Strategies for measuring long-term control in atopic dermatitis trials: a systematic review

Background: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic inflammatory skin disease. There are no standardised methods for capturing long-term control of AD. Objective: To identify how long-term control has been captured in published randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Resultswill initiate consensus discussions on how best to measure long-term control in the core outcome set for AD. Methods: Systematic review of RCTs of AD treatments published between 2000 and 2013, with a follow-up period of ≥3 months, at least one outcome measure recorded at ≥3 time-points, full paper available, and published in English. Results: 101/ 353 RCTs were eligible. Methods to capture long-term control included: repeated measurement of AD outcomes (92 RCTs; 91%), use of AD medication (29 RCTs; 28.7%); and AD flares/remissions (26 RCTs; 25.7%). Repeated measurements of AD outcomes were typically collected 3 to 5 times during a trial, but analysis methods often failed to make best use of the data. Time to first flare was most commonly for trials including flare data (21/52). Medication-use was recorded based on quantity, potency and frequency of application. Limitations: Included RCT data only Conclusion: This review illustrates the difficulties in measuring long-term control, and points to the need for improved harmonization of outcomes

Is speed of healing a good predictor of eventual healing of pyoderma gangrenosum?

Background: Pyoderma gangrenosum is a rare inflammatory skin condition. The STOPGAP studies compared treatments for pyoderma gangrenosum using a primary outcome of healing speed at 6 weeks. Objective: Using data from both studies we assessed the predictive value of three early predictors for healing at 6 months - speed of healing, Investigator Global Assessment and resolution of inflammation, recorded at 2 and 6 weeks. Methods: Logistic regression models were applied and the effectiveness of the three measures was assessed through estimating the positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Results: The PPV and NPV at 6 weeks were 63.5% (95% CI:52.4%, 73.7%) and 74.6% (95% CI:62.5%, 84.5%) respectively for speed of healing; 80% (95% CI:68.7%, 88.6%) and 74.2% (95% CI:64.1%, 2.7%) for IGA; and 72.1% (95% CI:59.9%, 82.3%) and 68.1% (95% CI:57.7%, 77.3%) for resolution of inflammation. Investigator Global Assessment had the best combined PPV, NPV and AUC at 2 and 6 weeks. Limitations: We were limited by data available from the STOP GAP trial and cohort study. Conclusion: Speed of healing, Investigator Global Assessment and resolution of inflammation were all shown to be good predictors of eventual healing

Models of classroom assessment for course-based research experiences

Course-based research pedagogy involves positioning students as contributors to authentic research projects as part of an engaging educational experience that promotes their learning and persistence in science. To develop a model for assessing and grading students engaged in this type of learning experience, the assessment aims and practices of a community of experienced course-based research instructors were collected and analyzed. This approach defines four aims of course-based research assessment—(1) Assessing Laboratory Work and Scientific Thinking; (2) Evaluating Mastery of Concepts, Quantitative Thinking and Skills; (3) Appraising Forms of Scientific Communication; and (4) Metacognition of Learning—along with a set of practices for each aim. These aims and practices of assessment were then integrated with previously developed models of course-based research instruction to reveal an assessment program in which instructors provide extensive feedback to support productive student engagement in research while grading those aspects of research that are necessary for the student to succeed. Assessment conducted in this way delicately balances the need to facilitate students’ ongoing research with the requirement of a final grade without undercutting the important aims of a CRE education

More Atopic Dermatitis Trials Using Standard Treatments as Active Comparators, Please

International audienc

How Clinically Relevant Are Treatment Comparisons of Topical Calcineurin Inhibitor Trials for Atopic Eczema?

International audienceWe 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

How Often Do Comparative Randomised Controlled Trials in the Field of Eczema Fail to Directly Compare the Treatments Being Tested?

The objective of the study was to identify all parallel design randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing treatments for eczema in recent dermatology literature that have failed to report a between-group analysis. The GREAT database (www.greatdatabase.org.uk) was searched to identify parallel group RCTs comparing two or more interventions published in the English language in the last decade, 2004 to 2013. The primary outcome was the number of studies that had not reported a between-group analysis for any of the outcomes. Where possible we re-analysed the data to determine whether a between-group analysis would have given a different conclusion to that reported. Out of a total of 304 RCTs in the study period, 173 (56.9%) met the inclusion criteria. Of the 173 eligible studies, 12 (6.9%) had not conducted a between-group analysis for any of the reported outcomes. There was no clear improvement over time. Five of the eight studies that were re-analysed yielded non-significant between-group differences yet reported significant within-group comparisons. All but one of the 12 studies implied that the experimental intervention was successful despite not undertaking any between-group comparisons. Although the proportion of all RCTs that fail to report an appropriate between-group analysis is small, the fact that any scientist who purports to compare one treatment against another then chooses to omit the key comparison statistic is worrying