Clinical and cost-effectiveness of spironolactone in treating persistent facial acne in women: SAFA double-blinded RCT.

Background: Acne is common, can cause significant impact on quality of life and is a frequent reason for long-term antibiotic use. Spironolactone has been prescribed for acne in women for many years, but robust evidence is lacking. Objective: To evaluate whether spironolactone is clinically effective and cost-effective in treating acne in women. Design: Pragmatic, parallel, double-blind, randomised superiority trial. Setting: Primary and secondary healthcare and community settings (community and social media advertising). Participants: Women aged 18 years and older with facial acne persisting for at least 6 months, judged to potentially warrant oral antibiotic treatment. Interventions: Participants were randomised 1 : 1, using an independent web-based procedure, to either 50 mg/day spironolactone or matched placebo until week 6, increasing to 100 mg/day spironolactone or matched placebo until week 24. Participants continued usual topical treatment. Main outcome measures: Primary outcome was the adjusted mean difference in Acne-Specific Quality of Life symptom subscale score at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included Acne-Specific Quality of Life total and subscales; participant self-assessed improvement; Investigator's Global Assessment; Participant's Global Assessment; satisfaction; adverse effects and cost-effectiveness. Results: Of 1267 women assessed for eligibility, 410 were randomised (201 intervention, 209 control), 342 in the primary analysis (176 intervention, 166 control). Mean age was 29.2 years (standard deviation 7.2) and 7.9% (28/356) were from non-white backgrounds. At baseline, Investigator's Global Assessment classified acne as mild in 46%, moderate in 40% and severe in 13%. At baseline, 82.9% were using topical treatments. Over 95% of participants in both groups tolerated the treatment and increased their dose. Mean baseline Acne-Specific Quality of Life symptom subscale was 13.0 (standard deviation 4.7) across both groups. Mean scores at week 12 were 19.2 (standard deviation 6.1) for spironolactone and 17.8 (standard deviation 5.6) for placebo [difference favouring spironolactone 1.27 (95% confidence interval 0.07 to 2.46) adjusting for baseline variables]. Mean scores at week 24 were 21.2 (standard deviation 5.9) in spironolactone group and 17.4 (standard deviation 5.8) in placebo group [adjusted difference 3.77 (95% confidence interval 2.50 to 5.03) adjusted]. Secondary outcomes also favoured spironolactone at 12 weeks with greater differences at 24 weeks. Participants taking spironolactone were more likely than those taking placebo to report overall acne improvement at 12 weeks {72.2% vs. 67.9% [adjusted odds ratio 1.16 (95% confidence interval 0.70 to 1.91)]} and at 24 weeks {81.9% vs. 63.3% [adjusted odds ratio 2.72 (95% confidence interval 1.50 to 4.93)]}. Investigator's Global Assessment was judged successful at week 12 for 31/201 (18.5%) taking spironolactone and 9/209 (5.6%) taking placebo [adjusted odds ratio 5.18 (95% confidence interval 2.18 to 12.28)]. Satisfaction with treatment improved in 70.6% of participants taking spironolactone compared with 43.1% taking placebo [adjusted odds ratio 3.12 (95% confidence interval 1.80 to 5.41)]. Adverse reactions were similar between groups, but headaches were reported more commonly on spironolactone (20.4% vs. 12.0%). No serious adverse reactions were reported. Taking account for missing data through multiple imputation gave an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year of £27,879 (adjusted) compared to placebo or £2683 per quality-adjusted life-year compared to oral antibiotics. Conclusions: Spironolactone resulted in better participant-reported and investigator-reported outcomes than placebo, with greater differences at week 24 than week 12. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN12892056 and EudraCT (2018-003630-33). Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/13/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 56. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Acne (or spots) is common and often persists into adulthood. Many people take long courses of antibiotic tablets, but concerns about antibiotic resistance mean alternatives are needed. Spironolactone is a medicine that is sometimes used for acne in women. However, we do not know whether it works. This trial aimed to answer this question. We invited women aged over 18 who had acne on their face for at least 6 months to take part via their general practitioner surgery, hospital or advertising. Women were randomly assigned to two groups: one group was given spironolactone and the other group was given identical-looking placebo ('dummy pill') daily for 24 weeks. Women in both groups could continue using acne treatments applied to the skin (gels/creams/lotions). We asked participants to rate their acne using a questionnaire called Acne-Specific Quality of Life, asked whether they felt their skin had improved and asked skin specialists to assess their skin. Four hundred and ten women took part, many of whom had had acne for a long time. Acne-Specific Quality of Life scores improved in both groups by 12 weeks but improved more in the spironolactone group at 12 and 24 weeks. When asked directly whether their skin had improved, 71% of participants in the spironolactone group said it had, compared with 43% on placebo. Skin specialists were also more likely to report that the acne had improved in the spironolactone group. Side effects were mild and similar in both groups but there were slightly more headaches on spironolactone (20% compared with 12%). Spironolactone is likely to represent value for money for the National Health Service, though this depends on a number of factors including what it is compared to. This trial suggests that spironolactone is a useful additional treatment for women with persistent acne.

Self-management interventions for chronic widespread pain including fibromyalgia: a systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis.

