Cost-effectiveness of a Ceramide-Infused Skin Barrier Versus a Standard Barrier: Findings From a Long-Term Cost-effectiveness Analysis.

PURPOSE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of a ceramide-infused skin barrier (CIB) versus other skin barriers (standard of care) among patients who have undergone ostomy creation. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis, based on a decision-analytic model that was estimated using data from the ADVOCATE (A Study Determining Variances in Ostomy Skin Conditions And The Economic Impact) trial, which investigated stoma-related healthcare costs over 12 weeks among patients who recently underwent fecal ostomy, and from other sources. SUBJECTS AND SETTING: Analysis was based on a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients who recently underwent fecal ostomy; over a 1-year period, 500 patients were assumed to use CIB and 500 were assumed to use standard of care. METHODS: We adapted a previous economic model to estimate expected 1-year costs and outcomes among persons with a new ostomy assumed to use CIB versus standard of care. Outcomes of interest included peristomal skin complications (PSCs) (up to 2 during the 1-year period of interest) and quality-adjusted life days (QALDs); QALDs vary from 1, indicating a day of perfect health to 0, indicating a day with the lowest possible health (deceased). Subjects were assigned QALDs on a daily basis, with the value of the QALD on any given day based on whether the patient was experiencing a PSC. Costs included those related to skin barriers, ostomy accessories, and care of PSCs. The incremental cost-effectiveness of CIB versus standard of care was estimated as the incremental cost per PSC averted and QALD gained, respectively; net monetary benefit of CIB was also estimated. All analyses were run using the perspective of an Australian payer. RESULTS: On a per-patient basis, use of CIB was expected over a 1-year period to result in 0.16 fewer PSCs, an additional 0.35 QALDs, and a savings of A$180 (Australian dollars, US $137) in healthcare costs all versus standard of care. Management with CIB provided a net monetary benefit (calculated as the product of maximum willingness to pay for 1 QALD times additional QALDs with CIB less the incremental cost of CIB) of A$228 (US $174). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was also completed; it revealed that 97% of model runs resulted in fewer expected PSCs with CIB; 92% of these runs resulted in lower expected costs with CIB. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that the CIB is a cost-effective skin barrier for persons living with an ostomy.

An over-the-counter moisturizer is as clinically effective as, and more cost-effective than, prescription barrier creams in the treatment of children with mild-to-moderate atopic dermatitis: a randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a prevalent skin disorder with significant cost of treatment. Several prescription device moisturizers have been approved by the FDA to treat AD but are significantly more expensive than well-crafted over-the-counter (OTC) moisturizers. No studies have been performed to compare both the clinical efficacy and cost-efficacy of these prescription devices to OTC moisturizers. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to compare the clinical efficacy and cost-efficacy of a glycyrrhetinic acid-containing barrier repair cream (BRC-Gly, Atopiclair®), a ceramide-dominant barrier repair cream (BRC-Cer, EpiCeram®) and an OTC petroleum-based skin protectant moisturizer (OTC-Pet, Aquaphor Healing Ointment®) as monotherapy for mild-to-moderate AD in children. METHODS: Thirty-nine patients, age 2-17 years, with mild-to-moderate AD were randomized 1:1:1 to receive one of three treatments-BRC-Gly, BRC-Cer or OTC-Pet-with instructions to apply the treatment three times daily for three weeks. Disease severity and improvement was assessed at baseline and on days 7 and 21. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference for any efficacy assessment was found between the three groups at each time point. The OTC-Pet was found to be at least 47 times more cost-effective than BRC-Gly or BRC-Cer. LIMITATIONS: The relatively small sample size of 39 subjects was not sufficient to establish OTC-Pet as superior treatment in AD. CONCLUSIONS: OTC-Pet is as effective in treating mild-to-moderate AD as both BRC-Gly and BRC-Cer and is at least 47 times more cost-effective. NAME OF REGISTRY: II-AF-ATD-Aquaphor, Comparing the Efficacy and Cost-Effectiveness of Aquaphor to Atopiclair and EpiCeram in Children with Mild to Moderate Atopic Dermatitis. REGISTRATION IDENTIFIER: NCT01093469.