Abstract

BackgroundSkin 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).ObjectiveTo set priorities and reduce uncertainties for the treatment and prevention of skin disease in our four chosen diseases.DesignMixed 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.SettingSecondary care, primary care and the general population.ParticipantsPatients (and their caregivers) with eczema, vitiligo, SCC and PG, plus health-care professionals with an interest in skin disease.InterventionsOur 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).ResultsSystematic 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.ConclusionsFindings 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.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials Barrier Enhancement for Eczema Prevention (BEEP) (ISRCTN84854178 and NCT01142999), Study of Treatments fOr Pyoderma GAngrenosum Patients (STOP GAP) (ISRCTN35898459) and Hand Held NB-UVB for Early or Focal Vitiligo at Home (HI-Light Pilot Trial) (NCT01478945).FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full inProgramme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 4, No. 18. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Highlights

  • Eczema is a very common condition and its prevalence is on the increase, its prevention has received little attention

  • L An overview of systematic reviews of interventions for primary prevention of eczema. l A systematic review of how new cases of eczema have been defined in previous primary prevention studies. l A pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) to test the feasibility of conducting a trial of emollients to prevent eczema. l A parent survey to determine emollient preferences, together with biophysical studies, to make sure that the chosen emollients improve barrier function. l An application for a full-scale randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of emollients for eczema prevention

  • L The review of how new cases of eczema are defined in trials found that many definitions rely on the presence of signs or symptoms over a long period of time, which is not appropriate for defining new cases of eczema

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Eczema is a very common condition and its prevalence is on the increase, its prevention has received little attention. A number of gaps in the evidence have been outlined in the systematic review (see Systematic review of squamous cell skin cancer treatments: randomised controlled trials) To supplement these findings, we sought to approach clinicians who are treating SCC regularly and invite them to identify the most important uncertainties in SCC treatment and which research areas they would like to see addressed in a RCT. Squamous cell skin cancer is a common cancer; the evidence base for the effectiveness of different treatments is poor, with no RCTs comparing treatments for the types of SCCs seen in everyday clinical practice518 and a lack of consensus regarding the use of some treatment modalities such as ART and sentinel lymph node biopsy. In 2007, a systematic review critically appraised the validity, reliability and ease of use of all published measures to assess the severity of AE.175 This review concluded that only three of the 20 named scales (SCORAD index,303 EASI304 and POEM305) had been adequately validated such that their use can be recommend.175 proactive treatment of flare prevention is currently a relevant strategy given that AE is a chronic disease,176 a recent systematic review highlighted there is no clear definition and validated measure of disease flares.306 The corollary of a lack of high-quality outcomes research is that current clinical trials face the possibility of overestimating, underestimating or completely missing the true effect of an intervention for AE

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call