Comparison of lotions, creams, gels and ointments for the treatment of childhood eczema: the BEE RCT
Authors: Ridd Matthew J , Wells Sian , MacNeill Stephanie J , Sanderson Emily , Webb Douglas , Banks Jonathan , Sutton Eileen , Shaw Alison RG , Wilkins Zoe , Clayton Julie , Roberts Amanda , Garfield Kirsty , Liddiard Lyn , Barrett Tiffany J , Lane J Athene , Baxter Helen , Howells Laura , Taylor Jodi , Hay Alastair D , Williams Hywel C , Thomas Kim S , Santer Miriam 
Published: November 2023

Background

Emollients are recommended for children with eczema (atopic eczema/dermatitis). A lack of head-to-head comparisons of the effectiveness and acceptability of the different types of emollients has resulted in a ‘trial and error’ approach to prescribing.

Objective

To compare the effectiveness and acceptability of four commonly used types of emollients for the treatment of childhood eczema.

Design

Four group, parallel, individually randomised, superiority randomised clinical trials with a nested qualitative study, completed in 2021. A purposeful sample of parents/children was interviewed at ≈ 4 and ≈ 16 weeks.

Setting

Primary care (78 general practitioner surgeries) in England.

Participants

Children aged between 6 months and 12 years with eczema, of at least mild severity, and with no known sensitivity to the study emollients or their constituents.

Interventions

Study emollients sharing the same characteristics in the four types of lotion, cream, gel or ointment, alongside usual care, and allocated using a web-based randomisation system. Participants were unmasked and the researcher assessing the Eczema Area Severity Index scores was masked.

Main outcome measures

The primary outcome was Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure scores over 16 weeks. The secondary outcomes were Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure scores over 52 weeks, Eczema Area Severity Index score at 16 weeks, quality of life (Atopic Dermatitis Quality of Life, Child Health Utility-9 Dimensions and EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, scores), Dermatitis Family Impact and satisfaction levels at 16 weeks.

Results

A total of 550 children were randomised to receive lotion (analysed for primary outcome 131/allocated 137), cream (137/140), gel (130/135) or ointment (126/138). At baseline, 86.0% of participants were white and 46.4% were female. The median (interquartile range) age was 4 (2–8) years and the median Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure score was 9.3 (SD 5.5). There was no evidence of a difference in mean Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure scores over the first 16 weeks between emollient types (global p = 0.765): adjusted Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure pairwise differences – cream–lotion 0.42 (95% confidence interval –0.48 to 1.32), gel–lotion 0.17 (95% confidence interval –0.75 to 1.09), ointment–lotion –0.01 (95% confidence interval –0.93 to 0.91), gel–cream –0.25 (95% confidence interval –1.15 to 0.65), ointment–cream –0.43 (95% confidence interval –1.34 to 0.48) and ointment–gel –0.18 (95% confidence interval –1.11 to 0.75). There was no effect modification by parent expectation, age, disease severity or the application of UK diagnostic criteria, and no differences between groups in any of the secondary outcomes. Median weekly use of allocated emollient, non-allocated emollient and topical corticosteroids was similar across groups. Overall satisfaction was highest for lotions and gels. There was no difference in the number of adverse reactions and there were no significant adverse events. In the nested qualitative study (n = 44 parents, n = 25 children), opinions about the acceptability of creams and ointments varied most, yet problems with all types were reported. Effectiveness may be favoured over acceptability. Parents preferred pumps and bottles over tubs and reported improved knowledge about, and use of, emollients as a result of taking part in the trial.

Limitations

Parents and clinicians were unmasked to allocation. The findings may not apply to non-study emollients of the same type or to children from more ethnically diverse backgrounds.

Conclusions

The four emollient types were equally effective. Satisfaction with the same emollient types varies, with different parents/children favouring different ones. Users need to be able to choose from a range of emollient types to find one that suits them.

Future work

Future work could focus on how best to support shared decision-making of different emollient types and evaluations of other paraffin-based, non-paraffin and ‘novel’ emollients.

Trial registration

This trial is registered as ISRCTN84540529 and EudraCT 2017-000688-34.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (HTA 15/130/07) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 19. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.