Best emollients for eczema (BEE) - comparing four types of emollients in children with eczema: protocol for randomised trial and nested qualitative study

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

Background

Emollients are recommended for children with eczema (atopic eczema/dermatitis). A lack of head-to-head comparisons of the effectiveness and acceptability of the different types of emollients has resulted in a 'trial and error' approach to prescribing.

Objective

To compare the effectiveness and acceptability of four commonly used types of emollients for the treatment of childhood eczema.

Design

Four group, parallel, individually randomised, superiority randomised clinical trials with a nested qualitative study, completed in 2021. A purposeful sample of parents/children was interviewed at ≈ 4 and ≈ 16 weeks.

Setting

Primary care (78 general practitioner surgeries) in England.

Participants

Children aged between 6 months and 12 years with eczema, of at least mild severity, and with no known sensitivity to the study emollients or their constituents.

Interventions

Study emollients sharing the same characteristics in the four types of lotion, cream, gel or ointment, alongside usual care, and allocated using a web-based randomisation system. Participants were unmasked and the researcher assessing the Eczema Area Severity Index scores was masked.

Main outcome measures

The primary outcome was Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure scores over 16 weeks. The secondary outcomes were Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure scores over 52 weeks, Eczema Area Severity Index score at 16 weeks, quality of life (Atopic Dermatitis Quality of Life, Child Health Utility-9 Dimensions and EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, scores), Dermatitis Family Impact and satisfaction levels at 16 weeks.

Results

A total of 550 children were randomised to receive lotion (analysed for primary outcome 131/allocated 137), cream (137/140), gel (130/135) or ointment (126/138). At baseline, 86.0% of participants were white and 46.4% were female. The median (interquartile range) age was 4 (2-8) years and the median Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure score was 9.3 (SD 5.5). There was no evidence of a difference in mean Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure scores over the first 16 weeks between emollient types (global p = 0.765): adjusted Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure pairwise differences - cream-lotion 0.42 (95% confidence interval -0.48 to 1.32), gel-lotion 0.17 (95% confidence interval -0.75 to 1.09), ointment-lotion -0.01 (95% confidence interval -0.93 to 0.91), gel-cream -0.25 (95% confidence interval -1.15 to 0.65), ointment-cream -0.43 (95% confidence interval -1.34 to 0.48) and ointment-gel -0.18 (95% confidence interval -1.11 to 0.75). There was no effect modification by parent expectation, age, disease severity or the application of UK diagnostic criteria, and no differences between groups in any of the secondary outcomes. Median weekly use of allocated emollient, non-allocated emollient and topical corticosteroids was similar across groups. Overall satisfaction was highest for lotions and gels. There was no difference in the number of adverse reactions and there were no significant adverse events. In the nested qualitative study (n = 44 parents, n = 25 children), opinions about the acceptability of creams and ointments varied most, yet problems with all types were reported. Effectiveness may be favoured over acceptability. Parents preferred pumps and bottles over tubs and reported improved knowledge about, and use of, emollients as a result of taking part in the trial.

Limitations

Parents and clinicians were unmasked to allocation. The findings may not apply to non-study emollients of the same type or to children from more ethnically diverse backgrounds.

Conclusions

The four emollient types were equally effective. Satisfaction with the same emollient types varies, with different parents/children favouring different ones. Users need to be able to choose from a range of emollient types to find one that suits them.

Future work

Future work could focus on how best to support shared decision-making of different emollient types and evaluations of other paraffin-based, non-paraffin and 'novel' emollients.

Trial registration

This trial is registered as ISRCTN84540529 and EudraCT 2017-000688-34.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (HTA 15/130/07) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 19. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

How parents and children evaluate emollients for childhood eczema: a qualitative study

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.

Emollient prescribing formularies and guidelines in England, 2021: cross sectional study

Background

Emollients are a mainstay of treatment for dry skin conditions. In the UK, prescribers are usually expected to follow local National Health Service (NHS) formularies. A previous study in 2018 showed that the recommended emollients across England and Wales varied widely. Evidence has since emerged that bath additives provide no additional clinical benefit in eczema.

Aim

To compare emollient formularies and guidelines in England.

Methods

Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) formularies and guidelines were identified in April–May 2021, compiled and then analysed descriptively.

Results

In total, 105 CCGs, 72 emollient formularies and 47 emollient prescribing guidelines were identified. There were internal inconsistencies between formularies and their accompanying guidelines in 19% of cases. The majority (68%) of formularies/guidelines were organized using a ranking system. In total, 126 different leave‐on emollients were named. Creams and ointments were universally available and were the most recommended first‐line types. Cost was more likely than patient choice to be recommended as a criterion for selecting which emollient to prescribe. Aqueous cream was the leave‐on emollient most commonly not recommended. Nearly three‐quarters (74%) of formularies stated that bath additives should not be prescribed.

Conclusion

All CCGs in England have an emollient formulary/guideline, but there is still great variability between them in their recommendations. Although the number of formularies/guidelines has reduced since 2017, there has been an increase in the total number of unique recommended leave‐on emollients. Most CCGs are no longer recommending bath emollients for eczema.

Emollient satisfaction questionnaire: validation study in children with eczema

Background

Emollients are used as maintenance therapy for all severities of eczema but there is a lack of head‐to‐head comparisons of effectiveness and acceptability.

Aim

To determine the validity of a self‐report questionnaire designed to assess user satisfaction with a given emollient and to report the findings.

