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


Journal

The Lancet. Child & adolescent health
ISSN: 2352-4650
Titre abrégé: Lancet Child Adolesc Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101712925

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
08 2022
Historique:
received: 24 03 2022
revised: 19 04 2022
accepted: 29 04 2022
pubmed: 27 5 2022
medline: 20 7 2022
entrez: 26 5 2022
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

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. 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. 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). 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. National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Sections du résumé

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.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35617974
pii: S2352-4642(22)00146-8
doi: 10.1016/S2352-4642(22)00146-8
pii:
doi:

Substances chimiques

Emollients 0
Gels 0
Ointments 0

Types de publication

Clinical Trial, Phase IV Journal Article Randomized Controlled Trial Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

522-532

Subventions

Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/K025643/1
Pays : United Kingdom

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of interests LH currently acts as a consultant for the University of Oxford on an educational grant funded by Pfizer, unrelated to the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests.

Auteurs

Matthew J Ridd (MJ)

Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. Electronic address: m.ridd@bristol.ac.uk.

Miriam Santer (M)

Primary Care Research Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.

Stephanie J MacNeill (SJ)

Bristol Trials Centre, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

Emily Sanderson (E)

Bristol Trials Centre, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

Sian Wells (S)

Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

Douglas Webb (D)

Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

Jonathan Banks (J)

National Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration West, University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK.

Eileen Sutton (E)

Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

Amanda Roberts (A)

Nottingham Support Group for Carers of Children with Eczema, Nottingham, UK.

Lyn Liddiard (L)

Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

Zoe Wilkins (Z)

Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

Julie Clayton (J)

Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

Kirsty Garfield (K)

Bristol Trials Centre, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

Tiffany J Barrett (TJ)

South West Medicines Information and Training, University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK.

J Athene Lane (JA)

Bristol Trials Centre, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

Helen Baxter (H)

Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

Laura Howells (L)

Centre of Evidence-Based Dermatology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.

Jodi Taylor (J)

Bristol Trials Centre, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

Alastair D Hay (AD)

Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

Hywel C Williams (HC)

Centre of Evidence-Based Dermatology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.

Kim S Thomas (KS)

Centre of Evidence-Based Dermatology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH