Home Narrowband Ultraviolet B Phototherapy for Photoresponsive Skin Conditions: A Health Technology Assessment.

BACKGROUND: Skin conditions are photoresponsive if they respond to ultraviolet (UV) radiation with partial or complete clearing. Ultraviolet phototherapy is performed by exposing the skin to UV radiation on a regular basis under medical supervision. Three types of UV radiation are used to treat photoresponsive skin conditions: broadband ultraviolet B (BB-UVB), psoralen plus ultraviolet A (PUVA), and narrowband ultraviolet B (NB-UVB). Narrowband UVB phototherapy is generally more effective than BB-UVB and safer than PUVA in the management of several photoresponsive skin conditions. While typically performed in an outpatient clinic setting, home NB-UVB phototherapy may be a viable option for people with limited access to outpatient treatment. We conducted a health technology assessment of home NB-UVB phototherapy for people with photoresponsive skin conditions that included an evaluation of the effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, and budget impact of publicly funding home NB-UVB phototherapy, and patient preferences and values. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence. We assessed the risk of bias of each included study using version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized studies, and we assessed the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We performed a systematic economic literature search and conducted a cost-utility analysis with a 10-year horizon from a public payer perspective. The cost-utility analysis was conducted for psoriasis based on the available clinical evidence. We also analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding home NB-UVB phototherapy in people with photoresponsive skin conditions in Ontario. To contextualize the potential value of NB-UVB phototherapy, we spoke with people with photoresponsive skin conditions. RESULTS: We included one randomized controlled trial in the clinical evidence review. We found that home NB-UVB phototherapy is at least as effective as outpatient clinic NB-UVB phototherapy for the treatment of mild to severe psoriasis (the only photoresponsive skin condition investigated in the included study). In the included study, 82% of participants were treated at home, compared with 79% treated in an outpatient clinic setting (many participants had experience with both treatment settings). They demonstrated an improvement in baseline Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 50 (mean difference 2.8%, 95% confidence interval -8.6% to 14.2%), with the mean difference exceeding the preset noninferiority margin of -15%. Similar results were observed for other psoriasis area and severity indices (GRADE: Moderate). Episodes of mild erythema, burning sensation, severe erythema, and blistering were reported in both treatment groups, but were too few to allow a comparative safety assessment (GRADE: Low).The primary economic evaluation showed that home NB-UVB phototherapy is more costly (incremental cost $4,509) and has higher quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs; incremental QALY 0.29) than outpatient clinic NB-UVB. Our best estimate of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of home NB-UVB compared with outpatient clinic NB-UVB is $15,675 per QALY gained. The probability of home NB-UVB being cost-effective versus outpatient clinic NB-UVB is 77% at a willingness-to-pay of $50,000 per QALY gained. Publicly funding home NB-UVB phototherapy in the psoriasis population would lead to about $0.7 million each year and a total 5-year net budget impact of about $3.3 million. Publicly funding home treatment for people with photoresponsive skin conditions would lead to about $1.3 million each year and a total 5-year net budget impact of $6.3 million; however, this scenario accounted for the cost of phototherapy only (it did not include treatment-specific medical costs for conditions other than psoriasis).People with photoresponsive skin conditions with whom we spoke viewed home NB-UVB phototherapy as beneficial for those with health conditions that make it difficult to travel, for those with busy schedules, and for those who may not have the means to pay for travel to clinics. CONCLUSIONS: Home NB-UVB phototherapy is at least as effective as outpatient clinic NB-UVB phototherapy for the treatment of mild to severe psoriasis (GRADE: Moderate). We are uncertain if adverse events happen more often or less often with home NB-UVB phototherapy than outpatient clinic NB-UVB phototherapy (GRADE: Low).Home NB-UVB phototherapy has an ICER of $15,675 per QALY gained, and the probability of home NB-UVB phototherapy being cost-effective is 77% at a willingness-to-pay of $50,000 per QALY gained. When accounting for the cost of phototherapy and other psoriasis-specific treatment costs (e.g., physician visits and adjuvant treatments), publicly funding home NB-UVB phototherapy in the psoriasis population would lead to a total 5-year net budget impact of about $3.3 million. Funding home NB-UVB phototherapy to people with photoresponsive skin conditions would lead to a total 5-year net budget impact of $6.3 million.People with photoresponsive skin conditions with whom we spoke viewed both outpatient clinic and home NB-UVB phototherapy to be effective treatment options.

Therapies for Psoriasis: Clinical and Economic Comparisons.

BACKGROUND: Clinical and economic comparisons of therapies for plaque psoriasis are regularly updated following each new devel- opment in the field. With the recent availability of a novel accessory (Multi Micro DoseTM [MMD®] tip) for the 308nm excimer laser (XTRAC®, Strata Skin Sciences, Horsham, PA), which can determine and deliver an optimal therapeutic dose (OTDTM) of ultraviolet-B light in an improved protocol, the need for comparative health-economic assessment recurs. To this end, a comprehensive evaluation of treatment-related costs was undertaken from the payer perspective. Results show that outcomes are influenced by many factors; most importantly, the severity and extent of disease, treatment selection, and patient preference, as well as compliance, adherence, and persistence with care. Among study comparators, the 308nm excimer laser – XTRAC – with its latest MMD enhancement, is safe and delivers incremental clinical benefits with the potential for significant cost savings. These benefits are particularly relevant today in the context of SARS-CoV-2 virus and the COVid-19 pandemic. J Drugs Dermatol. 2020;19(11):1101-1108. doi:10.36849/JDD.2020.5510.

Home-based narrowband UVB, topical corticosteroid or combination for children and adults with vitiligo: HI-Light Vitiligo three-arm RCT.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews suggest that narrowband ultraviolet B light combined with treatments such as topical corticosteroids may be more effective than monotherapy for vitiligo. OBJECTIVE: To explore the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of topical corticosteroid monotherapy compared with (1) hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B light monotherapy and (2) hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B light/topical corticosteroid combination treatment for localised vitiligo. DESIGN: Pragmatic, three-arm, randomised controlled trial with 9 months of treatment and a 12-month follow-up. SETTING: Sixteen UK hospitals - participants were recruited from primary and secondary care and the community. PARTICIPANTS: Adults and children (aged ≥ 5 years) with active non-segmental vitiligo affecting ≤ 10% of their body area. INTERVENTIONS: Topical corticosteroids [mometasone furoate 0.1% (Elocon®, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Merck & Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA) plus dummy narrowband ultraviolet B light]; narrowband ultraviolet B light (narrowband ultraviolet B light plus placebo topical corticosteroids); or combination (topical corticosteroids plus narrowband ultraviolet B light). Topical corticosteroids were applied once daily on alternate weeks and narrowband ultraviolet B light was administered every other day in escalating doses, with a dose adjustment for erythema. All treatments were home based. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was self-assessed treatment success for a chosen target patch after 9 months of treatment ('a lot less noticeable' or 'no longer noticeable' on the Vitiligo Noticeability Scale). Secondary outcomes included blinded assessment of primary outcome and percentage repigmentation, onset and maintenance of treatment response, quality of life, side effects, treatment burden and cost-effectiveness (cost per additional successful treatment). RESULTS: In total, 517 participants were randomised (adults, n = 398; and children, n = 119; 52% male; 57% paler skin types I-III, 43% darker skin types IV-VI). At the end of 9 months of treatment, 370 (72%) participants provided primary outcome data. The median percentage of narrowband ultraviolet B light treatment-days (actual/allocated) was 81% for topical corticosteroids, 77% for narrowband ultraviolet B light and 74% for combination groups; and for ointment was 79% for topical corticosteroids, 83% for narrowband ultraviolet B light and 77% for combination. Target patch location was head and neck (31%), hands and feet (32%), and rest of the body (37%). Target patch treatment 'success' was 20 out of 119 (17%) for topical corticosteroids, 27 out of 123 (22%) for narrowband ultraviolet B light and 34 out of 128 (27%) for combination. Combination treatment was superior to topical corticosteroids (adjusted risk difference 10.9%, 95% confidence interval 1.0% to 20.9%; p = 0.032; number needed to treat = 10). Narrowband ultraviolet B light was not superior to topical corticosteroids (adjusted risk difference 5.2%, 95% confidence interval -4.4% to 14.9%; p = 0.290; number needed to treat = 19). The secondary outcomes supported the primary analysis. Quality of life did not differ between the groups. Participants who adhered to the interventions for > 75% of the expected treatment protocol were more likely to achieve treatment success. Over 40% of participants had lost treatment response after 1 year with no treatment. Grade 3 or 4 erythema was experienced by 62 participants (12%) (three of whom were using the dummy) and transient skin thinning by 13 participants (2.5%) (two of whom were using the placebo). We observed no serious adverse treatment effects. For combination treatment compared with topical corticosteroids, the