The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Adding emollient bath additives to standard eczema management for children with eczema: the BATHE RCT

Adding emollient bath additives to standard eczema management for children with eczema: the BATHE RCT
Adding emollient bath additives to standard eczema management for children with eczema: the BATHE RCT

BACKGROUND: Childhood eczema is very common. Treatment often includes emollient bath additives, despite there being little evidence of their effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of emollient bath additives in the management of childhood eczema.

DESIGN: Pragmatic, randomised, open-label, multicentre superiority trial with two parallel groups.

SETTING: Ninety-six general practices in Wales, the west of England and southern England. Invitation by personal letter or opportunistically.

PARTICIPANTS: Children aged between 12 months and 12 years fulfilling the UK Diagnostic Criteria for Atopic Eczema. Children with inactive or very mild eczema (a score of ≤ 5 on the Nottingham Eczema Severity Scale) were excluded, as were children who bathed less than once per week or whose parents/carers were not prepared to accept randomisation.

INTERVENTIONS: The intervention group were prescribed bath additives by their usual clinical team and were asked to use them regularly for 12 months. The control group were asked to use no bath additives for 12 months. Both groups continued standard eczema management, including regular leave-on emollients and topical corticosteroids (TCSs) when required.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was eczema control measured by Patient Oriented Eczema Measure [POEM, 0 (clear) to 28 (severe)] weekly for 16 weeks. The secondary outcomes were eczema severity over 1 year (4-weekly POEM), number of eczema exacerbations, disease-specific quality of life (QoL) (Dermatitis Family Impact Questionnaire), generic QoL (Child Health Utility-9 Dimensions) and type and quantity of topical steroid/calcineurin inhibitors prescribed. Children were randomised (1 : 1) using online software to either bath additives plus standard eczema care or standard eczema care alone, stratified by recruiting centre, and there was open-label blinding.

RESULTS: From December 2014 to May 2016, 482 children were randomised: 51% were female, 84% were white and the mean age was 5 years (n = 264 in the intervention group, n = 218 in the control group). Reported adherence to randomised treatment allocation was > 92% in both groups, with 76.7% of participants completing at least 12 (80%) of the first 16 weekly questionnaires for the primary outcome. Baseline POEM score was 9.5 [standard deviation (SD) 5.7] in the bath additives group and 10.1 (SD 5.8) in the no bath additives group. Average POEM score over the first 16 weeks was 7.5 (SD 6.0) in the bath additives group and 8.4 (SD 6.0) in the no bath additives group, with no statistically significant difference between the groups. After controlling for baseline severity and confounders (ethnicity, TCS use, soap substitute use) and allowing for clustering of participants within centres and responses within participants over time, POEM scores in the no bath additive group were 0.41 points higher than in the bath additive group (95% confidence interval -0.27 to 1.10), which is well below the published minimal clinically important difference of 3 points. There was no difference between groups in secondary outcomes or in adverse effects such as redness, stinging or slipping.

LIMITATIONS: Simple randomisation resulted in an imbalance in baseline group size, although baseline characteristics were well balanced between groups.

CONCLUSION: This trial found no evidence of clinical benefit of including emollient bath additives in the standard management of childhood eczema.

FUTURE WORK: Further research is required on optimal regimens of leave-on emollients and the use of emollients as soap substitutes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN84102309.

FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 57. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

1366-5278
1-116
Santer, Miriam
3ce7e832-31eb-4d27-9876-3a1cd7f381dc
Rumsby, Kate
2002ee8a-32ac-4119-869d-ed35164c3b51
Ridd, Matthew J.
de8b7ad0-5afa-4231-99f6-d6778744ddd4
Francis, Nick A.
9b610883-605c-4fee-871d-defaa86ccf8e
Stuart, Beth
626862fc-892b-4f6d-9cbb-7a8d7172b209
Chorozoglou, Maria
1d8dc56f-914a-402a-8155-4fb1e4380835
Roberts, Amanda
e6039287-3653-43e2-84ce-22b27db8640d
Liddiard, Lyn
c71daeff-4914-49bc-af95-b1823798c8f3
Nollett, Claire
488a5583-503e-4bb8-8a01-6a7cafd917c7
Hooper, Julie
45d8565c-aacc-433e-8bb4-1d06d3113ed4
Prude, Martina
ede98eab-1027-4a21-a38c-3bccb7c71e06
Wood, Wendy
c7e12f30-5332-4717-a0c8-328775e06364
Thomas-Jones, Emma
ea15d5ac-8232-4823-ab40-17bec0968520
Becque, Taeko
ecd1b4d5-4db8-4442-81c2-04aa291cf2fd
Thomas, Kim S.
f21619f9-467f-45dd-b9d4-be4014f11f3b
Williams, Hywel C.
3914e691-2348-4704-a044-e8d2af92444e
Little, Paul
1bf2d1f7-200c-47a5-ab16-fe5a8756a777
Santer, Miriam
3ce7e832-31eb-4d27-9876-3a1cd7f381dc
Rumsby, Kate
2002ee8a-32ac-4119-869d-ed35164c3b51
Ridd, Matthew J.
de8b7ad0-5afa-4231-99f6-d6778744ddd4
Francis, Nick A.
9b610883-605c-4fee-871d-defaa86ccf8e
Stuart, Beth
626862fc-892b-4f6d-9cbb-7a8d7172b209
Chorozoglou, Maria
1d8dc56f-914a-402a-8155-4fb1e4380835
Roberts, Amanda
e6039287-3653-43e2-84ce-22b27db8640d
Liddiard, Lyn
c71daeff-4914-49bc-af95-b1823798c8f3
Nollett, Claire
488a5583-503e-4bb8-8a01-6a7cafd917c7
Hooper, Julie
45d8565c-aacc-433e-8bb4-1d06d3113ed4
Prude, Martina
ede98eab-1027-4a21-a38c-3bccb7c71e06
Wood, Wendy
c7e12f30-5332-4717-a0c8-328775e06364
Thomas-Jones, Emma
ea15d5ac-8232-4823-ab40-17bec0968520
Becque, Taeko
ecd1b4d5-4db8-4442-81c2-04aa291cf2fd
Thomas, Kim S.
f21619f9-467f-45dd-b9d4-be4014f11f3b
Williams, Hywel C.
3914e691-2348-4704-a044-e8d2af92444e
Little, Paul
1bf2d1f7-200c-47a5-ab16-fe5a8756a777

