Narrowband ultraviolet B treatment for psoriasis is highly economical and causes significant savings in cost for topical treatments.

BACKGROUND: Narrowband ultraviolet B (NB-UVB) treatment for psoriasis is considered expensive. However, existing data are based on estimates and do not consider indirect cost savings. OBJECTIVES: To define the actual costs of NB-UVB incurred by the service provider, as well as treatment-associated cost savings. METHODS: We performed data linkage of (i) comprehensive treatment records and (ii) prescribing data for all NB-UVB treatment episodes spanning 6 years in a population of 420 000. We minimized data fluctuation by compiling data from four independent treatment sites, and using drug prescriptions unrelated to psoriasis as a negative control. RESULTS: National Health Service Tayside spent an average of £257 per NB-UVB treatment course (mean 257 ± 63, range 150-286, across four independent treatment sites), contrasting sharply with the estimate of £1882 used by the U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. The cost of topical treatments averaged £128 per patient in the 12 months prior to NB-UVB, accounting for 42% of the overall drug costs incurred by these patients. This was reduced by 40% to £53 per patient over the 12-month period following NB-UVB treatment, while psoriasis-unrelated drug prescription remained unchanged, suggesting disease-specific effects of NB-UVB. The data were not due to site-specific factors, as confirmed by highly similar results observed between treatment sites operated by distinct staff. Finally, we detail all staff hours directly and indirectly involved in treatment, allowing direct translation of cost into other healthcare systems. CONCLUSIONS: NB-UVB is a low-cost treatment; cost figures currently used in health technology appraisals are an overestimate based on the data presented here. Creating or extending access to NB-UVB is likely to offer additional savings by delaying or avoiding costly third-line treatments for many patients.

Review of an established UK home phototherapy service 1998-2011: improving access to a cost-effective treatment for chronic skin disease.

OBJECTIVES: To review the Tayside home phototherapy service, including numbers of patients treated, diagnoses and outcomes, side-effects and safety, cost-effectiveness and absolute costs. To consider why home or outpatient phototherapy is not available to all patients who might benefit and how this could be addressed. STUDY DESIGN: Observational and cost analysis. METHODS: Analysis of the Tayside home phototherapy database 1998 and 2011, home phototherapy patient questionnaires, outcome data, costs and a comparison with outpatient phototherapy. Review of literature and current national guidelines for phototherapy, traditional systemic and biologic therapies for psoriasis. RESULTS: 298 courses of home narrowband UVB (NB-UVB) phototherapy were undertaken by 212 patients between 1998 and 2011, five courses in 1998 increasing to 36 in 2011. The main diagnoses treated were psoriasis (72%), atopic dermatitis (8%), and desensitization of photodermatosis (7%). For psoriasis, 74.5% achieved clearance or minimal residual activity in a median of 30 exposures (range 10-60). The estimated costs to the hospital ranged from £229 to £314 per course (£307 to £422 per effective course for psoriasis), compared with £114 for out-patient therapy (£149 per effective course for psoriasis). The total cost to society (hospital and patient costs) is around £410 per course, compared to an estimated £550 for outpatient therapy for this group of patients. Treatment was well tolerated, erythema rates were similar to outpatient therapy, there were no complaints and the vast majority would choose home over outpatient phototherapy if required in the future. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital supervised home phototherapy appears as safe and effective as outpatient therapy and provides equality of access for patients who cannot attend for outpatient therapy. These patients may otherwise be inadequately treated or given more costly and higher risk systemic therapies, particularly for psoriasis. Commissioners and clinicians involved in dermatology services should provide accessible phototherapy for all patients who might benefit, utilizing home phototherapy where outpatient access is not possible.

