Pragmatic randomised controlled trial of guided self-help versus individual cognitive behavioural therapy with a trauma focus for post-traumatic stress disorder (RAPID).

Background: Guided self-help has been shown to be effective for other mental conditions and, if effective for post-traumatic stress disorder, would offer a time-efficient and accessible treatment option, with the potential to reduce waiting times and costs. Objective: To determine if trauma-focused guided self-help is non-inferior to individual, face-to-face cognitive-behavioural therapy with a trauma focus for mild to moderate post-traumatic stress disorder to a single traumatic event. Design: Multicentre pragmatic randomised controlled non-inferiority trial with economic evaluation to determine cost-effectiveness and nested process evaluation to assess fidelity and adherence, dose and factors that influence outcome (including context, acceptability, facilitators and barriers, measured qualitatively). Participants were randomised in a 1 : 1 ratio. The primary analysis was intention to treat using multilevel analysis of covariance. Setting: Primary and secondary mental health settings across the United Kingdom's National Health Service. Participants: One hundred and ninety-six adults with a primary diagnosis of mild to moderate post-traumatic stress disorder were randomised with 82% retention at 16 weeks and 71% at 52 weeks. Nineteen participants and ten therapists were interviewed for the process evaluation. Interventions: Up to 12 face-to-face, manualised, individual cognitive-behavioural therapy with a trauma focus sessions, each lasting 60-90 minutes, or to guided self-help using Spring, an eight-step online guided self-help programme based on cognitive-behavioural therapy with a trauma focus, with up to five face-to-face meetings of up to 3 hours in total and four brief telephone calls or e-mail contacts between sessions. Main outcome measures: Primary outcome: the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, at 16 weeks post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes: included severity of post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms at 52 weeks, and functioning, symptoms of depression, symptoms of anxiety, alcohol use and perceived social support at both 16 and 52 weeks post-randomisation. Those assessing outcomes were blinded to group assignment. Results: Non-inferiority was demonstrated at the primary end point of 16 weeks on the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition [mean difference 1.01 (one-sided 95% CI -∞ to 3.90, non-inferiority p = 0.012)]. Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, score improvements of over 60% in both groups were maintained at 52 weeks but the non-inferiority results were inconclusive in favour of cognitive-behavioural therapy with a trauma focus at this timepoint [mean difference 3.20 (one-sided 95% confidence interval -∞ to 6.00, non-inferiority p = 0.15)]. Guided self-help using Spring was not shown to be more cost-effective than face-to-face cognitive-behavioural therapy with a trauma focus although there was no significant difference in accruing quality-adjusted life-years, incremental quality-adjusted life-years -0.04 (95% confidence interval -0.10 to 0.01) and guided self-help using Spring was significantly cheaper to deliver [£277 (95% confidence interval £253 to £301) vs. £729 (95% CI £671 to £788)]. Guided self-help using Spring appeared to be acceptable and well tolerated by participants. No important adverse events or side effects were identified. Limitations: The results are not generalisable to people with post-traumatic stress disorder to more than one traumatic event. Conclusions: Guided self-help using Spring for mild to moderate post-traumatic stress disorder to a single traumatic event appears to be non-inferior to individual face-to-face cognitive-behavioural therapy with a trauma focus and the results suggest it should be considered a first-line treatment for people with this condition. Future work: Work is now needed to determine how best to effectively disseminate and implement guided self-help using Spring at scale. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN13697710. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 14/192/97) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 26. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Post-traumatic stress disorder is a common, disabling condition that can occur following major traumatic events. Typical symptoms include distressing reliving, avoidance of reminders and feeling a current sense of threat. First-choice treatments for post-traumatic stress disorder are individual, face-to-face talking treatments, of 12­16 hours duration, including cognitive behavioural therapy with a trauma focus. If equally effective treatments could be developed that take less time and can be largely undertaken in a flexible manner at home, this would improve accessibility, reduce waiting times and hence the burden of disease. RAPID was a randomised controlled trial using a web-based programme called Spring. The aim was to determine if trauma-focused guided self-help provided a faster and cheaper treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder than first-choice face-to-face therapy, while being equally effective. Guided self-help using Spring is delivered through eight steps. A therapist provides a 1-hour introductory meeting followed by four further, fortnightly sessions of 30 minutes each and four brief (around 5 minutes) telephone calls or e-mail contacts between sessions. At each session, the therapist reviews progress and guides the client through the programme, offering continued support, monitoring, motivation and problem-solving. One hundred and ninety-six people with post-traumatic stress disorder to a single traumatic event took part in the study. Guided self-help using Spring was found to be equally effective to first-choice face-to-face therapy at reducing post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms at 16 weeks. Very noticeable improvements were maintained at 52 weeks post-randomisation in both groups, when most results were inconclusive but in favour of face-to-face therapy. Guided self-help using Spring was significantly cheaper to deliver and appeared to be well-tolerated. It is noteworthy that not everyone benefitted from guided self-help using Spring, highlighting the importance of considering it on a person-by-person basis, and personalising interventions. But, the RAPID trial has demonstrated that guided self-help using Spring provides a low-intensity treatment option for people with post-traumatic stress disorder that is ready to be implemented in the National Health Service.