unadjusted incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £2328.56 (adjusted £1932) per additional successful treatment (from an NHS perspective). LIMITATIONS: Relatively high loss to follow-up limits the interpretation of the trial findings, especially during the post-intervention follow-up phase. CONCLUSION: Hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B light plus topical corticosteroid combination treatment is superior to topical corticosteroids alone for treatment of localised vitiligo. Combination treatment was relatively safe and well tolerated, but was effective in around one-quarter of participants only. Whether or not combination treatment is cost-effective depends on how much decision-makers are willing to pay for the benefits observed. FUTURE WORK: Development and testing of new vitiligo treatments with a greater treatment response and longer-lasting effects are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN17160087. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 64. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The Home Interventions and Light therapy for the treatment of vitiligo (HI-Light Vitiligo) trial aimed to find out whether or not treating vitiligo at home with a narrowband ultraviolet B light, either by itself or with a steroid ointment, is better than treatment using a steroid ointment only. We enrolled 517 children (aged ≥ 5 years) and adults who had small, active (i.e. recently changing) patches of vitiligo into the study. Participants received one of three possible treatment options: steroid ointment (plus dummy light), hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B light therapy (plus placebo ointment) or both treatments used together. We asked participants to judge how noticeable their target vitiligo patch was after 9 months of treatment. We considered the treatment to be successful if the participants' responses were either 'a lot less noticeable' or 'no longer noticeable'. The results showed that using both treatments together was better than using a steroid ointment on its own. Around one-quarter of participants (27%) who used both treatments together said that their vitiligo was either 'no longer noticeable' or 'a lot less noticeable' after 9 months of treatment. This was compared with 17% of those using steroid ointment on its own and 22% of those using narrowband ultraviolet B light on its own. All treatments were able to stop the vitiligo from spreading. Patches on the hands and feet were less likely to respond to treatment than patches on other parts of the body. The trial found that the vitiligo tended to return once treatments were stopped, so ongoing intermittent treatment may be needed to maintain the treatment response. The treatments were found to be relatively safe and easy to use, but light treatment required a considerable time commitment (approximately 20 minutes per session, two or three times per week). This trial showed that using steroid ointment and narrowband ultraviolet B light together is likely to be better than steroid ointment alone for people with small patches of vitiligo. Steroid ointment alone can still be effective for some people and remains a useful treatment that is able to stop vitiligo from spreading. The challenge is to make hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B light treatment available as normal care in the NHS for people with vitiligo.

Administrative Burden and Costs of Prior Authorizations in a Dermatology Department.

Importance: Insurance companies use prior authorizations (PAs) to address inappropriate prescribing or unnecessary variations in care, most often for expensive medications. Prior authorizations negatively affect patient care and add costs and administrative burden to dermatology offices. Objective: To quantify the administrative burden and costs of dermatology PAs. Design, Setting, and Participants: The University of Utah Department of Dermatology employs 2 full-time and 8 part-time PA staff. In this cross-sectional study at a large academic department spanning 11 clinical locations, these staff itemized all PA-related encounters over a 30-day period in September 2016. Staff salary and benefits were publicly available. Data were analyzed between December 2018 and August 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportion of visits requiring PAs, median administrative time to finalize a PA (either approval or denial after appeal), and median cost per PA type. Results: In September 2016, 626 PAs were generated from 9512 patient encounters. Staff spent 169.7 hours directly handling PAs, costing a median of $6.72 per PA. Biologic PAs cost a median of $15.80 each and took as long as 31 business days to complete. The costliest PA equaled 106% of the associated visit's Medicare reimbursement rate. Approval rates were 99.6% for procedures, 78.9% for biologics, and 58.2% for other medications. After appeal, 5 of 23 (21.7%) previously denied PAs were subsequently approved. Conclusions and Relevance: Prior authorizations are costly to dermatology practices and their value appears limited for some requests. Fewer unnecessary PAs and appeals might increase practice efficiency and improve patient outcomes.

