What is the evidence-base for atopic eczema treatments? A summary of published randomised controlled trials

Atopic eczema (AE) is a common chronic inflammatory skin condition. Whilst many AE treatment options are available, the evidence to support their efficacy varies in depth and quality. In 2000, an NIHR HTA systematic review identified and evaluated existing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of AE treatments. To ensure continuing utility, the NIHR commissioned an update to the review. Here, we present an overview of the updated report and key findings. Systematic reviews and RCTs of AE treatments that included participants with AE (criteria based or diagnosed) were identified using: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, LILACS, AMED, CINAHL and Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register (searched to August 31st 2013 (RCTs) and 31st December 2015 (systematic reviews)). Outcome measures included: symptoms, AE severity, quality-of-life, and adverse effects. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. Of the 287 new RCTs identified, only 22 (8%) were judged to be low risk of bias. When combined with RCTs from the previous review (n= 254), we found ‘reasonable evidence of benefit’ for corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, Atopiclair™, ciclosporin, azathioprine, ultraviolet light and education programmes. Interventions with reasonable evidence of ‘no benefit’ included some dietary interventions, ion exchange water softeners, multiple daily applications of topical corticosteroids and antibiotic-containing corticosteroids for non-infected AE. Many common treatments lack evidence of efficacy and warrant further evaluation. The evidence base for AE is still hampered by poor trial design and reporting. The trials included in this review were used to establish the Global Resource of Eczema Trials (GREAT) Database

Scoping systematic review of treatments for eczema

Background: Eczema is a very common chronic inflammatory skin condition.Objectives: To update the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) systematic review of treatments for atopic eczema, published in 2000, and to inform health-care professionals, commissioners and patients about key treatment developments and research gaps.Data sources: Electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) were searched from the end of 2000 to 31 August 2013. Retrieved articles were used to identify further randomised controlled trials (RCTs).Review methods: Studies were filtered according to inclusion criteria and agreed by consensus in cases of uncertainty. Abstracts were excluded and non-English language papers were screened by international colleagues and data were extracted. Only RCTs of treatments for eczema were included, as other forms of evidence are associated with higher risks of bias. Inclusion criteria for studies included availability of data relevant to the therapeutic management of eczema; mention of randomisation; comparison of two or more treatments; and prospective data collection. Participants of all ages were included. Eczema diagnosis was determined by a clinician or according to published diagnostic criteria. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk-of-bias tool. We used a standardised approach to summarising the data and the assessment of risk of bias and we made a clear distinction between what the studies found and our own interpretation of study findings.Results: Of 7198 references screened, 287 new trials were identified spanning 92 treatments. Trial reporting was generally poor (randomisation method: 2% high, 36% low, 62% unclear risk of bias; allocation concealment: 3% high, 15% low, 82% unclear risk of bias; blinding of the intervention: 15% high, 28% low, 57% unclear risk of bias). Only 22 (8%) trials were considered to be at low risk of bias for all three criteria. There was reasonable evidence of benefit for the topical medications tacrolimus, pimecrolimus and various corticosteroids (with tacrolimus superior to pimecrolimus and corticosteroids) for both treatment and flare prevention; oral ciclosporin; oral azathioprine; narrow band ultraviolet B (UVB) light; Atopiclair™ and education. There was reasonable evidence to suggest no clinically useful benefit for twice-daily compared with once-daily topical corticosteroids; corticosteroids containing antibiotics for non-infected eczema; probiotics; evening primrose and borage oil; ion-exchange water softeners; protease inhibitor SRD441 (Serentis Ltd); furfuryl palmitate in emollient; cipamfylline cream; and Mycobacterium vaccae vaccine. Additional research evidence is needed for emollients, bath additives, antibacterials, specialist clothing and complementary and alternative therapies. There was no RCT evidence for topical corticosteroid dilution, impregnated bandages, soap avoidance, bathing frequency or allergy testing

Validation of the global resource of eczema trials (GREAT database)

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

Design and Fabrication of RESURF MOSFETs on 4H-SiC(0001), (1120), and 6H-SiC(0001)

Background: Skin diseases are very common and can have a large impact on the quality of life of patients and caregivers. This programme addressed four diseases: (1) eczema, (2) vitiligo, (3) squamous cell skin cancer (SCC) and (4) pyoderma gangrenosum (PG). Objective: To set priorities and reduce uncertainties for the treatment and prevention of skin disease in our four chosen diseases. Design: Mixed methods including eight systematic reviews, three prioritisation exercises, two pilot randomised controlled trials (RCTs), three feasibility studies, two core outcome initiatives, four funding proposals for national RCTs and one completed national RCT. Setting: Secondary care, primary care and the general population. Participants: Patients (and their caregivers) with eczema, vitiligo, SCC and PG, plus health-care professionals with an interest in skin disease. Interventions: Our three intervention studies included (1) barrier enhancement using emollients from birth to prevent eczema (pilot RCT); (2) handheld narrowband ultraviolet light B therapy for treating vitiligo (pilot RCT); and (3) oral ciclosporin (Neoral®, Novartis Pharmaceuticals) compared with oral prednisolone for managing PG (pragmatic national RCT). Results: Systematic reviews included two overarching systematic reviews of RCTs of treatments for eczema and vitiligo, an umbrella review of systematic reviews of interventions for the prevention of eczema, two reviews of treatments for SCC (one included RCTs and the second included observational studies), and three reviews of outcome measures and outcome reporting. Three prioritisation partnership exercises identified 26 priority areas for future research in eczema, vitiligo and SCC. Two international consensus initiatives identified four core domains for future eczema trials and seven core domains for vitiligo trials. Two pilot RCTs and three feasibility studies critically informed development of four trial proposals for external funding, three of which are now funded and one is pending consideration by funders. Our pragmatic RCT tested the two commonly used systemic treatments for PG (prednisolone vs. ciclosporin) and found no difference in their clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness. Both drugs showed limited benefit. Only half of the participants’ ulcers had healed by 6 months. For those with healed ulcers, recurrence was common (30%). Different side effect profiles were noted for each drug, which can inform clinical decisions on an individual patient basis. Three researchers were trained to PhD level and a dermatology patient panel was established to ensure patient involvement in all aspects of the programme. Conclusions: Findings from this programme of work have already informed clinical guidelines and patient information resources. Feasibility studies have ensured that large national pragmatic trials will now be conducted on important areas of treatment uncertainty that address the needs of patients and the NHS. There is scope for considerable improvement in terms of trial design, conduct and reporting for RCTs of skin disease, which can be improved through wider collaboration, registration of trial protocols and complete reporting and international consensus over core outcome sets. Three national trials have now been funded as a result of this work. Two international initiatives to establish how best to measure the core outcome domains for eczema and vitiligo are ongoing