Guided, internet based, cognitive behavioural therapy for post-traumatic stress disorder: pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial (RAPID).

OBJECTIVE: To determine if guided internet based cognitive behavioural therapy with a trauma focus (CBT-TF) is non-inferior to individual face-to-face CBT-TF for mild to moderate post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) to one traumatic event. DESIGN: Pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial (RAPID). SETTING: Primary and secondary mental health settings across the UK's NHS. PARTICIPANTS: 196 adults with a primary diagnosis of mild to moderate PTSD were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to one of two interventions, with 82% retention at 16 weeks and 71% retention at 52 weeks. 19 participants and 10 therapists were purposively sampled and interviewed for evaluation of the process. INTERVENTIONS: Up to 12 face-to-face, manual based, individual CBT-TF sessions, each lasting 60-90 minutes; or guided internet based CBT-TF with an eight step online programme, with up to three hours of contact with a therapist and four brief telephone calls or email contacts between sessions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was the Clinician Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5) at 16 weeks after randomisation (diagnosis of PTSD based on the criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition, DSM-5). Secondary outcomes included severity of PTSD symptoms at 52 weeks, and functioning, symptoms of depression and anxiety, use of alcohol, and perceived social support at 16 and 52 weeks after randomisation. RESULTS: Non-inferiority was found at the primary endpoint of 16 weeks on the CAPS-5 (mean difference 1.01, one sided 95% confidence interval -∞ to 3.90, non-inferiority P=0.012). Improvements in CAPS-5 score of more than 60% in the two groups were maintained at 52 weeks, but the non-inferiority results were inconclusive in favour of face-to-face CBT-TF at this time point (3.20, -∞ to 6.00, P=0.15). Guided internet based CBT-TF was significantly (P<0.001) cheaper than face-to-face CBT-TF and seemed to be acceptable and well tolerated by participants. The main themes of the qualitative analysis were facilitators and barriers to engagement with guided internet based CBT-TF, treatment outcomes, and considerations for its future implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Guided internet based CBT-TF for mild to moderate PTSD to one traumatic event was non-inferior to individual face-to-face CBT-TF and should be considered a first line treatment for people with this condition. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN13697710.

Protocol for a double-blind placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of probiotics in reducing antibiotics for infection in care home residents: the Probiotics to Reduce Infections iN CarE home reSidentS (PRINCESS) trial.

