An economic evaluation of the randomized controlled trial of topical corticosteroid and home-based narrowband ultraviolet B for active and limited vitiligo (the HI-Light Vitiligo Trial).

BACKGROUND: Economic evidence for vitiligo treatments is absent. OBJECTIVES: To determine the cost-effectiveness of (i) handheld narrowband ultraviolet B (NB-UVB) and (ii) a combination of topical corticosteroid (TCS) and NB-UVB compared with TCS alone for localized vitiligo. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a pragmatic, three-arm, placebo-controlled randomized controlled trial with 9 months' treatment. In total 517 adults and children (aged ≥ 5 years) with active vitiligo affecting < 10% of skin were recruited from secondary care and the community and were randomized 1: 1: 1 to receive TCS, NB-UVB or both. Cost per successful treatment (measured on the Vitiligo Noticeability Scale) was estimated. Secondary cost-utility analyses measured quality-adjusted life-years using the EuroQol 5 Dimensions 5 Levels for those aged ≥ 11 years and the Child Health Utility 9D for those aged 5 to < 18 years. The trial was registered with number ISRCTN17160087 on 8 January 2015. RESULTS: The mean ± SD cost per participant was £775 ± 83·7 for NB-UVB, £813 ± 111.4 for combination treatment and £600 ± 96·2 for TCS. In analyses adjusted for age and target patch location, the incremental difference in cost for combination treatment compared with TCS was £211 (95% confidence interval 188-235), corresponding to a risk difference of 10·9% (number needed to treat = 9). The incremental cost was £1932 per successful treatment. The incremental difference in cost for NB-UVB compared with TCS was £173 (95% confidence interval 151-196), with a risk difference of 5·2% (number needed to treat = 19). The incremental cost was £3336 per successful treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Combination treatment, compared with TCS alone, has a lower incremental cost per additional successful treatment than NB-UVB only. Combination treatment would be considered cost-effective if decision makers are willing to pay £1932 per additional treatment success.

Doxycycline compared with prednisolone therapy for patients with bullous pemphigoid: cost-effectiveness analysis of the BLISTER trial.

BACKGROUND: Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is an autoimmune blistering skin disorder associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Doxycycline and prednisolone to treat bullous pemphigoid were compared within a randomized controlled trial (RCT). OBJECTIVES: To compare the cost-effectiveness of doxycycline-initiated and prednisolone-initiated treatment for patients with BP. METHODS: Quality-of-life (EuroQoL-5D-3L) and resource data were collected as part of the BLISTER trial: a multicentre, parallel-group, investigator-blinded RCT. Within-trial analysis was performed using bivariate regression of costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), with multiple imputation of missing data, informing a probabilistic assessment of incremental treatment cost-effectiveness from a health service perspective. RESULTS: In the base case, there was no robust difference in costs or QALYs per patient at 1 year comparing doxycycline- with prednisolone-initiated therapy [net cost £959, 95% confidence interval (CI) -£24 to £1941; net QALYs -0·024, 95% CI -0·088 to 0·041]. However, the findings varied by baseline blister severity. For patients with mild or moderate blistering (≤ 30 blisters) net costs and outcomes were similar. For patients with severe blistering (> 30 blisters) net costs were higher (£2558, 95% CI -£82 to £5198) and quality of life poorer (-0·090 QALYs, 95% CI -0·22 to 0·042) for patients starting on doxycycline. The probability that doxycycline would be cost-effective for those with severe pemphigoid was 1·5% at a willingness to pay of £20 000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Consistently with the clinical findings of the BLISTER trial, patients with mild or moderate blistering should receive treatment guided by the safety and effectiveness of the drugs and patient preference - neither strategy is clearly a preferred use of National Health Service resources. However, prednisolone-initiated treatment may be more cost-effective for patients with severe blistering.

To freeze or not to freeze: a cost-effectiveness analysis of wart treatment.