Santer, Miriam, Rumsby, Kate, Ridd, Matthew J., Francis, Nick A., Stuart, Beth, Chorozoglou, Maria, Roberts, Amanda, Liddiard, Lyn, Nollett, Claire, Hooper, Julie, Prude, Martina, Wood, Wendy, Thomas-Jones, Emma, Becque, Taeko, Thomas, Kim S., Williams, Hywel C. and Little, Paul (2018) Adding emollient bath additives to standard eczema management for children with eczema: the BATHE RCT. Health Technology Assessment, 22 (57), 1-116. (doi:10.3310/hta22570).

Record type: Article

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Childhood eczema is very common. Treatment often includes emollient bath additives, despite there being little evidence of their effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of emollient bath additives in the management of childhood eczema.

DESIGN: Pragmatic, randomised, open-label, multicentre superiority trial with two parallel groups.

SETTING: Ninety-six general practices in Wales, the west of England and southern England. Invitation by personal letter or opportunistically.

PARTICIPANTS: Children aged between 12 months and 12 years fulfilling the UK Diagnostic Criteria for Atopic Eczema. Children with inactive or very mild eczema (a score of ≤ 5 on the Nottingham Eczema Severity Scale) were excluded, as were children who bathed less than once per week or whose parents/carers were not prepared to accept randomisation.

INTERVENTIONS: The intervention group were prescribed bath additives by their usual clinical team and were asked to use them regularly for 12 months. The control group were asked to use no bath additives for 12 months. Both groups continued standard eczema management, including regular leave-on emollients and topical corticosteroids (TCSs) when required.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was eczema control measured by Patient Oriented Eczema Measure [POEM, 0 (clear) to 28 (severe)] weekly for 16 weeks. The secondary outcomes were eczema severity over 1 year (4-weekly POEM), number of eczema exacerbations, disease-specific quality of life (QoL) (Dermatitis Family Impact Questionnaire), generic QoL (Child Health Utility-9 Dimensions) and type and quantity of topical steroid/calcineurin inhibitors prescribed. Children were randomised (1 : 1) using online software to either bath additives plus standard eczema care or standard eczema care alone, stratified by recruiting centre, and there was open-label blinding.

RESULTS: From December 2014 to May 2016, 482 children were randomised: 51% were female, 84% were white and the mean age was 5 years (n = 264 in the intervention group, n = 218 in the control group). Reported adherence to randomised treatment allocation was > 92% in both groups, with 76.7% of participants completing at least 12 (80%) of the first 16 weekly questionnaires for the primary outcome. Baseline POEM score was 9.5 [standard deviation (SD) 5.7] in the bath additives group and 10.1 (SD 5.8) in the no bath additives group. Average POEM score over the first 16 weeks was 7.5 (SD 6.0) in the bath additives group and 8.4 (SD 6.0) in the no bath additives group, with no statistically significant difference between the groups. After controlling for baseline severity and confounders (ethnicity, TCS use, soap substitute use) and allowing for clustering of participants within centres and responses within participants over time, POEM scores in the no bath additive group were 0.41 points higher than in the bath additive group (95% confidence interval -0.27 to 1.10), which is well below the published minimal clinically important difference of 3 points. There was no difference between groups in secondary outcomes or in adverse effects such as redness, stinging or slipping.

LIMITATIONS: Simple randomisation resulted in an imbalance in baseline group size, although baseline characteristics were well balanced between groups.

CONCLUSION: This trial found no evidence of clinical benefit of including emollient bath additives in the standard management of childhood eczema.

FUTURE WORK: Further research is required on optimal regimens of leave-on emollients and the use of emollients as soap substitutes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN84102309.

FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 57. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Full text not available from this repository.

More information

e-pub ahead of print date: 1 October 2018
Published date: 1 October 2018

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 425971
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/425971
ISSN: 1366-5278
PURE UUID: dc619f74-7175-44f4-8c90-f4907613da01
ORCID for Miriam Santer: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0001-7264-5260
ORCID for Kate Rumsby: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-8573-3718
ORCID for Nick A. Francis: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0001-8939-7312

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 08 Nov 2018 17:30
Last modified: 27 Jan 2020 13:59

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Miriam Santer ORCID iD
Author: Kate Rumsby ORCID iD
Author: Matthew J. Ridd
Author: Nick A. Francis ORCID iD
Author: Beth Stuart
Author: Amanda Roberts
Author: Lyn Liddiard
Author: Claire Nollett
Author: Julie Hooper
Author: Martina Prude
Author: Wendy Wood
Author: Emma Thomas-Jones
Author: Taeko Becque
Author: Kim S. Thomas
Author: Hywel C. Williams
Author: Paul Little

University divisions

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×