Home vs hospital narrowband UVB treatment by a hand-held unit for new-onset vitiligo: A pilot randomized controlled study.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and safety of narrowband ultraviolet B (NB-UVB) phototherapy in home vs in hospital for the management of limited new-onset vitiligo. METHODS: Patients with new-onset vitiligo (<3 months) with <5% body surface area involvement were recruited and randomly assigned to either a home-based or a hospital-based treatment group. Both groups were administered NB-UVB phototherapy thrice a week. The body surface area (BSA) involved with vitiligo, Vitiligo Area Scoring Index (VASI), the effectiveness of repigmentation, Vitiligo Quality of Life index (VitiQoL), and the cost of treatment were examined. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients completed the study. Patients in both groups exhibited improvements demonstrated by BSA and VSAI decrease. No significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of skin repigmentation (P > 0.05). Improvements in the VitiQoL scores were reduced to the greatest degree at week 8 for all patients in both groups. Adverse events, such as painful erythema, burning, blistering, and excessive hyperpigmentation, were more frequently observed in the home-based treatment group than in the hospital-based treatment group. The cost of phototherapy in hospital exceeded the cost of home phototherapy after 7 weeks of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Home NB-UVB phototherapy treatment was as effective as treatment in hospital, but exhibited cost-effective and a better compliance. However, the education of the patients should be strengthened to avoid excessive UVB exposure and related adverse events.

Narrowband ultraviolet B phototherapy improves quality of life of psoriasis and atopic dermatitis patients up to 3 months: Results from an observational multicenter study.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Narrowband UVB phototherapy is a common treatment modality in psoriasis and atopic dermatitis, but evidence of its actual effect in clinical setting is sparse. Our aim was to assess the effectiveness and costs of narrowband UVB phototherapy in psoriasis and atopic dermatitis in clinical setting. METHODS: We observed 207 psoriasis patients and 144 atopic dermatitis patients in eight centers. SAPASI, PO-SCORAD, and VAS measures were used at baseline, at the end, and 3 months after the narrowband UVB phototherapy course. Quality of life was measured using Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and costs were assessed using a questionnaire. RESULTS: In both psoriasis and atopic dermatitis, the DLQI and Self-Administrated PASI (SAPASI)/Patient-Oriented SCORAD (PO-SCORAD) improved significantly and the results remained improved for at least 3 months in both groups. Alleviation of pruritus correlated with better quality of life in both patient groups. We reported slight redness and burning side effects which were due to lack of MED testing. Self-administered tools proved to be useful in evaluating pruritus and severity of the disease in psoriasis and atopic dermatitis. Mean patient costs were 310 € and 21 hours of time, and mean costs for the healthcare provider were 810 €. CONCLUSION: In psoriasis, narrowband UVB is a very efficient treatment in clinical setting, whereas in atopic dermatitis, more studies are needed to determine the best dosage.

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.

Trends in phototherapy utilization among Medicare beneficiaries in the United States, 2000 to 2015.

