Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of daily all-over-body application of emollient during the first year of life for preventing atopic eczema in high-risk children (The BEEP trial): protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

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

Emollients for prevention of atopic dermatitis; 5‐year findings from the BEEP randomised trial

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

An economic evaluation of the randomized controlled trial of topical corticosteroid and home-based narrowband ultraviolet B for active and limited vitiligo (the HI-Light Vitiligo Trial)

Background: Economic evidence for vitiligo treatments is absent. Objectives: To determine the cost-effectiveness of (i) handheld narrowband ultraviolet B (NB-UVB) and (ii) a combination of topical corticosteroid (TCS) and NB-UVB compared with TCS alone for localized vitiligo. Methods: Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a pragmatic, three-arm, placebo-controlled randomized controlled trial with 9 months’ treatment. In total 517 adults and children (aged ≥ 5 years) with active vitiligo affecting < 10% of skin were recruited from secondary care and the community and were randomized 1: 1: 1 to receive TCS, NB-UVB or both. Cost per successful treatment (measured on the Vitiligo Noticeability Scale) was estimated. Secondary cost–utility analyses measured quality-adjusted life-years using the EuroQol 5 Dimensions 5 Levels for those aged ≥ 11 years and the Child Health Utility 9D for those aged 5 to < 18 years. The trial was registered with number ISRCTN17160087 on 8 January 2015. Results: The mean ± SD cost per participant was £775 ± 83·7 for NB-UVB, £813 ± 111.4 for combination treatment and £600 ± 96·2 for TCS. In analyses adjusted for age and target patch location, the incremental difference in cost for combination treatment compared with TCS was £211 (95% confidence interval 188–235), corresponding to a risk difference of 10·9% (number needed to treat = 9). The incremental cost was £1932 per successful treatment. The incremental difference in cost for NB-UVB compared with TCS was £173 (95% confidence interval 151–196), with a risk difference of 5·2% (number needed to treat = 19). The incremental cost was £3336 per successful treatment. Conclusions: Combination treatment, compared with TCS alone, has a lower incremental cost per additional successful treatment than NB-UVB only. Combination treatment would be considered cost-effective if decision makers are willing to pay £1932 per additional treatment success

Efficacy and safety of ciclosporin versus methotrexate in the treatment of severe atopic dermatitis in children and young people (TREAT): a multicentre parallel group assessor-blinded clinical trial

Background Conventional systemic drugs are used to treat children and young people (CYP) with severe atopic dermatitis (AD) worldwide, but no robust randomized controlled trial (RCT) evidence exists regarding their efficacy and safety in this population. While novel therapies have expanded therapeutic options, their high cost means traditional agents remain important, especially in lower-resource settings. Objectives To compare the safety and efficacy of ciclosporin (CyA) with methotrexate (MTX) in CYP with severe AD in the TREatment of severe Atopic Eczema Trial (TREAT) trial. Methods We conducted a parallel group assessor-blinded RCT in 13 UK and Irish centres. Eligible participants aged 2–16 years and unresponsive to potent topical treatment were randomized to either oral CyA (4 mg kg–1 daily) or MTX (0.4 mg kg–1 weekly) for 36 weeks and followed-up for 24 weeks. Co-primary outcomes were change from baseline to 12 weeks in Objective Severity Scoring of Atopic Dermatitis (o-SCORAD) and time to first significant flare (relapse) after treatment cessation. Secondary outcomes included change in quality of life (QoL) from baseline to 60 weeks; number of participant-reported flares following treatment cessation; proportion of participants achieving ≥ 50% improvement in Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI 50) and ≥ 75% improvement in EASI (EASI 75); and stratification of outcomes by filaggrin status. Results In total, 103 participants were randomized (May 2016–February 2019): 52 to CyA and 51 to MTX. CyA showed greater improvement in disease severity by 12 weeks [mean difference in o-SCORAD –5.69, 97.5% confidence interval (CI) –10.81 to –0.57 (P = 0.01)]. More participants achieved ≥ 50% improvement in o-SCORAD (o-SCORAD 50) at 12 weeks in the CyA arm vs. the MTX arm [odds ratio (OR) 2.60, 95% CI 1.23–5.49; P = 0.01]. By 60 weeks MTX was superior (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.13–0.85; P = 0.02), a trend also seen for ≥ 75% improvement in o-SCORAD (o-SCORAD 75), EASI 50 and EASI 75. Participant-reported flares post-treatment were higher in the CyA arm (OR 3.22, 95% CI 0.42–6.01; P = 0.02). QoL improved with both treatments and was sustained after treatment cessation. Filaggrin status did not affect outcomes. The frequency of adverse events (AEs) was comparable between both treatments. Five (10%) participants on CyA and seven (14%) on MTX experienced a serious AE. Conclusions Both CyA and MTX proved effective in CYP with severe AD over 36 weeks. Participants who received CyA showed a more rapid response to treatment, while MTX induced more sustained disease control after discontinuation

Willingness-to-pay for pediatric cochlear implantation

Objective: this paper presents the results of the first willingness-to-pay (WTP) study to be undertaken on cochlear implantation. It aims to measure the values parents place on the UK having a pediatric cochlear implantation (PCI) programme.Methods: face-to-face semi-structured interviews were conducted with parents of children from the Nottingham Pediatric Cochlear Implant programme, whom had been implanted for a period ranging from 1 month to 13 years. Parents willingness-to-pay for the UK to have a pediatric cochlear implantation programme were elicited using a bidding process question format and via a discrete choice question. To see if income was a significant determinant of willingness-to-pay an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was undertaken in the statistical package SPSS version 10.Results: two hundred and sixteen parents were interviewed over the period July 2001-August 2002, representing over 130h of interviewing. The mean and median willingness-to-pay values elicited were UK pound 127 and 50 per month, respectively (UK pound 2001/2002). Willingness-to-pay was positively related to income (P&lt;0.020). When the income constraint was removed, 99% of parents choose the implant over having the money the implant would cost to spend in some other way to benefit their child.Conclusions: parents of implanted children were willing to pay substantial monthly amounts for pediatric cochlear implantation. Most parents saw no alternative to pediatric cochlear implantation that could improve their child's quality of life to the same extent. Willingness-to-pay was sensitive to income as expected suggesting that the values elicited are both valid and influenced by a respondent's budget constraint.</p

Paediatric cochlear implantation: evaluating outcomes

This book reviews published research concerning outcomes for deaf children with cochlear implants. The publications selected for review meet certain criteria - they were all published in English, they were published since 1994, and the number of children included in each study was at least 12. A thorough literature search was carried out yielding about 200 articles meeting these criteria. Paediatric Cochlear Implants considers a range of outcomes including use of audition by children, the development of language and quality of life. Advances in cochlear implantation that affect outcomes are also discussed. The book offers critical summaries of relevant papers and an account of the conclusions of the research to date, highlights topics that have received less attention and suggests a framework for considering outcomes. It evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of current research with suggestion for possible future developments. This book will be of interest to all professionals and researchers concerned with deaf children, to parents of deaf children and to purchasers of healthcare services