INTRODUCTION: Care home residents are at increased risk of infections and antibiotic prescription. Reduced antibiotic use from fewer infections would improve quality of life. The Probiotics to Reduce Infections iN CarE home reSidentS (PRINCESS) trial aims to determine the efficacy and investigate mechanisms of daily probiotics on antibiotic use and incidence of infections in care home residents. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: PRINCESS is a double-blind, individually randomised, placebo-controlled trial that will assess the effect of a daily oral probiotic combination of Lactobacillus rhamnosus, GG (LGG) and Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis, BB-12 (BB-12) on cumulative antibiotic administration days (CAADs) (primary outcome) for infection in up to 330 care home residents aged ≥65 years over up to 12 months. Secondary outcomes include: Infection: Total number of days of antibiotic administration for each infection type (respiratory tract infection, urinary tract infection, gastrointestinal infection, unexplained fever and other); number, site, duration of infection; estimation of incidence and duration of diarrhoea and antibiotic-associated diarrhoea; Stool microbiology: Clostridium difficile infection; Gram-negative Enterobacteriaceae and vancomycin-resistant enterococci; LGG and BB-12. Oral microbiology: Candida spp. Health and well-being: Self and/or proxy health-related quality of life EQ5D (5 L); self-and/or proxy-reported ICEpop CAPability measure for older people. Hospitalisations: number and duration of all-cause hospital stays. Mortality: deaths. Mechanistic immunology outcomes: influenza vaccine efficacy (haemagglutination inhibition assay and antibody titres); full blood count and immune cell phenotypes, plasma cytokines and chemokines; cytokine and chemokine response in whole blood stimulated ex vivo by toll-like receptor 2 and 4 agonists; monocyte and neutrophil phagocytosis of Escherichia coli; serum vitamin D. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is from the Wales Research Ethics Committee 3. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and conferences; results will be of interest to patient and policy stakeholders. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN16392920; Pre-results.

Implementation of the Family Nurse Partnership programme in England: experiences of key health professionals explored through trial parallel process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The Family Nurse Partnership (FNP) programme was introduced to support young first-time mothers. A randomised trial found FNP added little short-term benefit compared to usual care. The study included a comprehensive parallel process evaluation, including focus groups, conducted to aid understanding of the introduction of the programme into a new service and social context. The aim of the focus groups was to investigate views of key health professionals towards the integration and delivery of FNP programme in England. METHODS: Focus groups were conducted separately with Family Nurses, Health Visitors and Midwives at trial sites during 2011-2012. Transcripts from audio-recordings were analysed thematically. RESULTS: A total of 122 professionals participated in one of 19 focus groups. Family Nurses were confident in the effectiveness of FNP, although they experienced practical difficulties meeting programme fidelity targets and considered that programme goals did not sufficiently reflect client or community priorities. Health Visitors and Midwives regarded FNP as well-resourced and beneficial to clients, describing their own services as undervalued and struggling. They wished to work closely with Family Nurses, but felt excluded from doing so by practical barriers and programme protection. CONCLUSION: FNP was described as well-resourced and delivered by highly motivated and well supported Family Nurses. FNP eligibility, content and outcomes conflicted with individual client and community priorities. These factors may have restricted the potential effectiveness of a programme developed and previously tested in a different social milieu. Building Blocks ISRCTN23019866 Registered 20/04/2009.

Monitoring adverse social and medical events in public health trials: assessing predictors and interpretation against a proposed model of adverse event reporting.

BACKGROUND: Although adverse event (AE) monitoring in trials focusses on medical events, social outcomes may be important in public or social care trials. We describe our approach to reporting and categorising medical and other AE reports, using a case study trial. We explore predictors of medical and social AEs, and develop a model for conceptualising safety monitoring. METHODS: The Building Blocks randomised controlled trial of specialist home visiting recruited 1618 first-time mothers aged 19 years or under at 18 English sites. Event reports collected during follow-up were independently reviewed and categorised as either Medical (standard Good Clinical Practice definition), or Social (trial-specific definition). A retrospectively developed system was created to classify AEs. Univariate analyses explored the association between baseline participant and study characteristics and the subsequent reporting of events. Factors significantly associated at this stage were progressed to binary logistic regressions to assess independent predictors. RESULTS: A classification system was derived for reported AEs that distinguished between Medical or Social AEs. One thousand, three hundred and fifteen event reports were obtained for mothers or their babies (1033 Medical, 257 Social). Allocation to the trial intervention arm was associated with increased likelihood of Medical rather than Social AE reporting. Poorer baseline psycho-social status predicted both Medical and Social events, and poorer psycho-social status better predicted Social rather than Medical events. Baseline predictors of Social AEs included being younger at recruitment (OR = 0.78 (CI = 0.67 to 0.90), p = 0.001), receiving benefits (OR = 1.60 (CI = 1.09 to 2.35), p = 0.016), and having a higher antisocial behaviour score (OR = 1.22 (CI = 1.09 to 1.36), p < 0.001). Baseline predictors of Medical AEs included having a limiting long-term illness (OR = 1.37 (CI = 1.01 to 1.88), p = 0.046), poorer mental health (OR = 1.03 (CI = 1.01 to 1.05), p = 0.004), and being in the intervention arm of the trial (OR = 1.34 (CI = 1.07 to 1.70), p = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS: Continuity between baseline and subsequent adverse experiences was expected despite potentially beneficial intervention impact. We hypothesise that excess events reported for intervention-arm participants is likely attributable to surveillance bias. We interpreted our findings against a new model that explicates processes that may drive event occurrence, presentation and reporting. Focussing only upon Medical events may miss the well-being and social circumstances that are important for interpreting intervention safety and participant management. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ID: ISRCTN23019866. Registered on 20 April 2009.

Pragmatic RAndomised controlled trial of a trauma-focused guided self-help Programme versus InDividual trauma-focused cognitive Behavioural therapy for post-traumatic stress disorder (RAPID): trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: There is good evidence that trauma-focused therapies for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder are effective. However, they are not always feasible to deliver due a shortage of trained therapists and demands on the patient. An online trauma-focused Guided Self-Help (GSH) programme which could overcome these barriers has shown promise in a pilot study. This study will be the first to evaluate GSH against standard face-to-face therapy to assess its suitability for use in the NHS. METHODS: The study is a large-scale multi-centre pragmatic randomised controlled non-inferiority trial, with assessors masked to treatment allocation. One hundred and ninety-two participants will be randomly allocated to receive either face-to-face trauma-focused cognitive behaviour therapy (TFCBT) or trauma-focused online guided self-help (GSH). The primary outcome will be the severity of symptoms of PTSD over the previous week as measured by the Clinician Administered PTSD Scale for DSM5 (CAPS-5) at 16 weeks post-randomisation. Secondary outcome measures include PTSD symptoms over the previous month as measured by the CAPS-5 at 52 weeks plus the Impact of Event Scale - revised (IES-R), Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS), Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), General Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7), Alcohol Use Disorders Test (AUDIT-O), Multidimensional Scale for Perceived Social Support (MSPSS), short Post-Traumatic Cognitions Inventory (PTCI), Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) and General Self Efficacy Scale (GSES) measured at 16 and 52 weeks post-randomisation. Changes in health-related quality of life will be measured by the EQ-5D and the level of healthcare resource utilisation for health economic analysis will be determined by an amended version of the Client Socio-Demographic and Service Receipt Inventory European Version. The Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ) will be collected at 16 weeks post-randomisation to evaluate treatment satisfaction. DISCUSSION: This study will be the first to compare online GSH with usual face-to-face therapy for PTSD. The strengths are that it will test a rigorously developed intervention in a real world setting to inform NHS commissioning. The potential challenges of delivering such a pragmatic study may include participant recruitment, retention and adherence, therapist retention, and fidelity of intervention delivery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN13697710 registered on 20/12/2016.

Impact of a deferred recruitment model in a randomised controlled trial in primary care (CREAM study).

