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.

Chronic urticaria in the real-life clinical practice setting in the UK: results from the noninterventional multicentre AWARE study.

BACKGROUND: Chronic urticaria (CU) is a skin condition characterized by repeated occurrence of itchy weals and/or angio-oedema for > 6 weeks. AIM: To provide data demonstrating the real-life burden of CU in the UK. METHODS: This UK subset of the worldwide, prospective, noninterventional AWARE study included patients aged 18-75 years diagnosed with H1-antihistamine (H1-AH)-refractory chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) for > 2 months. Baseline characteristics, disease activity, treatments, comorbidities and healthcare resource use were documented. Quality of life (QoL), work productivity and activity impairment were assessed. RESULTS: Baseline analysis included 252 UK patients. Mean age and body mass index were 45.0 years and 29.0 kg/m2 , respectively. Most patients were female (77.8%) and had moderate/severe disease activity (mean Urticaria Activity Score over 7 days was 18.4) and a 'spontaneous' component to their CU (73.4% CSU; 24.6% CSU and chronic inducible urticaria). Common comorbidities included depression/anxiety (24.6%), asthma (23.8%) and allergic rhinitis (12.7%). A previous treatment was recorded for 57.9% of patients. Mean Dermatology Life Quality Index score was 9.5, and patients reported impairments in work productivity and activity. Healthcare resource use was high. Severity of CSU was associated with female sex, obesity, anxiety and diagnosis. Only 28.5% of patients completed all nine study visits, limiting analysis of long-term treatment patterns and disease impact. CONCLUSIONS: Adult H1-AH-refractory patients with CU in the UK reported high rates of healthcare resource use and impairment in QoL, work productivity and activity at baseline. The differing structures of UK healthcare may explain the high study discontinuation rates versus other countries.