Comparison of two skin protection regimes for the Prevention of Incontinence-associated Dermatitis in geriatric care (PID): a study protocol for an exploratory randomised controlled pragmatic trial

Monira El Genedy-Kalyoncu, Alexandra Fastner, Bettina Völzer, Kathrin Raeder, Konrad Neumann, Nils Axel Lahmann, Jan Kottner, Monira El Genedy-Kalyoncu, Alexandra Fastner, Bettina Völzer, Kathrin Raeder, Konrad Neumann, Nils Axel Lahmann, Jan Kottner

Abstract

Introduction: The majority of aged long-term care receivers and patients in geriatric acute care are affected by some form of incontinence. These individuals are at risk of developing incontinence-associated dermatitis (IAD), a common type of irritant contact dermatitis caused by repeated and prolonged direct contact of the skin with urine and stool. The prevalence of IAD in these settings is high. Preventive measures include mild skin cleansing and the application of skin protecting leave-on products. Available evidence is weak regarding the comparative performance of different skin protection strategies and products due to a lack of confirmatory trials using relevant comparators and endpoints. Therefore, the overall aim of this exploratory trial is to compare the effects of three skin protection strategies to estimate effect sizes of the recently published core outcomes in IAD research.

Methods and analysis: A pragmatic three-arm, assessor-blinded, randomised controlled, exploratory trial with parallel group design will be performed, comparing film-forming and lipophilic skin protecting leave-on products for IAD prevention with standard incontinence care alone. The trial will be conducted in geriatric nursing homes and geriatric acute care settings in the federal state of Berlin, Germany. A total of n=210 participants being incontinent of urine and stool will be included. Outcomes include IAD incidence, erythema, erosion, maceration, IAD-related pain, patient satisfaction, safety, feasibility and compliance. IAD incidence of the control and intervention groups will be compared to estimate effect sizes, and the procedural feasibility of the intervention will be tested to plan a possible subsequent confirmatory randomised controlled trial.

Ethics and dissemination: The study received the approval of the ethics committee of Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin (EA4/043/22). Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed open-access journals and international conferences.

Trial registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05403762) and German Clinical Trials Register (Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien, or DRKS) (DRKS00028954).

Keywords: dermatology; geriatric dermatology; urinary incontinences.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Overview of the planned trial flow. IAD, incontinence-associated dermatitis.