BACKGROUND: Recruitment of participants is particularly challenging in primary care, with less than a third of randomised controlled trials (RCT) achieving their target within the original time frame. Participant identification, consent, randomisation and data collection can all be time-consuming. Trials recruiting an incident, as opposed to a prevalent, population may be particularly affected. This paper describes the impact of a deferred recruitment model in a RCT of antibiotics for children with infected eczema in primary care, which required the recruitment of cases presenting acutely. METHODS: Eligible children were identified by participating general practitioners (GPs) and referred to a study research nurse, who then visited them at home. This allowed the consent and recruitment processes to take place outside the general practice setting. Information was recorded about patients who were referred and recruited, or if not, the reasons for non-recruitment. Data on recruitment challenges were collected through semi-structured interviews and questionnaires with a sample of participating GPs. Data were thematically analysed to identify key themes. RESULTS: Of the children referred to the study 34% (58/171) were not recruited - 48% (28/58) because of difficulties arranging a baseline visit within the defined time frame, 31% (18/58) did not meet the study inclusion criteria at the time of nurse assessment, and 21% (12/58) declined participation. GPs had positive views about the recruitment process, reporting that parents valued and benefitted from additional contact with a nurse. GPs felt that the deferred recruitment model did not negatively impact on the study. CONCLUSIONS: GPs and parents recognised the benefits of deferred recruitment, but these did not translate into enhanced recruitment of participants. The model resulted in the loss of a third of children who were identified by the GP as eligible, but not subsequently recruited to the study. If the potential for improving outcomes in primary care through complex studies is to be realised, new approaches to recruitment into primary care trials need to be developed and evaluated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials, ISRCTN96705420 . Registered on 27 June 2012.

A pilot randomised controlled trial of community-led ANtipsychotic Drug REduction for Adults with Learning Disabilities.

BACKGROUND: Data suggest that approximately 50,000 adults with learning disabilities (LDs) in England and Wales are currently prescribed antipsychotic medication. Illness in this population is common, including significant rates of challenging behaviour and mental illness, but there is particular concern over the use of antipsychotics prescribed for reasons other than the treatment of psychosis. Control of challenging behaviour is the primary reason why such medications are prescribed despite the absence of good evidence for any therapeutic effect for this purpose. OBJECTIVES: To assess the feasibility of recruitment and retention and to explore non-efficacy-based barriers to a blinded antipsychotic medication withdrawal programme for adults with LDs without psychosis compared with treatment as usual. A secondary objective was to compare trial arms regarding clinical outcomes. DESIGN: A two-arm individually randomised double-blind placebo-controlled drug reduction trial. SETTING: Recruitment was through community learning disability teams (CLDTs) in south Wales and south-west England. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with LDs who are prescribed risperidone for treatment of challenging behaviour with no known current psychosis or previous recurrence of psychosis following prior drug reduction. INTERVENTION: A double-blind drug reduction programme leading to full withdrawal within 6 months. Treatment in the intervention group was gradually reduced over a 6-month period and then maintained at the same level for a further 3 months, still under blind conditions. In the control group, the baseline level of medication was maintained throughout the 9-month period. The blind was broken at 9 months, following final data collection. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Feasibility outcomes were (1) the number and proportion of general practices/CLDTs that progressed from initial approach to recruitment of participants and (2) the number and proportion of recruited participants who progressed through the various stages of the study. Trial arms were also compared regarding clinical outcomes, the Modified Overt Aggression Scale, the Aberrant Behaviour Checklist, the Psychiatric Assessment Schedule for Adults with Developmental Disability checklist, the Antipsychotic Side-effect Checklist, the Dyskinesia Identification System Condensed User Scale, the Client Service Receipt Inventory, use of other interventions to manage challenging behaviour, use of as-required (pro re nata) medication and level of psychotropic medication use. RESULTS: Of the 22 participants randomised (intervention, n = 11; control, n = 11), 13 (59%) achieved progression through all four stages of reduction. Follow-up data at 6 and 9 months were obtained for 17 participants (intervention, n = 10; and control, n = 7; 77% of those randomised). There were no clinically important changes in participants' levels of aggression or challenging behaviour at the end of the study. There were no expedited safety reports. Four adverse events and one serious adverse event were reported during the trial. LIMITATIONS: Recruitment was challenging, which was largely a result of difficulty in identifying appropriate persons to consent and carer concerns regarding re-emergence of challenging behaviour. Reduced recruitment meant that the full trial became an exploratory pilot study. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that drug reduction is possible and safe. However, concerns about taking part were probably exacerbated by limited availability of alternative (behavioural) interventions to manage behaviour; therefore, focused support and alternative interventions are required. The results of the qualitative study provide important insights into the experiences of people taking part in drug reduction studies that should influence future trial development. FUTURE WORK: We recommend that further work focuses on support for practitioners, carers and patients in reducing antipsychotic medication. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN38126962. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 47. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