Impact assessment of energy-efficient lighting in patients with lupus erythematosus: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with lupus erythematosus (LE) are often abnormally photosensitive. Ultraviolet (UV) exposure can not only induce cutaneous lesions but may also contribute to systemic flares and disease progression. Various forms of energy-efficient lighting have been shown to emit UV radiation. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of these emissions on individuals with LE. METHODS: This assessment investigated cutaneous responses to repeated exposures from three types of lighting: compact fluorescent lamp (CFL), light-emitting diode (LED) and energy-efficient halogen (EEH). The subjects were 15 patients with LE and a control group of five healthy volunteers. RESULTS: No cutaneous LE lesions were induced by any of the light sources. Delayed skin erythema was induced at the site of CFL irradiation in six of the 15 patients with LE and two of the five healthy subjects. Erythema was increased in severity and more persistent in patients with LE. One patient with LE produced a positive delayed erythema to the EEH. A single patient with LE produced immediate abnormal erythemal responses to the CFL, LED and EEH. Further investigation revealed that this patient also had solar urticaria. All other subjects had negative responses to LED exposure. CONCLUSIONS: Compact fluorescent lamps emit UV that can induce skin erythema in both individuals with LE and healthy individuals when situated in close proximity. However, this occurs to a greater extent and is more persistent in patients with LE. EEHs emit UVA that can induce erythema in patients with LE. LEDs provide a safer alternative light source without risk of UV exposure.

Monte Carlo simulations for optimal light delivery in photodynamic therapy of non-melanoma skin cancer.

The choice of light source is important for the efficacy of photodynamic therapy (PDT) of non-melanoma skin cancer. We simulated the photodynamic dose (PDD) delivered to a tumour during PDT using theoretical radiation transfer simulations performed via our 3D Monte Carlo radiation transfer (MCRT) model for a range of light sources with light doses up to 75 J cm(-2). The PDD delivered following superficial irradiation from (A) non-laser light sources, (B) monochromatic light, (C) alternate beam diameters and (D) re-positioning of the tumour within the tissue was computed. (A) The final PDD deposited to the tumour at a depth of 2 mm by the Paterson light source was 2.75, 2.50 and 1.04 times greater than the Waldmann 1200, Photocure and Aktilite, respectively. (B) Tumour necrosis occurred at a depth of 2.23 mm and increased to 3.81 mm for wavelengths 405 and 630 nm, respectively. (C) Increasing the beam diameter from 10 to 50 mm had very little effect on depth of necrosis. (D) As expected, necrosis depths were reduced when the tumour was re-positioned deeper into the tissue. These MCRT simulations show clearly the importance of choosing the correct light source to ensure optimal light delivery to achieve tumour necrosis.

Guidelines for topical photodynamic therapy: report of a workshop of the British Photodermatology Group.

Topical photodynamic therapy (PDT) is effective in the treatment of certain non-melanoma skin cancers and is under evaluation in other dermatoses. Its development has been enhanced by a low rate of adverse events and good cosmesis. 5-Aminolaevulinic acid (ALA) is the main agent used, converted within cells into the photosensitizer protoporphyrin IX, with surface illumination then triggering the photodynamic reaction. Despite the relative simplicity of the technique, accurate dosimetry in PDT is complicated by multiple variables in drug formulation, delivery and duration of application, in addition to light-specific parameters. Several non-coherent and coherent light sources are effective in PDT. Optimal disease-specific irradiance, wavelength and total dose characteristics have yet to be established, and are compounded by difficulties comparing light sources. The carcinogenic risk of ALA-PDT appears to be low. Current evidence indicates topical PDT to be effective in actinic keratoses on the face and scalp, Bowen's disease and superficial basal cell carcinomas (BCCs). PDT may prove advantageous where size, site or number of lesions limits the efficacy and/or acceptability of conventional therapies. Topical ALA-PDT alone is a relatively poor option for both nodular BCCs and squamous cell carcinomas. Experience of the modality in other skin diseases remains limited; areas where there is potential benefit include viral warts, acne, psoriasis and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. A recent British Photodermatology Group workshop considered published evidence on topical PDT in order to establish guidelines to promote the efficacy and safety of this increasingly practised treatment modality.