., Objective: To estimate the prevalence of AD in children 0 to 5 years attending primary care practices in the United States and to describe routine skin care practices used in this population., Design: A cross-sectional survey study of a convenience sample of children under the age of 5 attending primary care practices for any reason., Setting: Ten primary care practices in 5 US states., Results: Among 652 children attending primary care practices, the estimated prevalence of ever having AD was 24% (95% CI, 21-28) ranging from 15% among those under the age of 1 to 38% among those aged 4 to 5 years. The prevalence of comorbid asthma was higher among AD participants compared to those with no AD, namely, 12% and 4%, respectively ( P < .001). Moisturizers with high water:oil ratios were most commonly used (ie, lotions) in the non-AD population, whereas moisturizers with low water:oil content (ie, ointments) were most common when AD was present., Conclusions: Our study found a large burden of AD in the primary care practice setting in the US. The majority of households reported skin care practices that may be detrimental to the skin barrier, such as frequent bathing and the routine use of moisturizers with high water: oil ratios. Clinical trials are needed to identify which skin care practices are optimal for reducing the significant burden of AD in the community., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: none declared., (© Copyright 2019 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

Introduction: Atopic dermatitis is a complex disease with differing clinical presentations. Many attempts have been made to identify uniform subtypes, or phenotypes, of atopic dermatitis in order to identify different aetiologies, improve diagnosis, estimate more accurate clinical prognoses, inform treatment andmanagement or predict treatment efficacy andeffectiveness. However, no consensus yet exists on exactly what defines these phenotypes or how many there are and whether they are genuine or statistical artefacts. This review aims to identify previously reported phenotypes of atopic dermatitis, the features used to define them and any characteristics or clinical outcomes significantly associated with them., Methods and Analysis: We will search Ovid Embase, Ovid MEDLINE and Web of Science from inception to the latest available date at the time of the search for studies attempting to classify atopic dermatitis in humans using any cross-sectional or longitudinal epidemiological or interventional design. Primary outcomes are atopic dermatitis phenotypes, features used to define them and characteristics associated with them in subsequent analyses. A secondary outcome is the methodological approach used to derive them. Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts for inclusion, extract data and assess study quality. We will present the results of this review descriptively and with frequencies where possible., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval is not required for this study as it is a systematic review. We will report results from this systematic review in a peer-reviewed journal. The main value of this study will be to inform further research., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42018087500., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: For decades, the efficacy of interventions in clinical trials enrolling dogs with atopic dermatitis (AD) relied on heterogeneous evaluations of skin lesions and pruritus using unvalidated tools. Although some instruments for clinical signs were validated later, there was little impact on standardizing outcome measures resulting in difficulties in comparing treatment efficacy between trials and impeding meta-analyses., Results: Participants in the Outcome Measures subcommittee of the International Committee of Allergic Diseases of Animals (ICADA) collaborated for two years to develop a core outcome set (COS) for canine AD, the COSCAD. This project involved several steps, constantly-re-assessed during online exchanges, to define the scope of this COS, to identify the relevant stakeholders, the domains to be evaluated, the instruments available for measuring agreed-upon domains and how to express outcome measures. This COSCAD'18 was designed principally for therapeutic-but not preventive or proactive-clinical trials enrolling dogs with chronic, nonseasonal (perennial), moderate-to-severe AD. Selected domains were skin lesions, pruritus manifestations and perception of treatment efficacy. Instruments to evaluate these domains were the CADESI4 or CADLI, the 10-point pruritus visual analog scale (PVAS10) and the Owner Global Assessment of Treatment Efficacy (OGATE), respectively. The COSCAD'18 has three outcome measures: the percentages of dogs with veterinarian-assessed skin lesions or owner-rated pruritus manifestation scores in the range of normal dogs or those with mild AD; the third is a good-to-excellent global assessment by the pet owners of their perception of treatment efficacy. Importantly, this COSCAD'18 is not meant to represent the sole-or primary-outcome measures evaluated in a trial; authors are always free to add any others, which they deem will best assess the efficacy of tested interventions. Benchmarks to define a threshold for treatment success were not set, as what constitutes a clinically-relevant therapeutic efficacy is expected to vary greatly depending interventions., Conclusions: This COSCAD'18 should help veterinarians and owners compare the benefits of treatments in future trials. This COS should also facilitate the combination of trial results in future systematic reviews, thereby producing more reliable summary estimates of treatment effects and enhancing evidence-based veterinary dermatology.

