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

Background: Emollients 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. Objective: To compare the effectiveness and acceptability of four commonly used types of emollients for the treatment of childhood eczema. Design: Four 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. Setting: Primary care (78 general practitioner surgeries) in England. Participants: Children 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. Interventions: Study 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 measures: The 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. Results: A 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. Limitations: Parents 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. Conclusions: The 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 work: Future 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 registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN84540529 and EudraCT 2017-000688-34. Funding: This 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.

One in five children in the UK have eczema, a long-term, itchy, dry skin condition. It can significantly affect both the child and their family. Most children are diagnosed and looked after by their family doctor (general practitioner) and are prescribed moisturisers (also called emollients) to relieve skin dryness and other creams (topical corticosteroids) to control flare-ups. However, there are many different types of emollients and, to our knowledge, limited research to show which is better. In the Best Emollients for Eczema clinical trial, we compared the four main types of moisturisers ­ lotions, creams, gels and ointments. These types vary in their consistency, from thin to thick. We recruited 550 children (most of whom were white and had moderate eczema) and randomly assigned them to use one of the four different types as their main moisturiser for 16 weeks. We found no difference in effectiveness. Parent-reported eczema symptoms, eczema severity and quality of life were the same for all the four types of moisturisers. However, overall satisfaction was highest for lotions and gels. Ointments may need to be used less and cause less stinging. We interviewed 44 parents and 25 children who took part. Opinions of all four types of moisturisers varied. What one family liked about a moisturiser was not necessarily the same for another and preferences were individual to each user. Sometimes there was a tension between how well a moisturiser worked (effectiveness) and how easy it was to use (acceptability). In these cases, effectiveness tended to decide whether or not parents kept using it. People found moisturisers in pumps and bottles easier to use than those in tubs. A number of participants valued the information they were given about how to use moisturisers. Our results suggest that the type of moisturiser matters less than finding one that suits the child and family.

Implementation of 2D Running Gait Analysis in Orthopedic Physical Therapy Clinics.

Background: Despite 2D motion analysis deemed valid and reliable in assessing gait deviations in runners, current use of video-based motion analysis among orthopedic physical therapists is not prevalent. Purpose/Hypothesis: To investigate clinician-perceived effectiveness, adherence, and barriers to using a 2D running gait analysis protocol for patients with running-related injuries. Study Design: Survey. Methods: Thirty outpatient physical therapy clinics were contacted to assess interest in participation. Participating therapists were trained on 2D running gait analysis protocol and given a running gait checklist. The Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework was used to assess the implementation process by collecting a baseline survey at the beginning of the study, effectiveness and implementation surveys at two months, and a maintenance survey at six months. Results: Twelve of the 15 responding clinics met eligibility criteria, giving a Reach rate of 80%. Twelve clinicians from 10 different clinics participated, giving an Adoption rate of 83%. For Effectiveness, the majority of clinicians valued having a checklist, and reported the protocol was easy to conduct, the methodology was reasonable and appropriate, and patients saw the benefits of using the protocol. Assessing Implementation, 92% performed all steps of the protocol on all appropriate runners. Average time spent conducting the protocol was 32 minutes. With respect to Maintenance, 50% reported continuing to use the protocol, while 50% answered they were not to continue use. Conclusion: Clinicians expressed a perceived benefit of implementing a running gait analysis protocol with common themes of ease of use, being a useful adjunct to evaluating a patient, and increased satisfaction with treating injured runners. Potential barriers for not using the protocol included not having an appropriate clinic setup, time constraints, and not having adequate caseload. Level of Evidence: 3b.

