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

BackgroundEmollients 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.ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness and acceptability of four commonly used types of emollients for the treatment of childhood eczema.DesignFour 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.SettingPrimary care (78 general practitioner surgeries) in England.ParticipantsChildren 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.InterventionsStudy 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 measuresThe 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.ResultsA 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.LimitationsParents 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.ConclusionsThe 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 workFuture 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 registrationThis trial is registered as ISRCTN84540529 and EudraCT 2017-000688-34.FundingThis 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

Global Profiling of DNA Replication Timing and Efficiency Reveals that Efficient Replication/Firing Occurs Late during S-Phase in S. pombe

10.1371/journal.pone.0000722PLoS ONE2

Search for new physics with same-sign isolated dilepton events with jets and missing transverse energy

A search for new physics is performed in events with two same-sign isolated leptons, hadronic jets, and missing transverse energy in the final state. The analysis is based on a data sample corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 4.98 inverse femtobarns produced in pp collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 7 TeV collected by the CMS experiment at the LHC. This constitutes a factor of 140 increase in integrated luminosity over previously published results. The observed yields agree with the standard model predictions and thus no evidence for new physics is found. The observations are used to set upper limits on possible new physics contributions and to constrain supersymmetric models. To facilitate the interpretation of the data in a broader range of new physics scenarios, information on the event selection, detector response, and efficiencies is provided.Comment: Published in Physical Review Letter

Search for anomalous t t-bar production in the highly-boosted all-hadronic final state

A search is presented for a massive particle, generically referred to as a Z', decaying into a t t-bar pair. The search focuses on Z' resonances that are sufficiently massive to produce highly Lorentz-boosted top quarks, which yield collimated decay products that are partially or fully merged into single jets. The analysis uses new methods to analyze jet substructure, providing suppression of the non-top multijet backgrounds. The analysis is based on a data sample of proton-proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 7 TeV, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 5 inverse femtobarns. Upper limits in the range of 1 pb are set on the product of the production cross section and branching fraction for a topcolor Z' modeled for several widths, as well as for a Randall--Sundrum Kaluza--Klein gluon. In addition, the results constrain any enhancement in t t-bar production beyond expectations of the standard model for t t-bar invariant masses larger than 1 TeV.Comment: Submitted to the Journal of High Energy Physics; this version includes a minor typo correction that will be submitted as an erratu

Differences between the non-steroidal aromatase inhibitors anastrozole and letrozole – of clinical importance?

Aromatase inhibition is the gold standard for treatment of early and advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal women suffering from an estrogen receptor-positive disease. The currently established group of anti-aromatase compounds comprises two reversible aromatase inhibitors (anastrozole and letrozole) and on the other hand, the irreversible aromatase inactivator exemestane. Although exemestane is the only widely used aromatase inactivator at this stage, physicians very often have to choose between either anastrozole or letrozole in general practice. These third-generation aromatase inhibitors (letrozole/Femara (Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Basel, Switzerland) and anastrozole/Arimidex (AstraZeneca, Pharmaceuticals, Macclesfield, Cheshire, UK)), have recently demonstrated superior efficacy compared with tamoxifen as initial therapy for early breast cancer improving disease-free survival. However, although anastrozole and letrozole belong to the same pharmacological class of agents (triazoles), an increasing body of evidence suggests that these aromatase inhibitors are not equipotent when given in the clinically established doses. Preclinical and clinical evidence indicates distinct pharmacological profiles. Thus, this review focuses on the differences between the non-steroidal aromatase inhibitors allowing physicians to choose between these compounds based on scientific evidence. Although we are waiting for the important results of a still ongoing head-to-head comparison in patients with early breast cancer at high risk for relapse (Femara Anastrozole Clinical Evaluation trial; ‘FACE-trial'), clinicians have to make their choices today. On the basis of available evidence summarised here and until FACE-data become available, letrozole seems to be the best choice for the majority of breast cancer patients whenever a non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor has to be chosen in a clinical setting. The background for this recommendation is discussed in the following chapters

Metasin — An Intra-Operative RT-qPCR Assay to Detect Metastatic Breast Cancer in Sentinel Lymph Nodes

