What is the demand for out-of-hours dermatology? A UK-based region-wide survey of dermatology demand and provision during the evenings and at weekends.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the demand for out-of-hours (OOH) dermatology in the UK, and this can make commissioning of acute services difficult. The East Midlands region has a population of 4.5 million people, with variable access to OOH dermatology services. AIM: We sought to investigate the provision of, and demand for, OOH dermatology services across the region with a view to informing commissioning decisions for the future. METHODS: We contacted all dermatology departments in the East Midlands region to establish what level of service was commissioned at evenings and weekends. At the sites providing any form of OOH service, we recorded all requests for advice received after 17.00 h on weekdays, or at any time during weekends and bank holidays over a 3-month period from October to December 2019. RESULTS: The OOH services provided ranged from 24 h/day cover 7 days/week at one site, to no formal provision across much of the rest of the region. In total, 125 calls were received during the study period, averaging 1 call per day on weekday evenings, and 2 calls per day at weekends and on bank holidays. Of these 125 calls, 11 patients (9%) were prioritized and seen by the on-call dermatologist on the day of referral, and 9 of these had potentially life-threatening skin conditions. A further 39 (31%) were deemed to need review within 24 h and 22 (18%) within 48 h. The remaining 42% were given appointments within 7 days or dealt with by telephone advice. CONCLUSION: The demand for OOH dermatology across the East Midlands is low, but access to timely dermatology advice is essential in some situations. Commissioning of a regional dermatology OOH service incorporating digital technology may help to improve the equity of access for all patients across the region.

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.