Background: Because atopic dermatitis (AD) is a relapsing remitting disease, assessing long-term control is important. Well-controlled weeks (WCWs) have been used to assess asthma long-term control but have never been validated for AD., Objectives: We sought to assess the feasibility, validity, and interpretability of WCWs in patients with AD., Methods: Three studies of patients with moderate-to-severe AD, including 4 to 6 months of daily/weekly symptom and treatment use data, were evaluated (study A, n = 336; study B, n = 60; and study C, n = 224). WCWs were defined by worsening symptoms and increased medication use. Feasibility, construct validity, and interpretability of WCWs were determined by assessing missing data, association with validated AD outcomes, and floor and ceiling effects. Analysis used linear and logistic regression., Results: WCWs were feasible to collect: 95.2% (study A) and 94.7% (study B) contributed data for at least half of the weekly data points, and 93.2% and 88.7% contributed to all data points up to 4 months. WCWs were significantly associated with validated AD severity instruments, including patient-orientated outcome measures and objective signs (Eczema Area and Severity Index, Three Item Severity Score, and Six Signs, Six Areas Atopic Dermatitis Scale). The odds of experiencing a WCW if AD severity was clear/mild was 5.8 (95% CI, 3.5-9.7), 1.9 (95% CI, 0.8-4.4), and 8.1 (95% CI, 4.5-14.6) in studies A, B, and C, respectively. WCWs were associated with ceiling effects: 31.6% (study A) and 37.5% (study B) of participants had no WCWs more than 90% of the time., Conclusions: WCWs are valid and feasible for measuring long-term control in AD trials. However, ceiling effects and burden of data collection can limit use., (Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Electronic health records hold great promise for clinical and epidemiologic research. Undertaking atopic eczema (AE) research using such data is challenging because of its episodic and heterogeneous nature. We sought to develop and validate a diagnostic algorithm that identifies AE cases based on codes used for electronic records used in the UK Health Improvement Network. We found that at least one of five diagnosis codes plus two treatment codes for any skin-directed therapy were likely to accurately identify patients with AE. To validate this algorithm, a questionnaire was sent to the physicians of 200 randomly selected children and adults. The primary outcome, positive predictive value for a physician-confirmed diagnosis of AE, was 86% (95% confidence interval = 80-91). Additional criteria increased the PPV up to 95% but would miss up to 89% of individuals with physician-confirmed AE. The first and last entered diagnosis codes for individuals showed good agreement with the physician-confirmed age at onset and last disease activity; the mean difference was 0.8 years (95% confidence interval = -0.3 to 1.9) and -1.3 years (95% confidence interval = -2.5 to -0.1), respectively. A combination of diagnostic and prescription codes can be used to reliably estimate the diagnosis and duration of AE from The Health Improvement Network primary care electronic health records in the UK., (Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common chronic skin disease characterized by recurrent skin inflammation and a weak skin barrier, and is known to be a precursor to other allergic diseases such as asthma. AD affects up to 25% of children worldwide and the incidence continues to rise. There is still uncertainty about the optimal treatment strategy in terms of choice of treatment, potency, duration and frequency. This study aims to develop a computational method to design optimal treatment strategies for the clinically recommended 'proactive therapy' for AD. Proactive therapy aims to prevent recurrent flares once the disease has been brought under initial control. Typically, this is done by using an anti-inflammatory treatment such as a potent topical corticosteroid intensively for a few weeks to 'get control', followed by intermittent weekly treatment to suppress subclinical inflammation to 'keep control'. Using a hybrid mathematical model of AD pathogenesis that we recently proposed, we computationally derived the optimal treatment strategies for individual virtual patient cohorts, by recursively solving optimal control problems using a differential evolution algorithm. Our simulation results suggest that such an approach can inform the design of optimal individualized treatment schedules that include application of topical corticosteroids and emollients, based on the disease status of patients observed on their weekly hospital visits. We demonstrate the potential and the gaps of our approach to be applied to clinical settings.This article is part of the themed issue 'Mathematical methods in medicine: neuroscience, cardiology and pathology'., (© 2017 The Authors.)

Background: Atopic eczema (AE) is a chronic, itchy, inflammatory skin condition that affects the quality of life of children and their families. The role of specialist clothing in the management of AE is poorly understood., Objectives: To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of silk garments for the management of AE in children with moderate to severe disease., Design: Parallel-group, observer-blind, randomised controlled trial of 6 months' duration, followed by a 2-month observational period. A nested qualitative study evaluated the beliefs of trial participants, health-care professionals and health-care commissioners about the use of silk garments for AE., Setting: Secondary care and the community in five UK centres., Participants: Children aged 1-15 years with moderate or severe AE., Interventions: Participants were randomised (1 : 1 using online randomisation) to standard care or standard care plus 100% silk garments made from antimicrobially protected knitted sericin-free silk [DermaSilk TM (AlPreTec Srl, San Donà di Piave, Italy) or DreamSkin TM (DreamSkin Health Ltd, Hatfield, UK)]. Three sets of garments were supplied per participant, to be worn for up to 6 months (day and night). At 6 months the standard care group received the garments to use for the remaining 2-month observational period., Main Outcome Measures: Primary outcome - AE severity using the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) assessed at 2, 4 and 6 months, by nurses blinded to treatment allocation. EASI scores were log-transformed for analysis. Secondary outcomes - patient-reported eczema symptoms (Patient Oriented Eczema Measure); global assessment of severity (Investigator Global Assessment); quality of life of the child (Atopic Dermatitis Quality of Life, Child Health Utility - 9 Dimensions), family (Dermatitis Family Impact Questionnaire) and main carer (EuroQoL-5 Dimensions-3 Levels); use of standard eczema treatments (e.g. emollients, topical corticosteroids); and cost-effectiveness. The acceptability and durability of the clothing, and adherence to wearing the garments, were assessed by parental/carer self-report. Safety outcomes - number of skin infections and hospitalisations for AE., Results: A total of 300 children were randomised (26 November 2013 to 5 May 2015): 42% female, 79% white, mean age 5 years. The primary analysis included 282 out of 300 (94%) children ( n  = 141 in each group). Garments were worn for at least 50% of the time by 82% of participants. Geometric mean EASI scores at baseline, 2, 4 and 6 months were 8.4, 6.6, 6.0, 5.4 for standard care and 9.2, 6.4, 5.8, 5.4 for silk clothing, respectively. There was no evidence of difference between the groups in EASI score averaged over all follow-up visits adjusted for baseline EASI score, age and centre (ratio of geometric means 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.07; p  = 0.43). This confidence interval is equivalent to a difference of -1.5 to 0.5 in the original EASI scale units. Skin infections occurred in 39 out of 141 (28%) and 36 out of 142 (25%) participants for standard care and silk clothing groups, respectively. The incremental cost per QALY of silk garments for children with moderate to severe eczema was £56,811 from a NHS perspective in the base case. Sensitivity analyses supported the finding that silk garments do not appear to be cost-effective within currently accepted thresholds., Limitations: Knowledge of treatment allocation may have affected behaviour and outcome reporting for some of the patient-reported outcomes., Conclusions: The addition of silk garments to standard AE care is unlikely to improve AE severity, or to be cost-effective compared with standard care alone, for children with moderate or severe AE. This trial adds to the evidence base to guide clinical decision-making., Future Work: Non-pharmacological interventions for the management of AE remain a research priority among patients., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN77261365., Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 21, No. 16. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

We sought to explore the architecture of trials of calcineurin inhibitors for atopic eczema to document the extent to which comparisons with active treatments such as topical corticosteroids might have been included or avoided. We identified all eligible randomized controlled trials using the Global Resource for EczemA Trials (GREAT) database. Network plots were produced where the nodes represented a treatment type and the lines between the nodes represented the number of trials or participants involved in the various treatment comparisons. A total of 174 randomized controlled trials for atopic eczema treatments were identified in which pimecrolimus, tacrolimus, or topical corticosteroids were compared with another intervention or a vehicle/emollient. Of 39 trials involving pimecrolimus and 41 trials involving tacrolimus, 8 (20.5%) and 13 (31.7%), respectively, made comparisons with topical corticosteroids, and 25 (64.1%) and 15 (36.6%), respectively, were vehicle-controlled studies. The high rate of comparisons with vehicle controls in randomized controlled trials that assessed the efficacy of pimecrolimus or tacrolimus long after efficacy had been established is a matter of concern. Active comparators (mild topical corticosteroids for pimecrolimus and moderate to potent topical corticosteroids for tacrolimus) are best placed to determine how topical calcineurin inhibitors compare with established clinical practice., (Copyright © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Specific allergen immunotherapy (SIT) is a treatment that may improve disease severity in people with atopic eczema (AE) by inducing immune tolerance to the relevant allergen. A high quality systematic review has not