BACKGROUND: Phototherapy is a cost-effective treatment for many dermatoses, yet the emergence of alternative therapies such as biologics led many to think that phototherapy utilization was declining. OBJECTIVE: To characterize national, historical phototherapy utilization and costs among Medicare beneficiaries. METHODS: Longitudinal analysis of the Medicare Part B National Summary Data File from 2000 to 2015 for phototherapy billing codes. Geographic distribution of clinics and provider type obtained from the Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data for 2012 to 2015. RESULTS: The overall volume of phototherapy services billed to Medicare from 2000 to 2015 increased by 5% annually, from 334,670 to 692,093. Ultraviolet B therapy comprised 77% of phototherapy volume, utilization of psoralen plus ultraviolet A therapy declined by 9% annually, and excimer laser services grew by 29% annually. The number of phototherapy clinics is increasing but remains concentrated in only 11% of US counties. Between 2012 and 2015, dermatologists accounted for 92% of phototherapy volume. LIMITATIONS: Commercial payers and institutional claims (hospital-based physicians) are excluded. Clinical indications for phototherapy use are not reported in this database. CONCLUSION: Phototherapy utilization has grown, though the service mix has shifted toward ultraviolet B and laser excimer therapy and away from psoralen plus ultraviolet A therapy. Dermatologists manage most phototherapy. Uneven geographic distribution of phototherapy clinics limits access in nonurban areas, and further evaluation is needed to determine its impact on rural communities.

A Systematic Review of Light Emitting Diode (LED) Phototherapy for Treatment of Psoriasis: An Emerging Therapeutic Modality.

Background: Psoriasis is a chronic, inflammatory skin condition. The economic burden of psoriasis is approximately $35.2 billion in the United States per year, and treatment costs are increasing at a higher rate than general inflation. Light emitting diode (LED) phototherapy may represent a cost-effective, efficacious, safe, and portable treatment modality for psoriasis.

Objective: The goal of our manuscript is to review the published literature and provide evidence-based recommendations on LED phototherapy for the treatment of psoriasis.

Methods & Materials: A search of the databases Pubmed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and CINAHL was performed on April 5, 2016. Key search terms were related to psoriasis and LED-based therapies.

Results: A total of 7,793 articles were generated from the initial search and 5 original articles met inclusion criteria for our review. Grade of recommendation: B for LED-blue light. Grade of recommendation: C for LED-ultraviolet B, LED-red light, and combination LED-near-infrared and LED-red light.

Conclusion: We envision further characterizing the effects of LED phototherapy to treat psoriasis in patients may increase adoption of LED-based modalities and provide clinicians and patients with new therapeutic options that balance safety, efficacy, and cost.

J Drugs Dermatol. 2017;16(5):482-488.

[Cost Effectiveness of Treatments of Psoriasis with a PASI 75 and one Period of 12 Weeks]. / Coste efectividad de diferentes tratamiento para la psoriasis.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to evaluate the efficiency (relation between the cost and the results in health) of the treatments in psoriasis, seeking a higher quality of economic evaluations, consistency and transparency in these studies. METHODS: We developed a model of economic evaluation in psoriasis collecting all the many direct and indirect costs of each treatment. The effectiveness indicator used was Psoriasis Area Severity Index [PASI 75] which is generally acceptable in studies of psoriasis. The effectiveness indicator was a PASI 75.Subsequently we calculated the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) for the period of 12 weeks and PASI 75, ordering treatments by level of effectiveness at the expense of treatment costs. RESULTS: The most cost effective treatment was methotrexate (ICER -7.5) followed by acitretin (ICER 29.5). The least cost has proved effective PUVA (ICER 4,651), followed by UVB narrow band (2,886.1). CONCLUSIONS: when taking into account both direct and indirect costs together with efficiency, methotrexate is the most cost effective treatment.

OBJETIVO: Los nuevos tratamientos biológicos, si bien mejoran la calidad de vida del paciente, incrementan los costes exponencialmente en relación al resto de tratamientos. El objetivo fue calcular el tratamiento más coste efectivo de los existentes para la psoriasis. METODOS: Se desarrolló un modelo de evaluación económica en psoriasis recogiendo todos los costes directos e indirectos de cada tratamiento. El indicador de efectividad que se utilizó fue Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI 75), que es el aceptable de manera general en estudios de psoriasis. Posteriormente se realizó un análisis de incremento coste efectividad (ICER) para el periodo de 12 semanas y PASI 75, ordenando los tratamientos por nivel de efectividad en detrimento de los costes de los tratamientos. RESULTADOS: El tratamiento más coste efectivo fue el metotrexato (ICER -7,5) seguido de acitretina (ICER 29,5). El menos coste efectivo resultó ser PUVA (ICER 4.651) seguido de UVB de banda estrecha (2.886,1). CONCLUSIONES: Aunque el tratamiento más económico teniendo en cuenta solo los costes directos sería el UVBbe, al tener en cuenta los costes indirectos y ajustarlos por la efectividad, el tratamiento más coste efectivo es el metotexato.