Effectiveness and safety of lotion, cream, gel, and ointment emollients for childhood eczema: a pragmatic, randomised, phase 4, superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: To our knowledge, there are no trials comparing emollients commonly used for childhood eczema. We aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness and safety of the four main emollient types: lotions, creams, gels, and ointments. METHODS: We did a pragmatic, individually randomised, parallel group, phase 4 superiority trial in 77 general practice surgeries in England. Children aged between 6 months and 12 years with eczema (Patient Orientated Eczema Measure [POEM] score >2) were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1; stratified by centre and minimised by baseline POEM score and age, using a web-based system) to lotions, creams, gels, or ointments. Clinicians and parents were unmasked. The initial emollient prescription was for 500 g or 500 mL, to be applied twice daily and as required. Subsequent prescriptions were determined by the family. The primary outcome was parent-reported eczema severity over 16 weeks (weekly POEM), with analysis as randomly assigned regardless of adherence, adjusting for baseline and stratification variables. Safety was assessed in all randomly assigned participants. This trial was registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN84540529. FINDINGS: Between Jan 19, 2018, and Oct 31, 2019, 12 417 children were assessed for eligibility, 550 of whom were randomly assigned to a treatment group (137 to lotion, 140 to cream, 135 to gel, and 138 to ointment). The numbers of participants who contributed at least two POEM scores and were included in the primary analysis were 131 in the lotion group, 137 in the cream group, 130 in the gel group, and 126 in the ointment group. Baseline median age was 4 years (IQR 2-8); 255 (46%) participants were girls, 295 (54%) were boys; 473 (86%) participants were White; and the mean POEM score was 9·3 (SD 5·5). There was no difference in eczema severity between emollient types over 16 weeks (global p value=0·77), with adjusted POEM pairwise differences of: cream versus lotion 0·42 (95% CI -0·48 to 1·32), gel versus lotion 0·17 (-0·75 to 1·09), ointment versus lotion -0·01 (-0·93 to 0·91), gel versus cream -0·25 (-1·15 to 0·65), ointment versus cream -0·43 (-1·34 to 0·48), and ointment versus gel -0·18 (-1·11 to 0·75). This result remained unchanged following multiple imputation, sensitivity, and subgroup analyses. The total number of adverse events did not significantly differ between the treatment groups (lotions 49 [36%], creams 54 [39%], gels 54 [40%], and ointments 48 [35%]; p=0·79), although stinging was less common with ointments (12 [9%] of 138 participants) than lotions (28 [20%] of 137), creams (24 [17%] of 140), or gels (25 [19%] of 135). INTERPRETATION: We found no difference in effectiveness between the four main types of emollients for childhood eczema. Users need to be able to choose from a range of emollients to find one that they are more likely to use effectively. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Comparisons of trunk and knee mechanics during various speeds of treadmill running between runners with and without patellofemoral pain: a preliminary study.

[Purpose] To determine if runners with patellofemoral pain (PFP) exhibit higher patellofemoral joint (PFJ) stress and trunk extension compared to pain-free runners during treadmill running. [Participants and Methods] Twelve runners (7 with PFP and 5 pain-free) participated in this study. Participants ran at 3 different running conditions: self-selected, fast (120% of self-selected), and slow (80% of self-selected) speeds. Kinematics and kinetics of trunk and lower extremities were obtained. PFJ stress, PFJ reaction force, and PFJ contact area were determined using a biomechanical model. Two-factor ANOVAs with repeated measures were used to compare outcome variables between 3 speeds and between 2 groups. [Results] There was no significant difference in peak PFJ stress between groups across the 3 speeds. Peak PFJ stress was lowest during slow running compared to fast and self-selected running speed conditions across both groups. No significant difference was found in trunk flexion angle, PFJ reaction force, or PFJ contact area between groups across the 3 speeds. [Conclusion] Runners with and without PFP exhibited similar peak PFJ stress and trunk flexion angle during treadmill running. This preliminary work does not support the theory that reduced trunk flexion during running contributes to increased PFJ stress in runners with PFP.