previously assessed the efficacy and safety of this treatment., Objectives: To assess the effects of specific allergen immunotherapy (SIT), including subcutaneous, sublingual, intradermal, and oral routes, compared with placebo or a standard treatment in people with atopic eczema., Search Methods: We searched the following databases up to July 2015: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library (Issue 7, 2015), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), LILACS (from 1982), Web of Science™ (from 2005), the Global Resource of EczemA Trials (GREAT database), and five trials databases. We searched abstracts from recent European and North American allergy meetings and checked the references of included studies and review articles for further references to relevant trials., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of specific allergen immunotherapy that used standardised allergen extracts in people with AE., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors independently undertook study selection, data extraction (including adverse effects), assessment of risk of bias, and analyses. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane., Main Results: We identified 12 RCTs for inclusion in this review; the total number of participants was 733. The interventions included SIT in children and adults allergic to either house dust mite (10 trials), grass pollen, or other inhalant allergens (two trials). They were administered subcutaneously (six trials), sublingually (four trials), orally, or intradermally (two trials). Overall, the risk of bias was moderate, with high loss to follow up and lack of blinding as the main methodological concern.Our primary outcomes were 'Participant- or parent-reported global assessment of disease severity at the end of treatment'; 'Participant- or parent-reported specific symptoms of eczema, by subjective measures'; and 'Adverse events, such as acute episodes of asthma or anaphylaxis'. SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) is a means of measuring the effect of atopic dermatitis by area (A); intensity (B); and subjective measures (C), such as itch and sleeplessness, which we used.For 'Participant- or parent-reported global assessment of disease severity at the end of treatment', one trial (20 participants) found improvement in 7/9 participants (78%) treated with the SIT compared with 3/11 (27%) treated with the placebo (risk ratio (RR) 2.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 7.96; P = 0.04). Another study (24 participants) found no difference: global disease severity improved in 8/13 participants (62%) treated with the SIT compared with 9/11 (81%) treated with the placebo (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.26; P = 0.38). We did not perform meta-analysis because of high heterogeneity between these two studies. The quality of the evidence was low.For 'Participant- or parent-reported specific symptoms of eczema, by subjective measures', two trials (184 participants) did not find that the SIT improved SCORAD part C (mean difference (MD) -0.74, 95% CI -1.98 to 0.50) or sleep disturbance (MD -0.49, 95% CI -1.03 to 0.06) more than placebo. For SCORAD part C itch severity, these two trials (184 participants) did not find that the SIT improved itch (MD -0.24, 95% CI -1.00 to 0.52). One other non-blinded study (60 participants) found that the SIT reduced itch compared with no treatment (MD -4.20, 95% CI -3.69 to -4.71) and reduced the participants' overall symptoms (P < 0.01), but we could not pool these three studies due to high heterogeneity. The quality of the evidence was very low.Seven trials reported systemic adverse reactions: 18/282 participants (6.4%) treated with the SIT had a systemic reaction compared with 15/210 (7.1%) with no treatment (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.49; the quality of the evidence was moderate). The same seven trials reported local adverse reactions: 90/280 participants (32.1%) treated with the SIT had a local reaction compared with 44/204 (21.6%) in the no treatment group (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.81). As these had the same study limitations, we deemed the quality of the evidence to also be moderate.Of our secondary outcomes, there was a significant improvement in 'Investigator- or physician-rated global assessment of disease severity at the end of treatment' (six trials, 262 participants; RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.88). None of the studies reported our secondary outcome 'Parent- or participant-rated eczema severity assessed using a published scale', but two studies (n = 184), which have been mentioned above, used SCORAD part C, which we included as our primary outcome 'Participant- or parent-reported specific symptoms of eczema, by subjective measures'.Our findings were generally inconclusive because of the small number of studies. We were unable to determine by subgroup analyses a particular type of allergen or a particular age or level of disease severity where allergen immunotherapy was more successful. We were also unable to determine whether sublingual immunotherapy was associated with more local adverse reactions compared with subcutaneous immunotherapy., Authors' Conclusions: Overall, the quality of the evidence was low. The low quality was mainly due to the differing results between studies, lack of blinding in some studies, and relatively few studies reporting participant-centred outcome measures. We found limited evidence that SIT may be an effective treatment for people with AE. The treatments used in these trials were not associated with an increased risk of local or systemic reactions. Future studies should use high quality allergen formulations with a proven track record in other allergic conditions and should include participant-reported outcome measures.