ABSTRACT: Supporting behavioural self-management is increasingly important in the care for chronic widespread pain (CWP), including fibromyalgia. Understanding peoples' experiences of these interventions may elucidate processes and mechanisms that lead to or hinder their intended impact. We conducted a systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies exploring peoples' experiences of self-management interventions for CWP, including fibromyalgia. MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched. Primary qualitative or mixed-methods studies were included if they explored people's self-management intervention experiences for their CWP, including fibromyalgia. Screening, data extraction, and critical appraisal were conducted by 2 reviewers. Data analysis was conducted through thematic synthesis. Twenty-three studies were included, mostly were rated as high or moderate quality. We developed 4 analytic themes: A multifaceted experience of the intervention, potential for transformative experience of group cohesion, a new outlook, and striving for change after the loss of support. Broadly, personalisation was perceived as beneficial and people experienced a range of emotional experiences. These appeared to support positive behavioural and cognitive changes. For most, group activities promoted acceptance and support, fostering new perspectives and improved self-management, although some found aspects of group contexts challenging. Lack of on-going support after interventions led to challenges in applying behavioural strategies, and some struggled without social support from the group. The experiences of self-management interventions for CWP reflect a complex, multifaceted process. Although many reported positive experiences, addressing issues with integration of physical activity, group dynamics and postintervention support may improve effectiveness for a broader range of people.

Topical Anti-Inflammatory Treatments for Eczema: A Cochrane Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Eczema is the most burdensome skin condition worldwide and topical anti-inflammatory treatments are commonly used to control symptoms. The relative effectiveness and safety of different topical anti-inflammatory treatments is uncertain. DESIGN: Network meta-analysis performed within a Cochrane systematic review to compare and statistically rank efficacy and safety of topical anti-inflammatory eczema treatments. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and trial registries to June 2023. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTED TRIALS: Included trials were within-participant or between-participant randomised controlled trials. Participants had eczema that was not clinically infected and was not contact dermatitis, seborrheic eczema or hand eczema. Interventions were topical anti-inflammatory treatments but not complementary treatments, antibiotics alone, wet wraps, phototherapy or systemic treatments. Comparators were no treatment/vehicle or another topical anti-inflammatory. RESULTS: We identified 291 trials (45,846 participants), mainly in high-income countries. Most were industry-funded with median 3 weeks treatment duration. Risk of bias assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool was high in 89% of trials, mainly due to risk of selective reporting. Network meta-analysis of binary outcomes ranked potent and/or very potent topical steroids, tacrolimus 0.1% and ruxolitinib 1.5% among the most effective treatments for improving patient-reported symptoms (40 trials, all low confidence) and clinician-reported signs (32 trials, all moderate confidence). For investigator global assessment, the Janus kinas inhibitors ruxolitinib 1.5%, delgocitinib 0.5% or 0.25%, very potent/potent topical steroids and tacrolimus 0.1% were ranked as most effective (140 trials, all moderate confidence). Continuous outcome data were mixed. Local application site reactions were most common with tacrolimus 0.1% (moderate confidence) and crisaborole 2% (high confidence) and least common with topical steroids (moderate confidence). Skin thinning was not increased with short-term use of any topical steroid potency (low confidence) but skin thinning was reported in 6/2044 (0.3%) participants treated with longer-term (6-60 months) topical steroids. CONCLUSION: Potent topical steroids, Janus kinase inhibitors and tacrolimus 0.1% were consistently ranked as among the most effective topical anti-inflammatory treatments for eczema.

Topical anti-inflammatory treatments for eczema: network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Eczema (atopic dermatitis) is the most burdensome skin condition worldwide and cannot currently be prevented or cured. Topical anti-inflammatory treatments are used to control eczema symptoms, but there is uncertainty about the relative effectiveness and safety of different topical anti-inflammatory treatments. OBJECTIVES: To compare and rank the efficacy and safety of topical anti-inflammatory treatments for people with eczema using a network meta-analysis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and trial registries on 29 June 2023, and checked the reference lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included within-participant or between-participant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in people of any age with eczema of any severity, but excluded trials in clinically infected eczema, seborrhoeic eczema, contact eczema, or hand eczema. We included topical anti-inflammatory treatments used for at least one week, compared with another anti-inflammatory treatment, no treatment, or vehicle/placebo. Vehicle is a 'carrier system' for an active pharmaceutical substance, which may also be used on its own as an emollient for dry skin. We excluded trials of topical antibiotics used alone, complementary therapies, emollients used alone, phototherapy, wet wraps, and systemic treatments. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Primary outcomes were patient-reported eczema symptoms, clinician-reported eczema signs and investigator global assessment. Secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life, long-term control of eczema, withdrawal from treatment/study, and local adverse effects (application-site reactions, pigmentation changes and skin thinning/atrophy were identified as important concerns through patient and public involvement). We used CINeMA to quantify our confidence in the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included 291 studies involving 45,846 participants with the full spectrum of eczema severity, mainly conducted in high-income countries in secondary care settings. Most studies included adults, with only 31 studies limited to children aged < 12 years. Studies usually included male and female participants, multiple ethnic groups but predominantly white populations. Most studies were industry-funded (68%) or did not report their funding sources/details. Treatment duration and trial participation were a median of 21 and 28 days (ranging from 7 days to 5 years), respectively. Interventions used were topical corticosteroids (TCS) (172), topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCI) (134), phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE-4) inhibitors (55), janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors (30), aryl hydrocarbon receptor activators (10), or other topical agents (21). Comparators included vehicle (170) or other anti-inflammatory treatments. The risk of bias was high in 242 of the 272 (89.0%) trials contributing to data analyses, most commonly due to concerns about selective reporting. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was only possible for short-term outcomes. Patient-reported symptoms NMA of 40 trials (6482 participants) reporting patient-reported symptoms as a binary outcome ranked tacrolimus 0.1% (OR 6.27, 95% CI 1.19 to 32.98), potent TCS (OR 5.99, 95% CI 2.83 to 12.69), and ruxolitinib 1.5% (OR 5.64, 95% CI 1.26 to 25.25) as the most effective, all with low confidence. Mild TCS, roflumilast 0.15%, and crisaborole 2% were the least effective. Class-level sensitivity analysis found potent/very potent TCS had similar effectiveness to potent TCI and was more effective than mild TCI and PDE-4 inhibitors. NMA of 29 trials (3839 participants) reporting patient-reported symptoms as a continuous outcome ranked very potent TCS (SMD -1.99, 95% CI -3.25 to -0.73; low confidence) and tacrolimus 0.03% (SMD -1.57, 95% CI -2.42 to -0.72; moderate confidence) the highest. Direct information for tacrolimus 0.03% was based on one trial of 60 participants at high risk of bias. Roflumilast 0.15%, delgocitinib 0.25% or 0.5%, and tapinarof 1% were the least effective. Class-level sensitivity analysis found potent/very potent TCS had similar effectiveness to potent TCI and JAK inhibitors and mild/moderate TCS was less effective than mild TCI. A further 50 trials (9636 participants) reported patient-reported symptoms as a continuous outcome but could not be included in NMA. Clinician-reported signs NMA of 32 trials (4121 participants) reported clinician signs as a binary outcome and ranked potent TCS (OR 8.15, 95% CI 4.99, 13.57), tacrolimus 0.1% (OR 8.06, 95% CI 3.30, 19.67), ruxolitinib 1.5% (OR 7.72, 95% CI 4.92, 12.10), and delgocitinib 0.5% (OR 7.61, 95% CI 3.72, 15.58) as most effective, all with moderate confidence. Mild TCS, roflumilast 0.15%, crisaborole 2%, and tapinarof 1% were the least effective. Class-level sensitivity analysis found potent/very potent TCS more effective than potent TCI, mild TCI, JAK inhibitors, PDE-4 inhibitors; and mild TCS and PDE-4 inhibitors had similar effectiveness. NMA of 49 trials (5261 participants) reported clinician signs as a continuous outcome and ranked tacrolimus 0.03% (SMD -2.69, 95% CI -3.36, -2.02) and very potent TCS (SMD -1.87, 95% CI -2.69, -1.05) as most effective, both with moderate confidence; roflumilast 0.15%, difamilast 0.3% and tapinarof 1% were ranked as least effective. Direct information for tacrolimus 0.03% was based on one trial in 60 participants with a high risk of bias. For some sensitivity analyses, potent TCS, tacrolimus 0.1%, ruxolitinib 1.5%, delgocitinib 0.5% and delgocitinib 0.25% became some of the most effective treatments. Class-level analysis found potent/very potent TCS had similar effectiveness to potent TCI and JAK inhibitors, and moderate/mild TCS was more effective than mild TCI. A further 100 trials (22,814 participants) reported clinician signs as a continuous outcome but could not be included in NMA. Investigator Global Assessment NMA of 140 trials (23,383 participants) reported IGA as a binary outcome and ranked ruxolitinib 1.5% (OR 9.34, 95% CI 4.8, 18.18), delgocitinib 0.5% (OR 10.08, 95% CI 2.65, 38.37), delgocitinib 0.25% (OR 6.87, 95% CI 1.79, 26.33), very potent TCS (OR 8.34, 95% CI 4.73, 14.67), potent TCS (OR 5.00, 95% CI 3.80, 6.58), and tacrolimus 0.1% (OR 5.06, 95% CI 3.59, 7.13) as most effective, all with moderate confidence. Mild TCS, crisaborole 2%, pimecrolimus 1%, roflumilast 0.15%, difamilast 0.3% and 1%, and tacrolimus 0.03% were the least effective. In a sensitivity analysis of low risk of bias information (12 trials, 1639 participants), potent TCS, delgocitinib 0.5% and delgocitinib 0.25% were most effective, and pimecrolimus 1%, roflumilast 0.15%, difamilast 1% and difamilast 0.3% least effective. Class-level sensitivity analysis found potent/very potent TCS had similar effectiveness to potent TCI and JAK inhibitors and were more effective than PDE-4 inhibitors; mild/moderate TCS were less effective than potent TCI and had similar effectiveness to mild TCI. Longer-term outcomes over 6 to 12 months showed a possible increase in effectiveness for pimecrolimus 1% versus vehicle (4 trials, 2218 participants) in a pairwise meta-analysis, and greater treatment success with mild/moderate TCS than pimecrolimus 1% (based on 1 trial of 2045 participants). Local adverse effects NMA of 83 trials (18,992 participants, 2424 events) reporting application-site reactions ranked tacrolimus 0.1% (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.53, 3.17; moderate confidence), crisaborole 2% (OR 2.12, 95% CI 1.18, 3.81; high confidence), tacrolimus 0.03% (OR 1.51, 95%CI 1.10, 2.09; low confidence), and pimecrolimus 1% (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.01, 2.04; low confidence) as most likely to cause site reactions. Very potent, potent, moderate, and mild TCS were least likely to cause site reactions. NMA of eight trials (1786 participants, 3 events) reporting pigmentation changes found no evidence for increased pigmentation changes with TCS and crisaborole 2%, with low confidence for mild, moderate or potent TCS and moderate confidence for crisaborole 2%. NMA of 25 trials (3691 participants, 36 events) reporting skin thinning found no evidence for increased skin thinning with short-term (median 3 weeks, range 1-16 weeks) use of mild TCS (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.12, 4.31), moderate TCS (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.16, 5.33), potent TCS (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.21, 4.43) or very potent TCS (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.31, 2.49), all with low confidence. Longer-term outcomes over 6 to 60 months showed increased skin thinning with mild to potent TCS versus TCI (3 trials, 4069 participants, 6 events with TCS). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Potent TCS, JAK inhibitors and tacrolimus 0.1% were consistently ranked as amongst the most effective topical anti-inflammatory treatments for eczema and PDE-4 inhibitors as amongst the least effective. Mild TCS and tapinarof 1% were ranked amongst the least effective treatments in three of five efficacy networks. TCI and crisaborole 2% were ranked most likely to cause local application-site reactions and TCS least likely. We found no evidence for increased skin thinning with short-term TCS but an increase with longer-term TCS.