Phototherapy in dermatology: A call for action.

Of the wide range of treatment modalities available to dermatologists, few possess the history, efficacy, and safety of phototherapy. It should be emphasized that dermatologists are the only group of physicians optimally trained and qualified to understand the medical indications of phototherapy. Phototherapy, recognized for its cost-effectiveness, should remain a consideration in patient treatment. Continued training and education in residency and thereafter is needed to maintain the proficiency of physicians. In addition, payors need continued education to ensure that insurance coverage of phototherapy is not a barrier for patients to access this therapy. To further improve and optimize the outcome, phototherapy research needs to be supported.

Estimated cost efficacy of systemic treatments that are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis.

BACKGROUND: Newer psoriasis treatments tout higher efficacy but are generally more expensive. OBJECTIVE: We sought to estimate the cost efficacy of systemic psoriasis treatments that have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). METHODS: A literature review of systemic psoriasis treatments that have been approved by the FDA was performed for the primary end point of a 75% reduction in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score (PASI 75). Medication cost was referenced by wholesale acquisition cost (WAC), laboratory fees were obtained from the American Medical Association, and office visit fees are standard at our university. Total expenses were standardized by calculating cost per month of treatment considering the number needed to treat (NNT) to achieve PASI 75. RESULTS: Methotrexate ($794.05-1502.51) and cyclosporine ($1410.14-1843.55) had the lowest monthly costs per NNT to achieve PASI 75. The most costly therapies were infliximab ($8704.68-15,235.52) and ustekinumab 90 mg ($12,505.26-14,256.75). Monthly costs per NNT to achieve PASI 75 for other therapies were as follows: narrowband ultraviolet B light phototherapy ($2924.73), adalimumab ($3974.61-7678.78), acitretin ($4137.71-14,148.53), ustekinumab 45 mg ($7177.89-7263.99), psoralen plus ultraviolet A light phototherapy ($7499.46-8834.98), and etanercept ($8284.71-10,674.89). LIMITATIONS: Drug rebates and incentives, potential adverse effects, comorbidity risk reduction, ambassador programs, and combination therapies were excluded. CONCLUSION: Our study provides meaningful cost efficacy data that may influence psoriasis treatment selection.

Phototherapy and photochemotherapy for psoriasis.

Phototherapy is a first-line option for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis. Systematic reviews indicate near comparable efficacy of the different forms of phototherapy. Localized phototherapy can be an adjunctive treatment of recalcitrant plaques during systemic treatment of psoriasis. More than 200 psoralen-UV-A therapy treatment sessions is associated with an increased risk of keratinocytic cancers, whereas no increased risk has been demonstrated for narrow-band UV-B therapy. The mechanism of action of phototherapy in psoriasis is via inhibition of keratinocyte proliferation; induction of apoptosis in keratinocytes, dendritic, and T cells; and inhibition of Th1 and Th17 pathways, but activation of Th2.

Summary of the Dutch S3-guidelines on the treatment of psoriasis 2011. Dutch Society of Dermatology and Venereology.

This document provides a summary of the Dutch S3-guidelines on the treatment of psoriasis. These guidelines were finalized in December 2011 and contain unique chapters on the treatment of psoriasis of the face and flexures, childhood psoriasis as well as the patient's perspective on treatment. They also cover the topical treatment of psoriasis, photo(chemo)therapy, conventional systemic therapy and biological therapy.

Home ultraviolet light therapy for psoriasis: why patients choose other options.