References

    1. Gray M, Beeckman D, Bliss DZ, et al. . Incontinence-associated dermatitis: a comprehensive review and update. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs 2012;39:61–74. 10.1097/WON.0b013e31823fe246
    1. Gray M, Bliss DZ, Doughty DB, et al. . Incontinence-associated dermatitis: a consensus. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs 2007;34:45–54. 10.1097/00152192-200701000-00008
    1. Gray M, Giuliano KK. Incontinence-Associated dermatitis, characteristics and relationship to pressure injury: a multisite epidemiologic analysis. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs 2018;45:63–7. 10.1097/WON.0000000000000390
    1. Van Damme N, Vanryckeghem E, Verhaeghe S. Incontinence-associated dermatitis in elderly: a qualitative phenomenological study on patient experiences. Annual Conference of the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, Gent, Belgium, 2015.
    1. Kottner J, Beeckman D. Incontinence-associated dermatitis and pressure ulcers in geriatric patients. G Ital Dermatol Venereol 2015;150:717–29.
    1. Beele H, Smet S, Van Damme N, et al. . Incontinence-Associated dermatitis: pathogenesis, contributing factors, prevention and management options. Drugs Aging 2018;35:1–10. 10.1007/s40266-017-0507-1
    1. Beeckman D. Incontinene-associated dermatitis: moving prevention forward. Proceedings of the global IAD expert panel, London: Wounds international, 2015.
    1. Van Damme N, Van den Bussche K, De Meyer D, et al. . Independent risk factors for the development of skin erosion due to incontinence (incontinence-associated dermatitis category 2) in nursing home residents: results from a multivariate binary regression analysis. Int Wound J 2017;14:801–10. 10.1111/iwj.12699
    1. Bliss DZ, Savik K, Harms S, et al. . Prevalence and correlates of perineal dermatitis in nursing home residents. Nurs Res 2006;55:243–51. 10.1097/00006199-200607000-00004
    1. Saxer S, Halfens RJG, de Bie RA, et al. . Prevalence and incidence of urinary incontinence of Swiss nursing home residents at admission and after six, 12 and 24 months. J Clin Nurs 2008;17:2490–6. 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2007.02055.x
    1. Zürcher S, Saxer S, Schwendimann R. Urinary incontinence in hospitalised elderly patients: do nurses recognise and manage the problem? Nurs Res Pract 2011;2011:671302:1–5. 10.1155/2011/671302
    1. Kottner J, Blume-Peytavi U. Incontinence-associated dermatitis (IAD): aetiology, pathogenesis, risk and epidemiology. Wund Management 2016;10:248–51.
    1. Hahnel E, Blume-Peytavi U, Trojahn C, et al. . Prevalence and associated factors of skin diseases in aged nursing home residents: a multicentre prevalence study. BMJ Open 2017;7:e018283. 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018283
    1. Kottner J, Rahn Y, Blume-Peytavi U, et al. . Skin care practice in German nursing homes: a German-wide cross-sectional study. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges 2013;11:329–36. 10.1111/ddg.12008
    1. Lichterfeld A, Peters T, Hauss A. Hautpflege Im Krankenhaus: eine deskriptive studie. Pflegezeitschrift 2016;69:349a.
    1. Lichterfeld-Kottner A, El Genedy M, Lahmann N, et al. . Maintaining skin integrity in the aged: a systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud 2020;103:103509. 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2019.103509
    1. Ford C, Maibach HI. Anti-Irritants: myth or reality? an overview. Exog Dermatol 2004;3:154–60. 10.1159/000090352
    1. Chew A-L, Maibach HI. Occupational issues of irritant contact dermatitis. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2003;76:339–46. 10.1007/s00420-002-0419-0
    1. Fartasch M, Diepgen TL, Drexler H, et al. . S1 guideline on occupational skin products: protective creams, skin cleansers, skin care products (ICD 10: L23, L24) - short version. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges 2015;13:594–606. 10.1111/ddg.12617
    1. Woo KY, Beeckman D, Chakravarthy D. Management of Moisture-Associated skin damage: a scoping review. Adv Skin Wound Care 2017;30:494–501. 10.1097/01.ASW.0000525627.54569.da
    1. Van den Bussche K, Kottner J, Beele H, et al. . Core outcome domains in incontinence-associated dermatitis research. J Adv Nurs 2018;74:1605–17. 10.1111/jan.13562
    1. Eldridge SM, Chan CL, Campbell MJ, et al. . Consort 2010 statement: extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials. Pilot Feasibility Stud 2016;2:64. 10.1186/s40814-016-0105-8
    1. Beeckman D, Van den Bussche K, Alves P, et al. . Towards an international language for incontinence-associated dermatitis (IAD): design and evaluation of psychometric properties of the Ghent global IAD categorization tool (GLOBIAD) in 30 countries. Br J Dermatol 2018;178:1331–40. 10.1111/bjd.16327
    1. Sechzer JA, Rabinowitz VC, Denmark FL, et al. . Sex and gender bias in animal research and in clinical studies of cancer, cardiovascular disease, and depression. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1994;736:21–48. 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1994.tb12816.x
    1. Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, et al. . Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ 2014;348:g1687. 10.1136/bmj.g1687
    1. Borchert K, Bliss DZ, Savik K, et al. . The incontinence-associated dermatitis and its severity instrument: development and validation. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs 2010;37:527–35. 10.1097/WON.0b013e3181edac3e
    1. Nast A, Griffiths CEM, Hay R, et al. . The 2016 International League of Dermatological Societies’ revised glossary for the description of cutaneous lesions. Br J Dermatol 2016;174:1351–8. 10.1111/bjd.14419
    1. Whitehead F, Giampieri S, Graham T, et al. . Identifying, managing and preventing skin maceration: a rapid review of the clinical evidence. J Wound Care 2017;26:159–65. 10.12968/jowc.2017.26.4.159
    1. Courage and Khazaka electronic GmbH . Mexameter® Mx 18, 2021. Available: [Accessed 17 Dec 2021].
    1. Elban F, Hahnel E, Blume-Peytavi U, et al. . Reliability and agreement of skin barrier measurements in a geriatric care setting. J Tissue Viability 2020;29:269–76. 10.1016/j.jtv.2020.06.007
    1. Kottner J, Blume-Peytavi U. Reliability and agreement of instrumental skin barrier measurements in clinical pressure ulcer prevention research. Int Wound J 2021;18:716–27. 10.1111/iwj.13574
    1. Mahoney FI, Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: the BARTHEL index. Md State Med J 1965;14:61–5.
    1. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. "Mini-mental state". A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 1975;12:189–98. 10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6
    1. Basler HD, Hüger D, Kunz R, et al. . [Assessment of pain in advanced dementia. Construct validity of the German PAINAD]. Schmerz 2006;20:519–26. 10.1007/s00482-006-0490-7
    1. Lukas A, Hagg-Grün U, Mayer B, et al. . Pain assessment in advanced dementia. validity of the German PAINAD—a prospective double-blind randomised placebo-controlled trial. Pain 2019;160:742–53. 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001430
    1. Akdeniz M, Boeing H, Müller-Werdan U, et al. . Effect of fluid intake on hydration status and skin barrier characteristics in geriatric patients: an explorative study. Skin Pharmacol Physiol 2018;31:155–62. 10.1159/000487403
    1. Teare MD, Dimairo M, Shephard N, et al. . Sample size requirements to estimate key design parameters from external pilot randomised controlled trials: a simulation study. Trials 2014;15:264. 10.1186/1745-6215-15-264
    1. O'Cathain A, Hoddinott P, Lewin S, et al. . Maximising the impact of qualitative research in feasibility studies for randomised controlled trials: guidance for researchers. Pilot Feasibility Stud 2015;1:32. 10.1186/s40814-015-0026-y
    1. Bliss DZ, Mathiason MA, Gurvich O, et al. . Incidence and predictors of Incontinence-Associated skin damage in nursing home residents with new-onset incontinence. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs 2017;44:165–71. 10.1097/WON.0000000000000313
    1. Taichman DB, Backus J, Baethge C, et al. . Sharing clinical trial data: a proposal from the International Committee of medical Journal editors. Lancet 2016;387:e9–11. 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01279-9
    1. Beeckman D, Van Damme N, Schoonhoven L, et al. . Interventions for preventing and treating incontinence-associated dermatitis in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016;11:CD011627. 10.1002/14651858.CD011627.pub2
    1. Woo K, Hill R, LeBlanc K, et al. . Technological features of advanced skin protectants and an examination of the evidence base. J Wound Care 2019;28:110–25. 10.12968/jowc.2019.28.2.110
    1. Garbe C, Reimann H. Dermatologische Rezepturen. 3rd ed. Stuttgart: Thieme, 2017.
    1. United States National Library of Medicine . Comparative study to assess an advanced skin protectant in the management of Incontinence-associated dermatitis; 2019.

Source: PubMed

赞助者和合作者

医疗条件

药物干预

3
订阅