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.

A Systematic Review of Model-Based Economic Evaluations of Treatments for Venous Leg Ulcers.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review was to identify, and assess the quality of, published model-based economic evaluations relating to treatments for patients with venous leg ulcers to help inform future decision-analytic models in this clinical area. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed on six electronic databases, from database inception until 21 May 2018. Search results were screened against predefined criteria by two independent reviewers. Data was then extracted from the included studies using a standardised form, whilst the decision-analytic model-specific Philips Checklist was used to assess quality and to inform model critique. RESULTS: A total of 23 models were identified, 12 studies used a Markov modelling approach, five used decision trees and six studies did not detail the model type. Studies were predominantly from the National Health Service (NHS)/payer perspective, with only two taking a societal perspective. Interventions were wide ranging, but dressing technologies (11/23) were most common. The intervention studied was found to be dominant in 22/23 studies. The reporting quality of papers was mostly low, with evidence behind model structures, time horizons and data selection consistently underreported across the included papers. CONCLUSIONS: This review has identified a sizeable literature of model-based economic evaluations, evaluating treatments for venous leg ulcers. However, the methods used to conduct such studies were generally poorly reported. In particular, the reporting of evidence surrounding the model structure, justification of the time horizon used and the rationale for selecting data inputs should be focused on in any future models developed.

An introduction to the methods of decision-analytic modelling used in economic evaluations for Dermatologists.

Economic evaluations are used to identify which health treatments or preventions offer the most effective use of resources, or value for money. This is achieved by identifying, measuring and valuing the inputs and outcomes of alternative interventions. These evaluations are often conducted alongside clinical trials; however, these trials may end before the outcomes of economic interest have been observed and measured. An alternative to within trial economic evaluation is to use decision modelling, which can model the cost-effectiveness of interventions over an extended time period. This paper aims to provide an overview for clinicians of the different modelling techniques used within health economic evaluations and to introduce methods for critical appraisal. The most common modelling approaches, and their associated strengths and weaknesses, were discussed. Alongside this, practical examples specific to dermatology were given. These examples include studies where the model chosen or the methods used may not have been the most appropriate. Methods for critical appraisal were also highlighted. Common modelling approaches include Decision Trees, Markov Cohort, extensions to the Markov model (Monte Carlo Simulation) and Discrete Event Simulation models. Items of the Philips Checklist were discussed in the context of performing critical appraisal. Health economic decision models are multi-faceted and can often be complex. Full critical appraisal requires clinicians' unique knowledge, which is complementary to the knowledge of health economists.

Understanding economic evidence for the prevention and treatment of atopic eczema.

BACKGROUND: Atopic eczema is an inflammatory skin condition, with a similar impact on health-related quality of life as other chronic diseases. Increasing pressures on resources within the National Health Service increase the importance of having good economic evidence to inform their allocation. OBJECTIVES: To educate dermatologists about economic methods with reference to currently available economic evidence on eczema. METHODS: The role of different types of economic evidence is illustrated by evidence found in a systematic literature search conducted across 12 online databases up to 22 May 2017. Primary empirical studies either reporting the results of a cost-of-illness study or evaluating the cost, utility or full economic evaluation of interventions for preventing or treating eczema were included. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for eligibility and performed data abstraction, with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. Evidence tables of results were produced for narrative discussion. The reporting quality of economic evaluations was assessed. RESULTS: Seventy-eight studies (described in 80 papers) were deemed eligible. Thirty-three (42%) were judged to be economic evaluations, 12 (15%) cost analyses, six (8%) utility analyses, 26 (33%) cost-of-illness studies and one a feasibility study (1%). The calcineurin inhibitors tacrolimus and pimecrolimus, as well as barrier creams, had the most economic evidence available. Partially hydrolysed infant formula was the most commonly evaluated prevention. CONCLUSIONS: The current level of economic evidence for interventions aimed at preventing and treating eczema is limited compared with that available for clinical outcomes, suggesting that greater collaboration between clinicians and economists might be beneficial.