BACKGROUND: Psoriasis is a common inflammatory skin condition for which office-based and home phototherapy are safe and effective treatments. However, patients who are prescribed home phototherapy devices often choose other treatment options. OBJECTIVE: To determine the reasons why patients do not purchase a home phototherapy device after it has been recommended and prescribed by their physician. METHODS: Patients who were written a prescription for a home phototherapy device but did not fill the prescription were identified and contacted by the National Biological Corporation to participate in a telephone survey consisting of 4 questions regarding why they did not pursue a prescribed home ultraviolet device and how they were currently treating their psoriasis. RESULTS: The most common reason for not obtaining the prescribed home phototherapy device was using a biologic agent (31%). The second and third most frequently reported reasons were "cost share too high" and "insurance will not cover" (18% and 17%, respectively), together accounting for 35%. LIMITATIONS: The reason why patients were prescribed biologics while having an unfilled home phototherapy device prescription was not obtained. CONCLUSIONS: Out of pocket cost is a significant barrier to home phototherapy, even to patients who are well insured.

207-nm UV light - a promising tool for safe low-cost reduction of surgical site infections. I: in vitro studies.

BACKGROUND: 0.5% to 10% of clean surgeries result in surgical-site infections, and attempts to reduce this rate have had limited success. Germicidal UV lamps, with a broad wavelength spectrum from 200 to 400 nm are an effective bactericidal option against drug-resistant and drug-sensitive bacteria, but represent a health hazard to patient and staff. By contrast, because of its limited penetration, ~200 nm far-UVC light is predicted to be effective in killing bacteria, but without the human health hazards to skin and eyes associated with conventional germicidal UV exposure. AIMS: The aim of this work was to test the biophysically-based hypothesis that ~200 nm UV light is significantly cytotoxic to bacteria, but minimally cytotoxic or mutagenic to human cells either isolated or within tissues. METHODS: A Kr-Br excimer lamp was used, which produces 207-nm UV light, with a filter to remove higher-wavelength components. Comparisons were made with results from a conventional broad spectrum 254-nm UV germicidal lamp. First, cell inactivation vs. UV fluence data were generated for methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) bacteria and also for normal human fibroblasts. Second, yields of the main UV-associated pre-mutagenic DNA lesions (cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers and 6-4 photoproducts) were measured, for both UV radiations incident on 3-D human skin tissue. RESULTS: We found that 207-nm UV light kills MRSA efficiently but, unlike conventional germicidal UV lamps, produces little cell killing in human cells. In a 3-D human skin model, 207-nm UV light produced almost no pre-mutagenic UV-associated DNA lesions, in contrast to significant yields induced by a conventional germicidal UV lamp. CONCLUSIONS: As predicted based on biophysical considerations, 207-nm light kills bacteria efficiently but does not appear to be significantly cytotoxic or mutagenic to human cells. Used appropriately, 207-nm light may have the potential for safely and inexpensively reducing surgical-site infection rates, including those of drug-resistant origin.

Explicit and implicit copayments for phototherapy: examining the cost of commuting.

BACKGROUND: Whereas phototherapy is a safe and cost-effective treatment modality for psoriasis, economic disincentives discourage its use, including both direct and indirect costs to the patient. PURPOSE: To determine when it may be cost-effective for patients to purchase a home light unit versus driving to clinic for outpatient phototherapy sessions. METHODS: Estimates of expenses associated with 3 months of outpatient phototherapy were determined and compared to the price of a home phototherapy unit. Factors examined included the cost of gasoline (based on the national average), fuel efficiency of the vehicle, cost of owning and operating a motor vehicle, lost wages, and copayments. RESULTS: The cost for a standard 6-bulb narrowband UVB home unit is approximately $2600. Direct and indirect expenses imposed on patients increase with distance travelled to the dermatologist. If a patient lives 20 or more miles away from the dermatologist, the expenses associated with travel can total more than the out of pocket expense of purchasing a home phototherapy unit. LIMITATIONS: This small analysis only accounted for the first 3 months of treatment and likely underestimates the total costs that patients would experience over a lifetime of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: It may be beneficial for physicians to educate patients on the cost-burden of in-office versus home phototherapy because patients can use these parameters to determine which option would be more cost-effective for them.