Capturing and reporting topical treatment use in childhood eczema: lessons for data collection in eczema trials.

BACKGROUND: Emollients and topical corticosteroids (TCS) prevent and treat flares in eczema. However, topical treatment use is poorly recorded and reported in clinical trials. There is no clear consensus of how best to capture and summarise topical treatment use. OBJECTIVES: To explore different ways of capturing and reporting topical treatment use in childhood eczema. METHODS: Secondary data analysis using 450 participants from the Best Emollients for Eczema (BEE) trial. Participants were allocated to use one type of emollient (lotion, cream, gel, or ointment) 'twice daily and when required' for 16 weeks. Otherwise, clinical management remained unchanged. Parents completed weekly questions about topical therapy use and eczema symptoms. Two versions of topical treatment use questionnaires were used. The first (n=202, 44.9%) asked parents to report treatment use on days 1-7, starting completion on the day they were randomised. The second (n=248, 55.1%) reported use by day of the week (Monday to Sunday), starting completion the first Monday after randomisation. Both underwent Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) review, but the second version was tested more thoroughly using cognitive interviewing techniques, following parent feedback that questions on the first version were confusing. Descriptive statistics compared questionnaire completion and differences in emollient and TCS use. RESULTS: Overall, questionnaire completion for both emollient and TCS use decreased with time: but at weeks 1 and 16 were 84.7% (381/450) and 58.9% (265/450) for emollient use, and 94.2% (424/450) and 80.4% (362/450) for TCS use, respectively. Fewer emollient use questionnaires were completed with first (33.5%) than the second (87.9%) version (p<0.001). TCS use questionnaire completion were similar for both (84.9% and 87.4%, p=0.002). We present different ways of summarising topical treatment use. CONCLUSIONS: While questionnaire completion was similar for TCS use, emollient use data completeness was higher in the second version. When designing questionnaires, balancing the detail and complexity of questions is important, especially if being collected as a secondary outcome measure. Numerous ways of summarising the same data can provide different information. Future collection and reporting of treatment use should reflect specific trial aims.

Clustering by health and social care need in multple long-term conditions (MLTC): an exploratory qualitative study to understand the views of professionals and people living with MLTC about future interventions.

BACKGROUND: Around one in four people are living with multiple long-term conditions (MLTC). Integrated care to holistically manage both health and social needs could improve outcomes for people living with MLTC, including lower rates of hospitalisation and mortality. However, given the number of people with MLTC and increasing strain on health and social care, stratified approaches to identifying and addressing social care needs may be more efficient and cost-effective. We have developed data driven clusters that group people with similar health and social care needs, which could identify patients at the highest risk of poor outcomes related to social care need. AIM: To explore views about a future intervention based on these clusters. METHOD: We aim to plan a cluster-based intervention that engages people living with MLTC and health and social care professionals to consider social care needs (SCNs) when consulting in primary care. We have conducted 14 interviews with professionals to explore their priorities and concerns about care delivery by MLTC clusters and 19 remote interviews with people living with MLTC to find out how well they identify with the MLTC clusters we have defined. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: GPs are the 'starting point' for conversations about SCNs but need an efficient system to enable effective conversations. The cluster-based intervention could fill this gap. CONCLUSION: This research identifies key considerations needed for an intervention to engage people with MLTC and health and social care professionals to consider SCNs in primary care.

Development and implementation of an online intervention and embedded decision aid to support self-management of acne vulgaris: qualitative interviews with healthcare professionals.