Nodal status is one of the most important prognostic factors in breast cancer. Established tests such as touch imprint cytology and frozen sections currently used in the intra-operative setting show variations in sensitivity and specificity. This limitation has led to the development of molecular alternatives, such as GeneSearch, a commercial intra-operative real-time quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-qPCR) assay that allows the surgeon to carry out axillary clearance as a one-step process. Since GeneSearch has been discontinued, we have developed the replacement Metasin assay, which targets the breast epithelial cell markers CK19 and mammaglobin mRNA and identifies metastatic disease in sentinel lymph nodes. The optimised assay can be completed within 32 min (6 min for RNA preparation and 26 min instrument run time), making its use feasible in the intraoperative setting. An analysis by Metasin of 154 archived lymph node homogenates previously analysed by both parallel histology and GeneSearch showed concordance for 148 cases. The sensitivity and specificity of Metasin compared with GeneSearch were 95% (CI 83%-99%) and 97% (CI 91%-99%) respectively; compared with histology they were 95% (CI 83%-99%) and 97% (CI 91%-99%), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of GeneSearch compared with histology were 90% (CI 77%-96%) and 97% (CI 93%-99%) respectively. The positive predictive value of Metasin was 90% and negative predictive value was 98% for both histology and GeneSearch. The positive predictive value of GeneSearch was 92% and the negative predictive value was 97% compared to histology. The discordance rates of Metasin with both GeneSearch and histology were 3.89%. In comparison, the discordance rate of GeneSearch with histology was 4.5%. Metasin's robustness was independently evaluated on 193 samples previously analysed by GeneSearch from the Jules Bordet Institute, where Metasin yielded comparable results

Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) for the detection of dementia in clinically unevaluated people aged 65 and over in community and primary care populations

BACKGROUND: The Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) is a cognitive test that is commonly used as part of the evaluation for possible dementia. OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of the Mini‐Mental State Examination (MMSE) at various cut points for dementia in people aged 65 years and over in community and primary care settings who had not undergone prior testing for dementia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the specialised register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group, MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), LILACS (BIREME), ALOIS, BIOSIS previews (Thomson Reuters Web of Science), and Web of Science Core Collection, including the Science Citation Index and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index (Thomson Reuters Web of Science). We also searched specialised sources of diagnostic test accuracy studies and reviews: MEDION (Universities of Maastricht and Leuven, www.mediondatabase.nl), DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, via the Cochrane Library), HTA Database (Health Technology Assessment Database, via the Cochrane Library), and ARIF (University of Birmingham, UK, www.arif.bham.ac.uk). We attempted to locate possibly relevant but unpublished data by contacting researchers in this field. We first performed the searches in November 2012 and then fully updated them in May 2014. We did not apply any language or date restrictions to the electronic searches, and we did not use any methodological filters as a method to restrict the search overall. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that compared the 11‐item (maximum score 30) MMSE test (at any cut point) in people who had not undergone prior testing versus a commonly accepted clinical reference standard for all‐cause dementia and subtypes (Alzheimer disease dementia, Lewy body dementia, vascular dementia, frontotemporal dementia). Clinical diagnosis included all‐cause (unspecified) dementia, as defined by any version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM); International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and the Clinical Dementia Rating. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least three authors screened all citations.Two authors handled data extraction and quality assessment. We performed meta‐analysis using the hierarchical summary receiver‐operator curves (HSROC) method and the bivariate method. MAIN RESULTS: We retrieved 24,310 citations after removal of duplicates. We reviewed the full text of 317 full‐text articles and finally included 70 records, referring to 48 studies, in our synthesis. We were able to perform meta‐analysis on 28 studies in the community setting (44 articles) and on 6 studies in primary care (8 articles), but we could not extract usable 2 x 2 data for the remaining 14 community studies, which we did not include in the meta‐analysis. All of the studies in the community were in asymptomatic people, whereas two of the six studies in primary care were conducted in people who had symptoms of possible dementia. We judged two studies to be at high risk of bias in the patient selection domain, three studies to be at high risk of bias in the index test domain and nine studies to be at high risk of bias regarding flow and timing. We assessed most studies as being applicable to the review question though we had concerns about selection of participants in six studies and target condition in one study. The accuracy of the MMSE for diagnosing dementia was reported at 18 cut points in the community (MMSE score 10, 14‐30 inclusive) and 10 cut points in primary care (MMSE score 17‐26 inclusive). The total number of participants in studies included in the meta‐analyses ranged from 37 to 2727, median 314 (interquartile range (IQR) 160 to 647). In the community, the pooled accuracy at a cut point of 24 (15 studies) was sensitivity 0.85 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 0.92), specificity 0.90 (95% CI 0.82 to 0.95); at a cut point of 25 (10 studies), sensitivity 0.87 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.93), specificity 0.82 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.92); and in seven studies that adjusted accuracy estimates for level of education, sensitivity 0.97 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.00), specificity 0.70 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.85). There was insufficient data to evaluate the accuracy of the MMSE for diagnosing dementia subtypes.We could not estimate summary diagnostic accuracy in primary care due to insufficient data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The MMSE contributes to a diagnosis of dementia in low prevalence settings, but should not be used in isolation to confirm or exclude disease. We recommend that future work evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of tests in the context of the diagnostic pathway experienced by the patient and that investigators report how undergoing the MMSE changes patient‐relevant outcomes

Search for neutral MSSM Higgs bosons decaying to a pair of tau leptons in pp collisions

Peer reviewe

Measurement of top quark–antiquark pair production in association with a W or Z boson in pp collisions at √s=8 TeV

Peer reviewe