Evaluation of the treatment costs and duration of topical treatments for multiple actinic keratosis based on the area of the cancerization field and not on the number of lesions.

BACKGROUND: The cost of topical treatments for actinic keratosis (AK) has historically been evaluated in relation to the number of lesions requiring treatment or simply by the price of a single tube/sachet of the drug used. OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate a new method of costing topical treatments in AK, which takes into account the actual cancerization area treated. METHODS: In order to evaluate the actual cost of each treatment, the official approval status of the drug was used to estimate the amount of cream needed per one cm2 . This value was then applied to the hypothetical cancerization area sizes to demonstrate the impact of the size treated on the actual cost of treatment. The price considered was the ex-factory price in Italy. RESULTS: Areas which could be treated with a single tube/sachet of Metvix® , Picato® , Aldara® , Solaraze® and Zyclara® were 200, 25, 25, 33.3 and 200 cm2 , respectively. For the treatment of smaller areas (<100 cm2 ), treatment with Metvix® was the most costly topical option in Italy. However, for the treatment of cancerization areas larger than 100 cm2 , Metvix® was the least expensive treatment option. Treatment with Metvix® was least long, requiring a single day of treatment for an area of up to 200 cm2 , compared with up to 224 days of treatment with Aldara® for the treatment of a similar size. CONCLUSION: Changing treatment costing strategy in the management of multiple AKs towards costing per cancerization area instead of costing per lesion is a much more accurate representation of the 'real world cost' for AK.

Cost-efficacy analysis of 3% diclofenac sodium, ingenol mebutate, and 3.75% imiquimod in the treatment of actinic keratosis.

Actinic keratosis (AK) is a clinical condition characterized by keratinocytic dysplastic lesions of the epidermis, affecting individuals chronically exposed to sunlight. Topical therapies allow the treatment of a whole area of affected skin and currently include diclofenac sodium gel, 5-fluorouracil cream, 5-fluorouracil and acetylsalicylic acid solution, imiquimod cream, and ingenol mebutate gel. Due to the comparable efficacy of 3% diclofenac, ingenol mebutate, and 3.75% imiquimod in treating AK multiple lesions, a pharmacoeconomic evaluation of cost-effectiveness of the three treatments was needed. A cost-efficacy analysis comparing 3% diclofenac sodium with ingenol mebutate and 3.75% imiquimod was performed. In this analysis, efficacy data were combined with quality-of-life measurement derived from previous studies as well as the costs associated with the management of these lesions in Italy. Patients' demographics and clinical characteristics were assumed to reflect those from the clinical studies considered.

Cost-effectiveness of Ingenol Mebutate Gel for the Treatment of Actinic Keratosis in Greece.

PURPOSE: The present study aimed to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of ingenol mebutate (IM) versus other topical alternatives for the treatment of actinic keratosis (AK). METHODS: The analysis used a decision tree to calculate the clinical effects and costs of AK first-line treatments, IM (2-3 days), diclofenac 3% (for 8 or 12 weeks), imiquimod 5% (for 4 or 8 weeks), during a 24-month horizon, using discrete intervals of 6 months. A hypothetical cohort of immunocompetent adult patients with clinically confirmed AK on the face and scalp or trunk and extremities was considered. Clinical data on the relative efficacy were obtained from a network meta-analysis. Inputs concerning resource use derived from an expert panel. All costs were calculated from a Greek third-party payer perspective. FINDINGS: IM 0.015% and 0.05% were both cost-effective compared with diclofenac and below a willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) (€199 and €167 per QALY, respectively). Comparing IM on the face and scalp AK lesions for 3 days versus imiquimod for 4 weeks resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €10,868 per QALY. IM was dominant during the 8-week imiquimod period. IM use on the trunk and extremities compared with diclofenac (8 or 12 weeks) led to incremental cost-effectiveness ratios estimated at €1584 and €1316 per QALY accordingly. Results remained robust to deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. IMPLICATIONS: From a social insurance perspective in Greece, IM 0.015% and IM 0.05% could be the most cost-effective first-line topical field treatment options in all cases for AK treatment.

Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Utility Analysis of Ingenol Mebutate Versus Diclofenac 3% and Imiquimod 5% in the Treatment of Actinic Keratosis in Spain. / Análisis de coste-efectividad y coste-utilidad de ingenol mebutato versus diclofenaco 3% e imiquimod 5% en el tratamiento de la queratosis actínica en España.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of ingenol mebutate in the treatment of actinic keratosis in Spain. METHODS: We used an adapted Markov model to simulate outcomes in a cohort of patients (mean age, 73 years) with actinic keratosis over a 5-year period. The comparators were diclofenac 3% and imiquimod 5%. The analysis was performed from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System based on direct costs (2015 retail price plus value added tax less the mandatory discount). A panel of experts estimated resources, taking unit costs from national databases. An annual discount rate of 3% was applied. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The effectiveness of ingenol mebutate-with 0.192 and 0.129 more clearances gained in treatments for face and scalp lesions and trunk and extremity lesions, respectively-was superior to diclofenac's. The total costs of treatment with ingenol mebutate were lower at € 551.50 (face and scalp) and € 622.27 (trunk and extremities) than the respective costs with diclofenac (€ 849.11 and € 844.93). The incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios showed that ingenol mebutate was a dominant strategy vs diclofenac. Ingenol mebutate also proved to be more effective than imiquimod, based on 0.535 and 0.503 additional clearances, and total costs of € 551.50 and € 527.89 for the two drugs, respectively. The resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was € 728.64 per clearance gained with ingenol mebutate vs imiquimod. CONCLUSIONS: Ingenol mebutate was a dominant treatment option vs diclofenac and was efficient vs imiquimod (i.e., more effective at a higher cost, achieving an incremental cost-utility ratio of<€30000/quality-adjusted life-years).

Evaluation of Resource Utilization and Treatment Patterns in Patients with Actinic Keratosis in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To compare health care resource utilization and treatment patterns between patients with actinic keratosis (AK) treated with ingenol mebutate gel (IngMeb) and those treated with other field-directed AK therapies. METHODS: A retrospective, propensity-score-matched, cohort study compared refill/repeat and adding-on/switching patterns and outpatient visits and prescriptions (health care resource utilization) over 6 months in patients receiving IngMeb versus those receiving imiquimod, 5-fluorouracil, diclofenac sodium, and methyl aminolevulinate or aminolevulinic acid photodynamic therapy (MAL/ALA-PDT). RESULTS: The final sample analyzed included four matched treatment cohort pairs (IngMeb and comparator; n = 790-971 per treatment arm). Refill rates were similar except for imiquimod (15% vs. 9% for imiquimod and IngMeb, respectively; P < 0.05). MAL/ALA-PDT treatment repetition rates were higher than IngMeb refill rates (20% vs. 10%; P < 0.05). Topical agent add-on/switch rates were comparable. PDT had higher switch rates than did IngMeb (5% vs. 2%; P < 0.05). The IngMeb cohort had a significantly lower proportion of patients with at least one AK-related outpatient visit during the 6-month follow-up than did any other cohort: versus imiquimod (50% vs. 66%; P < 0.0001), versus 5-fluorouracil (50% vs. 69%; P < 0.0001), versus diclofenac sodium (51% vs. 56%; P = 0.034), and versus MAL/ALA-PDT (50% vs. 100%; P < 0.0001). There were significantly fewer AK-related prescriptions among patients receiving IngMeb than among patients in other cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Results based on the first 6 months after treatment initiation suggested that most field-directed AK therapies had clinically comparable treatment patterns except imiquimod, which was associated with higher refill rates, and PDT, which was associated with significantly more frequent treatment sessions and higher switching rates. IngMeb was also associated with significantly fewer outpatient visits than were other field-directed therapies.

A cost-utility analysis of ingenol mebutate gel for the treatment of actinic keratosis: a Scottish perspective.

BACKGROUND: Actinic keratosis (AK) is a UV-induced, pre-malignant skin condition that is common in adults over 60 years of age with fair skin in Scotland. The most commonly prescribed first-line treatment for AK in Scotland is currently diclofenac gel (3 %). Ingenol mebutate gel is a recently developed topical therapy available in two strengths for the treatment of AK lesions on the face and scalp (150 mcg/g once daily for 3 consecutive days) or trunk and extremities (500 mcg/g once daily for 2 consecutive days). OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of two strengths of ingenol mebutate gel developed to treat AK lesions on the face and scalp (150 mcg/g once daily for 3 consecutive days) or trunk and extremities (500 mcg/g once daily for 2 consecutive days) with other first-line AK therapies including diclofenac gel, 5-FU, 5-FU/salicylic acid, and cryotherapy for the first-line treatment of AK in adult patients, from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) in Scotland. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was conducted using a decision-tree approach to calculate the costs and benefits of different treatment strategies for AK on the face and scalp or trunk and limbs over a 12-month time horizon. Data on the relative efficacy of treatments were obtained from a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Utility scores and resource-use data were obtained from published sources. RESULTS: Over 12 months, ingenol mebutate 150 mcg/g gel and 500 mcg/g gel were cost-effective compared with the most commonly used topical therapy in Scotland, diclofenac (3 %) gel, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY, with a minimal additional cost of £43 and £105, respectively per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Ingenol mebutate gel is a cost-effective therapy for the first-line treatment of AK from a Scottish NHS perspective.

Cost-utility of first-line actinic keratosis treatments in Finland.