BACKGROUND: Acne is common and has a significant impact on quality of life. Topical treatments are first-line and effective, but non-adherence is common due to slow onset of action, or lack of advice on how to manage side effects. AIM: The Acne Care Online programme is developing an online intervention to support acne self-management and help-seeking. This project aims to explore experiences and views of healthcare professionals (HCPs) treating acne to assess the acceptability and feasibility of implementing this intervention and embedded decision aid in practice. METHOD: This qualitative study recruited HCPs working in general practice. Email invitations were sent to eight research-active practices in Southwest England, and snowball sampling was used. Purposive sampling was used to seek diverse participants. Semi-structured virtual interviews were conducted, audio-recorded, and transcribed. Data were explored using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Nine interviews were conducted, including seven GPs, one nurse, and one pharmacist. Findings highlighted challenges faced by HCPs managing acne in time-limited consultations, particularly around patients' limited understanding of effective treatments, frequent requests from patients for non-first-line treatments, treatment non-adherence, and addressing psychosocial impact. The intervention and embedded decision aid were perceived as beneficial in addressing these challenges, improving shared decision making, and providing a reliable resource for patients. Interviewees suggested integrating the intervention into electronic practice templates for effective implementation. CONCLUSION: HCPs were positive about the potential for the intervention to be implemented as a useful tool in practice. Potential implementation barriers need to be considered, such as making the intervention quick to access in time-limited consultations.

Prevalence and risk factors for milk allergy overdiagnosis in the BEEP trial cohort.

BACKGROUND: Cow's milk allergy (CMA) overdiagnosis in young children appears to be increasing and has not been well characterised. We used a clinical trial population to characterise CMA overdiagnosis and identify individual-level and primary care practice-level risk factors. METHODS: We analysed data from 1394 children born in England in 2014-2016 (BEEP trial, ISRCTN21528841). Participants underwent formal CMA diagnosis at ≤2 years. CMA overdiagnosis was defined in three separate ways: parent-reported milk reaction; primary care record of milk hypersensitivity symptoms; and primary care record of low-allergy formula prescription. RESULTS: CMA was formally diagnosed in 19 (1.4%) participants. CMA overdiagnosis was common: 16.1% had parent-reported cow's milk hypersensitivity, 11.3% primary care recorded milk hypersensitivity and 8.7% had low-allergy formula prescription. Symptoms attributed to cow's milk hypersensitivity in participants without CMA were commonly gastrointestinal and reported from a median age of 49 days. Low-allergy formula prescriptions in participants without CMA lasted a median of 10 months (interquartile range 1, 16); the estimated volume consumed was a median of 272 litres (26, 448). Risk factors for CMA overdiagnosis were high practice-based low-allergy formula prescribing in the previous year and maternal report of antibiotic prescription during pregnancy. Exclusive formula feeding from birth was associated with increased low-allergy formula prescription. There was no evidence that practice prescribing of paediatric adrenaline auto-injectors or anti-reflux medications, or maternal features such as anxiety, age, parity and socioeconomic status were associated with CMA overdiagnosis. CONCLUSION: CMA overdiagnosis is common in early infancy. Risk factors include high primary care practice-based low-allergy formula prescribing and maternal report of antibiotic prescription during pregnancy.

Acceptability of a proposed practice pharmacist-led review for opioid-treated patients with persistent pain: A qualitative study to inform intervention development.

Introduction: Regular review of patients prescribed opioids for persistent non-cancer pain (PCNP) is recommended but not routinely undertaken. The PROMPPT (Proactive clinical Review of patients taking Opioid Medicines long-term for persistent Pain led by clinical Pharmacists in primary care Teams) research programme aims to develop and test a pharmacist-led pain review (PROMPPT) to reduce inappropriate opioid use for persistent pain in primary care. This study explored the acceptability of the proposed PROMPPT review to inform early intervention development. Methods: Interviews (n = 15) and an online discussion forum (n = 31) with patients prescribed opioids for PCNP and interviews with pharmacists (n = 13), explored acceptability of a proposed PROMPPT review. A prototype PROMPPT review was then tested and refined through 3 iterative cycles of in-practice testing (IPT) (n = 3 practices, n = 3 practice pharmacists, n = 13 patients). Drawing on the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA), a framework was generated (including a priori TFA constructs) allowing for deductive and inductive thematic analysis to identify aspects of prospective and experienced acceptability. Results: Patients felt uncertain about practice pharmacists delivering the proposed PROMPPT review leading to development of content for the invitation letter for IPT (introducing the pharmacist and outlining the aim of the review). After IPT, patients felt that pharmacists were suited to the role as they were knowledgeable and qualified. Pharmacists felt that the proposed reviews would be challenging. Although challenges were experienced during delivery of PROMPPT reviews, pharmacists found that they became easier to deliver with time, practise and experience. Recommendations for optimisations after IPT included development of the training to include examples of challenging consultations. Conclusions: Uptake of new healthcare interventions is influenced by perceptions of acceptability. Exploring prospective and experienced acceptability at multiple time points during early intervention development, led to mini-optimisations of the prototype PROMPPT review ahead of a non-randomised feasibility study.