Background: Investigators often use global assessments to provide a snapshot of overall disease severity in dermatologic clinical trials. Although easy to perform, the frequency of use and standardization of global assessments in studies of atopic dermatitis (AD) is unclear., Objectives: We sought to assess the frequency, definitions, and methods of analysis of Investigator Global Assessment in randomized controlled trials of AD., Methods: We conducted a systematic review using all published randomized controlled trials of AD treatments in the Global Resource of Eczema Trials database (2000-2014). We determined the frequency of global scales application and defining features., Results: Among 317 trials identified, 101 trials (32%) used an investigator-performed global assessment as an outcome measure. There was large variability in global assessments between studies in nomenclature, scale size, definitions, outcome description, and analysis. Both static and dynamic scales were identified that ranged from 4- to 7-point scales. North American studies used global assessments more commonly than studies from other countries., Limitations: The search was restricted to the Global Resource of Eczema Trials database., Conclusion: Global assessments are used frequently in studies of AD, but their complete lack of standardized definitions and implementation preclude any meaningful comparisons between studies, which in turn impedes data synthesis to inform clinical decision-making. Standardization is urgently required., (Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Atopic eczema (AE) is a chronic disease with flares and remissions. Long-term control of AE flares has been identified as a core outcome domain for AE trials. However, it is unclear how flares should be defined and measured., Objective: To validate two concepts of AE flares based on daily reports of topical medication use: (i) escalation of treatment and (ii) days of topical anti-inflammatory medication use (topical corticosteroids and/or calcineurin inhibitors)., Methods: Data from two published AE studies (studies A (n=336) and B (n=60)) were analysed separately. Validity and feasibility of flare definitions were assessed using daily global bother (scale 0 to 10) as the reference standard. Intra-class correlations were reported for continuous variables, and odds ratios and area under the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve for binary outcome measures., Results: Good agreement was found between both AE flare definitions and change in global bother: area under the ROC curve for treatment escalation of 0.70 and 0.73 in studies A and B respectively, and area under the ROC curve of 0.69 for topical anti-inflammatory medication use (Study A only). Significant positive relationships were found between validated severity scales (POEM, SASSAD, TIS) and the duration of AE flares occurring in the previous week - POEM and SASSAD rose by half a point for each unit increase in number of days in flare. Smaller increases were observed on the TIS scale. Completeness of daily diaries was 95% for Study A and 60% for Study B over 16 weeks)., Conclusion: Both definitions were good proxy indicators of AE flares. We found no evidence that 'escalation of treatment' was a better measure of AE flares than 'use of topical anti-inflammatory medications'. Capturing disease flares in AE trials through daily recording of medication use is feasible and appears to be a good indicator of long-term control., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN71423189 (Study A).

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.

Atopic dermatitis is a common, chronic inflammatory dermatosis that can affect all age groups. This evidence-based guideline addresses important clinical questions that arise in its management. In this final section, treatments for flare prevention and adjunctive and complementary therapies and approaches are reviewed. Suggestions on use are given based on available evidence., (Copyright © 2014 American Academy of Dermatology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The lack of core outcome sets for atopic eczema (AE) is a major obstacle for advancing evidence-based treatment. The global Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative has already defined clinical signs, symptoms, quality of life, and long-term control of flares as core outcome domains for AE trials. This article deals with the standardization of measurement instruments to assess clinical signs of AE. To resolve the current lack of standardization of the assessment of clinical signs of AE, we followed a structured process of systematic reviews and international consensus sessions to identify 1 core outcome measurement instrument for assessment of clinical signs in all future AE trials. Systematic reviews indicated that from 16 different instruments identified to assess clinical signs of AE, only the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) and the objective Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) index were identified as extensively validated. The EASI has adequate validity, responsiveness, internal consistency, and intraobserver reliability. The objective SCORAD index has adequate validity, responsiveness, and interobserver reliability but unclear intraobserver reliability to measure clinical signs of AE. In an international consensus study, patients, physicians, nurses, methodologists, and pharmaceutical industry representatives agreed that the EASI is the preferred core instrument to measure clinical signs in all future AE trials. All stakeholders involved in designing, reporting, and using clinical trials on AE are asked to comply with this consensus to enable better evidence-based decision making, clearer scientific communication, and improved patient care., (Copyright © 2014 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Atopic dermatitis (atopic eczema) is a chronic inflammatory skin disease that has reached epidemic proportions in children worldwide and is increasing in prevalence. Because of the significant socioeconomic