A randomised placebo-controlled trial of oral and topical antibiotics for children with clinically infected eczema in the community: the ChildRen with Eczema, Antibiotic Management (CREAM) study.

BACKGROUND: Secondary skin infection is common during eczema exacerbations and many children are treated with antibiotics when this is suspected, although there is little high-quality evidence to justify this practice. OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical effectiveness of oral and topical antibiotics, in addition to standard treatment with emollients and topical corticosteroids, in children with clinically infected eczema. DESIGN: Multicentre randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: General practices and dermatology clinics in England, Wales and Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: Children (aged 3 months to < 8 years) with a diagnosis of eczema (according to U.K. Working Party definition) and clinical suspicion of infection. INTERVENTIONS: (1) Oral flucloxacillin and topical placebo; (2) topical fusidic acid (Fucidin(®), Leo Laboratories Limited) and oral placebo; and (3) oral and topical placebos, all for 1 week. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient-Orientated Eczema Measure (POEM) at 2 weeks (assessing subjective severity in the week following treatment). RESULTS: We randomised 113 children (36 to oral antibiotic, 37 to topical antibiotic and 40 to placebo), which was fewer than our revised target sample size of 282. A total of 103 (92.0%) children had one or more clinical features suggestive of infection and 78 (69.6%) children had Staphylococcus aureus cultured from a skin swab. Oral and topical antibiotics resulted in a 1.52 [95% confidence interval (CI) -1.35 to 4.40] and 1.49 (95% CI -1.55 to 4.53) increase (worse subjective severity) in POEM score at 2 weeks, relative to placebo and controlling for baseline POEM score. Eczema Area and Severity Index (objective severity) scores were also higher (worse) in the intervention groups, at 0.20 (95% CI -0.12 to 0.52) and 0.42 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.75) for oral and topical antibiotics, respectively, at 2 weeks. Analyses of impact on the family, quality of life, daily symptom scores, and longer-term outcomes were all consistent with the finding of no or limited difference and a trend towards worse outcomes in the intervention groups. Sensitivity analyses, including adjusting for compliance and imputation for missing data, were consistent with the main findings. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that oral and topical antibiotics have no effect, or a harmful effect, on subjective eczema severity in children with clinically infected eczema in the community. The CIs around our estimates exclude a meaningful beneficial effect (published minimal clinically important difference for POEM is 3.4). Although most patients in this trial had features suggestive of infection and S. aureus on their skin, participants primarily had mild-moderate eczema and those with signs of more severe infection were often excluded. Clinicians should consider avoiding oral and topical antibiotic use in children with suspected infected eczema in the community who do not have signs of 'severe infection'. Further research should seek to understand how best to encourage the use of topical steroids and limit use of antibiotics in those with eczema flares without signs of severe infection, as well as developing tools to better phenotype eczema flares, in order to better define a population that may benefit from antibiotic treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials (EudraCT) number 2011-003591-37 and Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN96705420. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.