Designing a primary care pharmacist-led review for people treated with opioids for persistent pain: a multi-method qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Opioids are frequently prescribed for persistent non-cancer pain despite limited evidence of long-term effectiveness and risk of harm. Evidence-based interventions to address inappropriate opioid prescribing are lacking. AIM: To explore perspectives of people living with persistent pain to understand barriers and facilitators in reducing opioids in the context of a pharmacist-led primary care review, and identify review components and features for optimal delivery. DESIGN & SETTING: A multi-method qualitative study undertaken in the primary care setting in the UK. METHOD: Adults with experience of persistent pain and taking opioids participated in semi-structured interviews (n = 15, 73% female) and an online discussion forum (n = 31). The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) provided a framework for data collection and thematic analysis, involving deductive analysis to TDF domains, inductive analysis within domains to generate sub-themes, and sub-theme comparison to form across-domain overarching themes. The behaviour change technique taxonomy (v1) and motivational behaviour change technique classification system were used to systematically map themes to behaviour change techniques to identify potential review components and delivery features. RESULTS: Thirty-two facilitator and barrier sub-themes for patients reducing opioids were identified across 13 TDF domains. These combined into the following six overarching themes: learning to live with pain; opioid reduction expectations; assuming a medical model; pharmacist-delivered reviews; pharmacist-patient relationship; and patient engagement. Sub-themes mapped to 21 unique behaviour change techniques, yielding 17 components and five delivery features for the proposed PROMPPT review. CONCLUSION: This study generated theoretically informed evidence for design of a practice pharmacist-led PROMPPT review. Future research will test the feasibility and acceptability of the PROMPPT review and pharmacist training.

Perspectives of community pharmacy staff on commonly encountered skin conditions and the key challenges towards enhancing their role in dermatology.

This research letter discusses the perspectives of community pharmacy staff on commonly encountered skin conditions and the key challenges towards enhancing their role in this area. A mixed methods online survey was created, and a total of 174 community pharmacy staff completed the survey. The results highlight the range of conditions currently encountered in community pharmacy and the breadth of challenges facing community pharmacy staff, in particular challenges surrounding providing a differential diagnosis. Community pharmacies are an integral part of the NHS and have a key role in managing skin conditions; however, in order to optimise this role, the perspectives of staff discussed in this letter need to be further explored and addressed.

Distinguishing emotional distress from mental disorder in primary care: a qualitative exploration of the Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: Primary care clinicians see people experiencing the full range of mental health problems. Determining when symptoms reflect disorder is complex. The Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ) uniquely distinguishes general distress from depressive and anxiety disorders. It may support diagnostic conversations and targeting of treatment. AIM: To explore peoples' experiences of completing the 4DSQ and their perceptions of their resulting score profile across distress, depression, anxiety, and physical symptoms. DESIGN AND SETTING: A qualitative study was conducted in the UK with people recruited from primary care and community settings. METHOD: Participants completed the 4DSQ then took part in semi-structured telephone interviews. They were interviewed about their experience of completing the 4DSQ, their perceptions of their scores across four dimensions, and the perceived utility if used with a clinician. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Twenty-four interviews were conducted. Most participants found the 4DSQ easy to complete and reported that scores across the four dimensions aligned well with their symptom experience. Distinct scores for distress, depression, and anxiety appeared to support improved self-understanding. Some valued the opportunity to discuss their scores and provide relevant context. Many felt the use of the 4DSQ with clinicians would be helpful and likely to support treatment decisions, although some were concerned about time-limited consultations. CONCLUSION: Distinguishing general distress from depressive and anxiety disorders aligned well with people's experience of symptoms. Use of the 4DSQ as part of mental health consultations may support targeting of treatment and personalisation of care.

'Either something's wrong, or I'm a terrible parent': A systematic review of parent experiences of illness-related interpretations for unsettled babies.

AIMS: To explore parents' experiences of unsettled babies and medical labels. DESIGN: Qualitative systematic review, thematic synthesis and development of a conceptual model. REVIEW METHODS: Systematic review and thematic synthesis of primary, qualitative research into parents' experiences of unsettled babies <12 months of age. 'Unsettled' was defined as perception of excessive crying with additional feature(s) such as vomiting, skin or stool problems. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist was used to assess trustworthiness. DATA SOURCES: Structured searches completed in CINAHL, Medline, Embase, PsychINFO and CochraneCT on 23 March 2022 and rerun on 14 April 2023. RESULTS: Ten eligible studies were included across eight countries contributing data from 103 mothers and 24 fathers. Two analytical themes and eight descriptive themes were developed. Firstly, parents expressed fearing judgement, feeling guilty and out of control as a result of babies' unsettled symptoms and seeking strategies to construct an 'Identity as a "Good Parent"'. This desire for positive parenting identity underpinned the second analytical theme 'Searching for an explanation' which included seeking external (medical) causes for babies' unsettled behaviours. CONCLUSION: Parents can become trapped in a cycle of 'searching for an explanation' for their baby's unsettled behaviours, experiencing considerable distress which is exacerbated by feelings of guilt and failure. IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PATIENT CARE: Insight gained from this review could inform interventions to support parents, reducing inaccurate medicalization. Health visiting teams supporting parents with unsettled baby behaviour could focus on supporting a positive parenting identity by managing expectations, normalizing the continuum of infant behaviours, reducing feelings of guilt or uncertainty and helping parents regain a feeling of control. REPORTING METHOD: ENTREQ guidelines were adhered to in the reporting of this review. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Parent input was crucial in the design phase; shaping the language used (e.g., 'unsettled babies') and in the analysis sense-checking findings.

Perceptions and experiences of living with and providing care for multimorbidity: A qualitative interview study.