INTRODUCTION: Cost-utility assessment of first-line actinic keratosis (AK) treatments for max 25 cm2 AK field. METHODS: A probabilistic, 2-year decision tree model was used to assess costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), cost-effectiveness efficiency frontier, cost-effectiveness acceptability frontier (CEAF), and expected value of perfect information (EVPI) of AK treatments from the Finnish health care payer perspective with 3% discounting per annum. In the model, the first-line AK treatment resulted in complete clearance (CC) or non-CC with or without local skin responses (LSR), or AK recurrence. Non-CC AK was treated with methyl aminolevulinate+photodynamic therapy (MAL+PDT), and AK recurrence was retreated with the previous effective treatment. Costs included primary and secondary health care, outpatient drugs, and LSR management. QALYs were assessed with the EuroQol (EQ-5D-3L). Result robustness was assessed with sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The mean simulated per patient QALYs (costs) were 1.526 (€982) for MAL+PDT, 1.524 (€794) for ingenol mebutate gel (IngMeb) 0.015% (3 days), 1.522 (€869) for IngMeb 0.05% (2 days), 1.520 (€1062) for diclofenac 3% (12 weeks), 1.518 (€885) for imiquimod 3.75% (6 weeks), 1.517 (€781) for imiquimod 5% (4/8 weeks), and 1.514 (€1114) for cryosurgery when treating AK affecting any body part. IngMeb 0.015% was less costly and more effective (dominating) than other AK treatments indicated for face and scalp area with the exception of imiquimod 5% for which the ICER was estimated at €1933/QALY gained and MAL+PDT, which had an ICER of €82,607/QALY gained against IngMeb 0.015%. With willingness-to-pay €2526-18,809/QALY gained, IngMeb 0.015% had >50% probability for cost-effectiveness on the CEAF. IngMeb 0.05% dominated AK treatments indicated for trunk and extremities. EVPIs for face and scalp (trunk and extremities) analyses were €26 (€0), €86 (€58), and €250 (€169) per patient with the willingness-to-pay of €0, €15,000, and €30,000 per QALY gained, respectively. CONCLUSION: IngMebs were cost-effective AK treatments in Finland. FUNDING: LEO Pharma.

Compatibility of a combination of tiamulin and chlortetracycline with salinomycin in feed during a pulsed medication program coadministration in broilers.

In an earlier study, the continuous medication of broiler feed with a combination of tiamulin (TIA; 20 mg/kg), chlortetracycline (CTC; 60 mg/kg), and the ionophore anticoccidial salinomycin (SAL; 60 mg/kg) caused an initial increase in BW and feed efficiency (FE; g of weight gain/kg of feed intake). However, as doses increased to combinations of 30 mg/kg of TIA and 90 mg/kg of CTC or 50 mg/kg of TIA and 150 mg/kg of CTC, there was a dose-related reduction in growth rate and FE. This was thought to be due to the interaction between TIA and SAL. In this study, using a protocol similar to the previous trial, broiler chicks were administered SAL at 60 mg/kg via the feed and the same inclusion rates of TIA + CTC. However, instead of feeding the birds continuously, considering the cost of TIA and possibly to compensate for the depressed growth attributable to the interaction with SAL, they were pulse-dosed for 1 to 10 d and again at 21 to 27 d, and the whole trial lasted 35 d to see if the intermittent pulses might reduce production losses. A total of 200 straight-run 1-d-old broiler chicks (Hubbard classic) were randomly distributed into 4 groups, with each group consisting of 5 cages containing 10 birds. The 20 cages were allocated to the 4 treatment groups on a random basis. The control diet, containing only SAL at 60 mg/kg, was fed to all birds throughout the 35-d trial, including the period during the gaps between dosing (i.e., d 11 to 20 and d 28 to 35). Feed and water were available for the whole trial period. Several serum enzymes (creatine kinase, lactate dehydrogenase, and aspartate aminotransferase) were determined from blood samples taken on d 35. Blood samples were also collected at 1, 19, and 35 d of age and were examined for antibody titers to Mycoplasma gallisepticum and Mycoplasma synoviae. Necropsy and histopathology of the birds (n = >or=4) were conducted during weekly intervals. There was no significant difference in weight gain, feed intake, and FE when the groups treated with TIA + CTC were compared with the control group (P > 0.05). There was no relationship between mortality and inclusion rates of the medication. No clinical signs of an interaction were exhibited during the trial, which was supported by necropsy and serum enzyme results. Maternally derived antibodies against M. gallisepticum were identified at the start of the trial but disappeared within 19 d, and infection with M. gallisepticum or M. synoviae was found neither serologically nor clinically during the trial. The results demonstrated that intermittent pulse administration of TIA at 50 mg/kg + CTC at 150 mg/kg from d 1 to 10 and d 21 to 27, along with continuous feeding of SAL (60 mg/kg), would be possible without altering performance and while maintaining the health status of the broilers. However, further research is required on the presence of artificial infections with Mycoplasma pathogens to determine the efficacy of the combination of TIA +CTC.