BACKGROUND: Several general practitioner (GP)-prescribed and over-the-counter therapies for warts and verrucae are available. However, the cost-effectiveness of these treatments is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To compare the cost-effectiveness of different treatments for cutaneous warts. METHODS: We designed a decision-analytic Markov simulation model based on systematic review evidence to estimate the cost-effectiveness of various treatments. The outcome measures studied are percentage of patients cured, cost of treatment and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for each treatment, compared with no treatment, after 18 weeks. RESULTS: Duct tape was most cost-effective but published evidence of its effectiveness is sparse. Salicylic acid was the most cost-effective over-the-counter treatment commonly used. Cryotherapy administered by a GP was less cost-effective than GP-prescribed salicylic acid and less cost-effective than cryotherapy administered by a nurse. CONCLUSIONS: Duct tape could be adopted as the primary treatment for cutaneous warts if its effectiveness is verified by further rigorous trials. Nurse-administered cryotherapy is likely to be more cost-effective than GP-administered cryotherapy.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of salicylic acid and cryotherapy for cutaneous warts. An economic decision model.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the costs of commonly used treatments for cutaneous warts, as well as their health benefits and risk. To create an economic decision model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of these treatments, and, as a result, assess whether a randomised controlled trial (RCT) would be feasible and cost-effective. DATA SOURCES: Focus groups, structured interviews and observation of practice. Postal survey sent to 723 patients. A recently updated Cochrane systematic review and published cost and prescribing data. REVIEW METHODS: Primary and secondary data collection methods were used to inform the development of an economic decision model. Data from the postal survey provided estimates of the effectiveness of wart treatments in a primary care setting. These estimates were compared with outcomes reported in the Cochrane review of wart treatment, which were largely obtained from RCTs conducted in secondary care. A decision model was developed including a variety of over-the-counter (OTC) and GP-prescribed treatments. The model simulated 10,000 patients and adopted a societal perspective. RESULTS: OTC treatments were used by a substantial number of patients (57%) before attending the GP surgery. By far the most commonly used OTC preparation was salicylic acid (SA). The results of the economic model suggested that of the treatments prescribed by a GP, the most cost-effective treatment was SA, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 2.20 pound/% cured. The ICERs for cryotherapy varied widely (from 1.95 to 7.06 pound/% cured) depending on the frequency of applications and the mode of delivery. The most cost-effective mode of delivery was through nurse-led cryotherapy clinics (ICER = 1.95 pound/% cured) and this could be a cost-effective alternative to GP-prescribed SA. Overall, the OTC therapies were the most cost-effective treatment options. ICERs ranged from 0.22 pound/% cured for OTC duct tape and 0.76 pound/% cured for OTC cryotherapy to 1.12 pound/% cured for OTC SA. However, evidence in support of OTC duct tape and OTC cryotherapy is very limited. Side-effects were commonly reported for both SA and cryotherapy, particularly a burning sensation, pain and blistering. CONCLUSIONS: Cryotherapy delivered by a doctor is an expensive option for the treatment of warts in primary care. Alternative options such as GP-prescribed SA and nurse-led cryotherapy clinics provide more cost-effective alternatives, but are still expensive compared with self-treatment. Given the minor nature of most cutaneous warts, coupled with the fact that the majority spontaneously resolve in time, it may be concluded that a shift towards self-treatment is warranted. Although both duct tape and OTC cryotherapy appear promising new self-treatment options from both a cost and an effectiveness perspective, more research is required to confirm the efficacy of these two methods of wart treatment. If these treatments are shown to be as cost-effective as or more cost-effective than conventional treatments, then a shift in service delivery away from primary care towards more OTC treatment is likely. A public awareness campaign would be useful to educate patients about the self-limiting nature of warts and the possible alternative OTC treatment options available. Two future RCTs are recommended for consideration: a trial of SA compared with nurse-led cryotherapy in primary care, and a trial of home treatments. Greater understanding of the efficacy of these home treatments will give doctors a wider choice of treatment options, and may help to reduce the overall demand for cryotherapy in primary care.