Background: Experiences of living with and seeking care for multimorbidity is a relatively under-researched field. By analysing experiences of people with multimorbidity, caregivers and care professionals, we can better understand the complex care needs of those with multimorbidity and identify improvements to care management. This paper reports findings from research that elicited the views of key stakeholders to inform future care practice and policy. Aim: To elicit care recipient and care provider views to understand the care needs of those living with and seeking care for multimorbidity. Method: A qualitative interview study using purposive sampling of those living with and providing care in multimorbidity. Results: Increased support to those with multimorbidity and caregivers to navigate care systems was advocated. Establishing trusting care relationships featured prominently in participants accounts. Fragmented care, inadequate coordination and poor communication between care providers, were identified as system-wide challenges. There was agreement that integrated care models were needed, which delivered personalised care, such as shared decision-making, choice in care options and accessing services, and individualised care plans. Conclusion: We found significant agreement among stakeholders on care need and management in multimorbidity. Understanding the experiences of those with multimorbidity, caregivers and care professionals, can inform future improvements in care management.

Multiple long-term conditions, loneliness and social isolation: A scoping review of recent quantitative studies.

BACKGROUND: Multiple long-term conditions (MLTC), loneliness and social isolation are common in older adults. Recent studies have explored the association of MLTC with loneliness and social isolation. This scoping review aimed to map this current evidence and identify gaps in the literature. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines for scoping reviews. Ovid Medline, Embase, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, PsycInfo, and Bielefeld Academic Search Engine were searched for studies published between January 2020-April 2023. Quantitative studies, published in any language, that assessed the association of MLTC with loneliness and/or social isolation were included. RESULTS: 1827 records were identified and screened. Of these, 17 met inclusion criteria. Most studies were cross-sectional and based on older adults. Studies were conducted in Europe, the US, Canada, and low- and middle-income countries. Ten studies focused on the association between MLTC and loneliness, six assessed the association between MLTC and social isolation and one examined associations with both loneliness and social isolation. Most studies reported a significant cross-sectional association of MLTC with loneliness, but there was weaker evidence for a longitudinal association between MLTC and loneliness and an association between MLTC and social isolation. Studies were heterogenous in terms of measures and definitions of loneliness/social isolation and MLTC, confounders adjusted for, and analytical models used, making comparisons difficult. CONCLUSIONS: Further population-based longitudinal studies using consistent measures and methodological approaches are needed to improve understanding of the association of MLTC with both loneliness and social isolation.

Online behavioural interventions for children and young people with eczema: a quantitative evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Two online behavioural interventions (one website for parents/carers of children with eczema; and one for young people with eczema) have been shown in randomised controlled trials to facilitate a sustained improvement in eczema severity. AIM: To describe intervention use and examine potential mediators of intervention outcomes and contextual factors that may influence intervention delivery and outcomes. DESIGN AND SETTING: Quantitative process evaluation in UK primary care. METHOD: Parents/carers and young people were recruited through primary care. Intervention use was recorded and summarised descriptively. Logistic regression explored sociodemographic and other factors associated with intervention engagement. Mediation analysis investigated whether patient enablement (ability to understand and cope with health issues), treatment use, and barriers to adherence were mediators of intervention effect. Subgroup analysis compared intervention effects among pre-specified participant subsets. RESULTS: A total of 340 parents/carers and 337 young people were recruited. Most parents/carers (87%, n = 148/171) and young people (91%, n = 153/168) in the intervention group viewed the core introduction by 24 weeks. At 24 weeks, users had spent approximately 20 minutes on average on the interventions. Among parents/carers, greater intervention engagement was associated with higher education levels, uncertainty about carrying out treatments, and doubts about treatment efficacy at baseline. Among young people, higher intervention use was associated with higher baseline eczema severity. Patient enablement (the ability to understand and cope with health issues) accounted for approximately 30% of the intervention effect among parents/carers and 50% among young people. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that positive intervention outcomes depended on a modest time commitment from users. This provides further support that the wider implementation of Eczema Care Online is justified.

Living with unsettled baby behaviours: Qualitative interview study exploring parental perceptions and experiences of help-seeking.

AIM: To explore parents' perceptions/experiences of help-seeking for unsettled baby behaviours, including views and experiences of obtaining advice from primary healthcare professionals. DESIGN: Semi-structured qualitative interviews. METHODS: Recruitment occurred via social media, general practice and health visiting teams. Remote semi-structured interviews were conducted with parents of babies. Babies were under 12 months old at time of interview, and parents had perceived unsettled baby behaviours in their first 4 months of life. Interviews were transcribed and data analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Based on interviews with 25 mothers, four main themes were developed. 'The need for answers' highlighted parental uncertainty about what constitutes normal baby behaviour, leading to help-seeking from multiple sources. 'The importance of health professionals' and 'Experiencing health professional support' identified perceptions about limited access, communication, mixed advice and how these influenced parental perception/management of behaviours. 'Foundations to help-seeking' highlighted important roles of social support and online help for valued shared experiences, emotional and practical support. CONCLUSION: Health professional access and advice are important to parents, despite the increasing role of online help and importance of social support. More support and improved access to reliable sources of information is needed for parents. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: Findings will inform future research and clinical practice to address parental uncertainties. Qualitative research with front-line health professionals is necessary. IMPACT: Findings can inform the development of resources to support professionals/families managing unsettled babies. REPORTING METHOD: Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT: A public contributor was involved throughout all stages of the research. Emerging findings were discussed at a parent group. WHAT DOES THIS PAPER CONTRIBUTE TO THE WIDER GLOBAL CLINICAL COMMUNITY?: Addressing parental uncertainties is important; about what is normal, non-pharmacological approaches and when pharmacological intervention is required. A digital information/self-management intervention may be useful for parents/clinicians.