effect of atopic dermatitis and its effect on the quality of life of children and families, there have been decades of research focused on disease prevention, with limited success. Recent advances in cutaneous biology suggest skin barrier defects might be key initiators of atopic dermatitis and possibly allergic sensitization., Objective: Our objective was to test whether skin barrier enhancement from birth represents a feasible strategy for reducing the incidence of atopic dermatitis in high-risk neonates., Methods: We performed a randomized controlled trial in the United States and United Kingdom of 124 neonates at high risk for atopic dermatitis. Parents in the intervention arm were instructed to apply full-body emollient therapy at least once per day starting within 3 weeks of birth. Parents in the control arm were asked to use no emollients. The primary feasibility outcome was the percentage of families willing to be randomized. The primary clinical outcome was the cumulative incidence of atopic dermatitis at 6 months, as assessed by a trained investigator., Results: Forty-two percent of eligible families agreed to be randomized into the trial. All participating families in the intervention arm found the intervention acceptable. A statistically significant protective effect was found with the use of daily emollient on the cumulative incidence of atopic dermatitis with a relative risk reduction of 50% (relative risk, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.28-0.9; P = .017). There were no emollient-related adverse events and no differences in adverse events between groups., Conclusion: The results of this trial demonstrate that emollient therapy from birth represents a feasible, safe, and effective approach for atopic dermatitis prevention. If confirmed in larger trials, emollient therapy from birth would be a simple and low-cost intervention that could reduce the global burden of allergic diseases., (Crown Copyright © 2014. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Atopic dermatitis is a chronic, pruritic inflammatory dermatosis that affects up to 25% of children and 2% to 3% of adults. This guideline addresses important clinical questions that arise in atopic dermatitis management and care, providing recommendations based on the available evidence. In this third of 4 sections, treatment of atopic dermatitis with phototherapy and systemic immunomodulators, antimicrobials, and antihistamines is reviewed, including indications for use and the risk-benefit profile of each treatment option., (Copyright © 2014 American Academy of Dermatology, Inc. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Atopic dermatitis is a common and chronic, pruritic inflammatory skin condition that can affect all age groups. This evidence-based guideline addresses important clinical questions that arise in its management. In this second of 4 sections, treatment of atopic dermatitis with nonpharmacologic interventions and pharmacologic topical therapies are reviewed. Where possible, suggestions on dosing and monitoring are given based on available evidence., (Copyright © 2014 American Academy of Dermatology, Inc. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Atopic dermatitis (AD) treatment is often initiated by symptoms or visible erythema. The role of induction of remission or treatment of inflammation that is not visible is unclear., Objective: We investigated whether (1) the notion of subclinical inflammation is scientifically sound, (2) treatment corrects subclinical inflammation, and (3) different strategies for initial clearance of AD affect long-term disease control., Methods: We conducted a systematic review based on searching MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane register of randomized controlled trials, and the Global Resource of Eczema Trials from inception to the end of October 2012., Results: Twenty of 26 included studies presented evidence of subclinical inflammation, with a continuum of changes in skin barrier dysfunction, the proinflammatory cytokine milieu, and lymphocytic infiltration from normal-appearing skin to posttreatment lesional skin to active skin lesions in patients with AD. Such subclinical inflammation is improved, with proactive treatment aimed at maintaining remission. Failure to achieve control of AD symptoms with initial therapy was associated with a higher risk of relapse in 14 randomized controlled trials (fluticasone: risk ratio, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.02-1.68; tacrolimus: risk ratio, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.12-1.66). Three trials on systemic therapy/phototherapy suggested that induction of remission resulted in long-term remission without maintenance therapy in approximately 15% of patients., Conclusion: Induction of remission followed by maintenance therapy might prove to be an integral part of a disease-modifying strategy for treating atopic diseases., (Copyright © 2014 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic, pruritic, inflammatory dermatosis that affects up to 25% of children and 2% to 3% of adults. This guideline addresses important clinical questions that arise in the management and care of AD, providing updated and expanded recommendations based on the available evidence. In this first of 4 sections, methods for the diagnosis and monitoring of disease, outcomes measures for assessment, and common clinical associations that affect patients with AD are discussed. Known risk factors for the development of disease are also reviewed., (Copyright © 2013 American Academy of Dermatology, Inc. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Children with chronic skin diseases often experience significant psychological difficulties, yet pediatric dermatologists rarely have psychology professionals on hand to help address them. This article presents personalized stories as a technique for integrating psychologically developed interventions into day-to-day clinical practice with a view to improving treatment outcomes., (© 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)