Characterizing postoperative physiologic swallow function following transoral robotic surgery for early stage tonsil, base of tongue, and unknown primary human papillomavirus-associated squamous cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Data objectively evaluating acute post-transoral robotic surgery (TORS) swallow function are limited. Our goal was to characterize and identify clinical variables that may impact swallow function components 3 weeks post-TORS. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study. Pre/postoperative use of the Modified Barium Swallow Impairment Profile (MBSImP) and Penetration-Aspiration Scale (PAS) was completed on 125 of 139 TORS patients (2016-2019) with human papillomavirus (HPV)-associated oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. Dynamic Imaging Grade of Swallowing Toxicity (DIGEST) scores were retrospectively calculated. Uni/multivariate analysis was performed. RESULTS: Dysfunctional pre-TORS DIGEST scores were predictive of post-TORS dysphagia (p = 0.015). Pre-TORS MBSImP deficits in pharyngeal stripping wave, swallow initiation, and clearing pharyngeal residue correlated with airway invasion post-TORS based on PAS scores (p = 0.012, 0.027, 0.048, respectively). Multivariate analysis of DIGEST safety scores declined with older age (p = 0.044). Odds ratios (ORs) for objective swallow function components after TORS were better for unknown primary and tonsil primaries compared to base of tongue (BOT) (OR 0.35-0.91). CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative impairments in specific MBSImP components, older patients, and BOT primaries may predict more extensive recovery in swallow function after TORS.

Best emollients for eczema (BEE) - comparing four types of emollients in children with eczema: protocol for randomised trial and nested qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Atopic dermatitis/eczema affects around 20% of children and is characterised by inflamed, dry, itchy skin. Guidelines recommend 'leave-on' emollients that are applied directly to the skin to add or trap moisture and used regularly, they can soothe, enhance the skin barrier and may prevent disease 'flares'. However, the suitability of the many different emollients varies between people and there is little evidence to help prescribers and parents and carers decide which type to try first. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Design: pragmatic, multicentre, individually randomised, parallel group superiority trial of four types of emollient (lotions, creams, gel or ointments). SETTING: general practitioner surgeries in England. PARTICIPANTS: children aged over 6 months and less than 12 years with mild-to-severe eczema and no known sensitivity to study emollients. INTERVENTIONS: study-approved lotion, cream, gel or ointment as the only leave-on emollient for 16 weeks, with directions to apply twice daily and as required. Other treatments, such as topical corticosteroids, used as standard care. FOLLOW-UP: 52 weeks. PRIMARY OUTCOME: validated patient-orientated eczema measure measured weekly for 16 weeks. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: eczema signs (Eczema Area Severity Index) by masked researcher, treatment use, parent satisfaction, adverse events, child and family quality of life (Atopic Dermatitis Quality of Life, Child Health Utility 9D and Dermatitis Family Impact). SAMPLE SIZE: 520 participants (130 per group). ANALYSIS: intention-to-treat using linear mixed models for repeated measures.Nested qualitative study: audio-recording of sample of baseline appointments and up to 60 interviews with participants at 4 and 16 weeks, interviews to be transcribed and analysed thematically. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval granted by the NHS REC (South West - Central Bristol Research Ethics Committee 17/SW/0089). Findings will be presented at conferences, published in open-access peer-reviewed journals and the study website; and summaries shared with key stakeholders. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN84540529.

The Relationship Between Zinc and Quality of Life in Patients With Upper GI Cancer on Chemotherapy.

This is a pilot study aimed at evaluating the prevalence of zinc deficiency and how zinc levels affect the quality of life (QOL) of patients with upper gastrointestinal (GI) cancers receiving systemic chemotherapy. The data collection was completed on 40 patients. Although the primary objective of a positive prevalence of zinc deficiency in upper GI cancer patients at diagnosis and after receiving chemotherapy is not statistically significant, we found a statistically significant association between zinc level and certain QOL factors. There is a significantly positive association with satisfaction of social contact at baseline only, sexual pleasure at baseline and at 2 months, QOL at baseline only, and troublesome sweating at baseline, and from baseline to 2 months corresponding with change in other skin problems. Conversely, there is a significantly negative association corresponding changes in enjoyment of physical activities, how the patient usually feels, sexual pleasure, the way in which the patient approaches food, QOL, rashes on the face, and other skin problems. Neutropenia grades were reflective of decreased zinc at baseline but did not show decreased zinc correlating with a weakened immune system.