Healthcare professionals' experiences and views of providing continence support and advice to people living at home with dementia: "That's a carer's job".

BACKGROUND: People living with dementia at home and their family carers often feel unsupported by healthcare professionals in managing continence problems. In turn, primary and community-based healthcare professionals have reported lacking specific knowledge on dementia-continence. This study aimed to understand more about healthcare professionals' experiences and views of supporting people living with dementia experiencing continence problems, as part of developing acceptable resources. Having a nuanced understanding of unmet need would facilitate the design of engaging resources that enable healthcare professionals to provide more effective continence support to people living with dementia at home. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a range of healthcare professionals (n = 31) working in primary and community care in the South of England in 2023. Transcribed interviews were uploaded to NVivo 12, then analysed inductively and deductively using a thematic framework. RESULTS: Continence-related conversations were avoided by many healthcare professionals due to lack of dementia-continence specific knowledge. Many considered that continence problems of people living with dementia were largely outside their remit once a physical cause had been ruled out. This contributed to a lack of priority and proactivity in raising the subject of continence in their consultations. Challenges to providing support included limited consultation time and lack of access to specialist services with availability to support individuals. CONCLUSION: There is substantial scope to support primary and community-based healthcare professionals in their provision of continence-related support and advice to people living at home with dementia. This includes addressing knowledge deficits, enhancing confidence and instilling a sense of accomplishment.

Cost-effectiveness of two online interventions supporting self-care for eczema for parents/carers and young people.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of online behavioral interventions (EczemaCareOnline.org.uk) designed to support eczema self-care management for parents/carers and young people from an NHS perspective. METHODS: Two within-trial economic evaluations, using regression-based approaches, adjusting for baseline and pre-specified confounder variables, were undertaken alongside two independent, pragmatic, parallel group, unmasked randomized controlled trials, recruiting through primary care. Trial 1 recruited 340 parents/carers of children aged 0-12 years and Trial 2 337 young people aged 13-25 years with eczema scored ≥ 5 on Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM). Participants were randomized (1:1) to online intervention plus usual care or usual care alone. Resource use, collected via medical notes review, was valued using published unit costs in UK £Sterling 2021. Quality-of-life was elicited using proxy CHU-9D in Trial 1 and self-report EQ-5D-5L in Trial 2. RESULTS: The intervention was dominant (cost saving and more effective) with a high probability of cost-effectiveness (> 68%) in most analyses. The exception was the complete case cost-utility analysis for Trial 1 (omitting participants with children aged < 2), with adjusted incremental cost savings of -£34.15 (95% CI - 104.54 to 36.24) and incremental QALYs of - 0.003 (95% CI - 0.021 to 0.015) producing an incremental cost per QALY of £12,466. In the secondary combined (Trials 1 and 2) cost-effectiveness analysis, the adjusted incremental cost was -£20.35 (95% CI - 55.41 to 14.70) with incremental success (≥ 2-point change on POEM) of 10.3% (95% CI 2.3-18.1%). CONCLUSION: The free at point of use online eczema self-management intervention was low cost to run and cost-effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered prospectively with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN79282252). URL www.EczemaCareOnline.org.uk .

How can community pharmacists be supported to manage skin conditions? A multistage stakeholder research prioritisation exercise.

OBJECTIVE: To establish research priorities which will support the development and delivery of community pharmacy initiatives for the management of skin conditions. DESIGN: An iterative, multistage stakeholder consultation consisting of online survey, participant workshops and prioritisation meeting. SETTING: All data collection took place online with participants completing a survey (delivered via the JISC Online Survey platform, between July 2021 and January 2022) and participating in online workshops and meetings (hosted on Microsoft Teams between April and July 2022). PARTICIPANTS: 174 community pharmacists and pharmacy staff completed the online survey.53 participants participated in the exploratory workshops (19 community pharmacists, 4 non-pharmacist members of pharmacy staff and 30 members of the public). 4 healthcare professionals who were unable to attend a workshop participated in a one-to-one interview.29 participants from the workshops took part in the prioritisation meeting (5 pharmacists/pharmacy staff, 1 other healthcare professional and 23 members of the public). RESULTS: Five broad areas of potential research need were identified in the online survey: (1) identifying and diagnosing skin conditions; (2) skin conditions in skin of colour; (3) when to refer skin conditions; (4) disease-specific concerns and (5) product-specific concerns.These were explored and refined in the workshops to establish 10 potential areas for research, which will support pharmacists in managing skin conditions. These were ranked in the prioritisation meeting. Among those prioritised were topics which consider how pharmacists work with other healthcare professionals to identify and manage skin conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Survey responses and stakeholder workshops all recognised the potential for community pharmacists to play an active role in the management of common skin conditions. Future research may support this in the generation of resources for pharmacists, in encouraging public take-up of pharmacy services, and in evaluating the most effective provision for dealing with skin conditions.