Methods

Data were analysed from the Choice of Moisturiser for Eczema Treatment trial, which compared four emollient types (Aveeno^® lotion, Diprobase^® cream, Doublebase^® gel and Hydromol^® ointment) in children aged < 5 years with clinically diagnosed eczema. An emollient satisfaction questionnaire was completed after 12 weeks. Responses for individual items were scored from 0 to 4. Total scores ranged from 0 to 28 (low to high satisfaction). Completion rates and distributions of responses for individual items and total scores, categorized by emollient type, were assessed, and two hypotheses were tested to determine the questionnaire's construct validity.

Results

Data from 77.2% (152 of 197) of participants were analysed. One item was rejected because of a high rate (44.7%) of ‘don't know’ responses, leaving seven items with high completion rates (98.7%) and weak evidence of floor or ceiling effects. A positive association was observed between total score and overall emollient satisfaction (Spearman correlation 0.78; P < 0.001). Total scores were highest (mean ± SD 23.5 ± 3.9) in the lotion group and lowest (18.4 ± 4.6) in the ointment group.

Conclusion

The emollient satisfaction questionnaire appears to have good validity. Further work is required to validate the questionnaire in other settings and to assess its reliability.

Celebrating 20 years of the UK Dermatology Clinical Trials Network: Part 1 – developing and delivering high quality independent clinical trials

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.

Topical Ectoine Application in Children and Adults to Treat Inflammatory Diseases Associated with an Impaired Skin Barrier: A Systematic Review

Introduction

Inflammatory skin diseases are a significant burden on affected patients. Inflammation is caused by various stress factors to the epidermis resulting in, e.g., dryness, redness, and pruritus. Emollients are used in basic therapy to restore the natural skin barrier and relieve symptoms. A systematic review was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ectoine-containing topical formulations in inflammatory skin diseases characterized by an impaired skin barrier.

Methods

A systematic review was carried out in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Microsoft Academic up to October 2021. Inclusion criteria were ectoine-containing topical formulations (creams, emollients) used for (adjuvant) therapy of inflammatory skin diseases. Clinical studies of any design published in any language were included.

Results

A total of 230 references were screened for eligibility, of which six were selected for inclusion in the review (five studies on atopic dermatitis and one study on prevention and management of retinoid dermatitis). The application of topical formulations containing 5.5–7.0% ectoine positively influenced skin dryness and, consequently, pruritus and dermatitis-specific scores in patients with atopic dermatitis. Especially in infants and children, who belong to the most frequently affected group, the formulations were well-tolerated when applied for up to 4 weeks. In studies where ectoine was used as an adjuvant therapy, application was associated with a decreased need for pharmacological therapy and also improved the effectiveness of, e.g., topical corticosteroids. In patients undergoing isotretinoin therapy, ectoine was as effective as dexpanthenol in reducing retinoid dermatitis or improving symptoms.

Conclusion

Ectoine is an effective natural substance with an excellent tolerability and safety profile, representing a beneficial alternative as basic therapy or to increase the efficacy of the pharmacological treatment regimen for patients with inflammatory skin diseases, including infants and children.

Engaging with diverse audiences to raise awareness about childhood eczema: reflections from two community events

BACKGROUND

Eczema is a common childhood condition, causing dry and itchy skin which can be difficult to manage. We have been undertaking eczema and food allergy research to address previously prioritised research questions. We obtained funding to trial novel approaches to reach diverse audiences to raise awareness of childhood eczema, research, and public involvement in research.

METHODS

This paper reflects on two public engagement events held in collaboration with stakeholders in two settings of ethnic diversity in East Bristol, UK. We invited parents and children to attend the events by public display of posters. We created novel activities related to the research and involved artists to engage parents/carers and children about eczema and the research we are doing into its management.

RESULTS

Attendance at the first event was lower than expected. Lessons learned were incorporated into the second event, to use a more structured approach and attract greater numbers of parents/carers from more diverse backgrounds. Creative approaches such as using artists at both events made the subject more accessible for diverse audiences, including children.

CONCLUSION

We successfully delivered two public engagement events. The success of the events has generated individual interest in PPI and enquiries about future events from neighbouring community groups. Reflections from the events have also been fed back to inform the research.

Test-guided dietary management of eczema in children: A randomized controlled feasibility trial (TEST)

BACKGROUND

Parents commonly ask about food allergy tests, to find a cause for their child's eczema, yet the value of routine testing is uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether a clinical trial comparing test-guided dietary advice versus usual care, for the management of eczema, is feasible.

METHODS

Children (>3 months and <5 years) with mild-to-severe eczema, recruited via primary care, were individually randomized (1:1) to intervention or usual care. Intervention participants underwent structured allergy history and skin prick tests (SPT) with dietary advice for cow's milk, hen's egg, wheat, peanut, cashew and codfish. All participants were followed up for 24 weeks. A sample of doctors and parents was interviewed. Registration ISRCTN15397185.

RESULTS

From 1059 invitation letters sent to carers of potentially eligible children, 84 were randomized (42 per group) with mean age of 32.4 months (SD 13.9) and POEM of 8.7 (4.8). Of the 42, 6 (14%) intervention participants were advised to exclude one or more foods, most commonly egg, peanut or milk. By participant, 1/6 had an oral food challenge (negative); 3/6 were told to exclude until review in allergy clinic; and 6/6 advised a home dietary trial (exclusion and reintroduction of food over 4-6 weeks) - with 1/6 partially completing it. Participant retention (four withdrawals) and data completeness (74%-100%) were acceptable and contamination low (two usual care participants had allergy tests). There were three minor SPT-related adverse events. During follow-up, 12 intervention and 8 usual care participants had minor, unrelated adverse events plus one unrelated hospital admission.

CONCLUSIONS

It is possible to recruit, randomize and retain children with eczema from primary care into a trial of food allergy screening and to collect the outcomes of interest. Changes to recruitment and inclusion criteria are needed in a definitive trial, to ensure inclusion of younger children from more diverse backgrounds.