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.

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.

Efficacy and safety assessment of a novel ultraviolet C device for treating corneal bacterial infections.

BACKGROUND: A prototype solid-state Ultraviolet-C (UVC) LED device may be useful in the treatment of corneal microbial infections, as UVC is commonly used for eradicating bacteria, fungi and viruses in other settings. This study assessed the efficacy of 265 nm UVC from this LED, on four different bacterial strains, and investigated the consequences of corresponding exposures on human corneal epithelial cells in vitro. METHODS: Agar plate lawns of Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Streptococcus pyogenes were exposed to a 4.5 mm diameter 265 nm UVC beam at a fixed intensity and distance, for 30, 5, 4, 2 and 1 seconds. Growth inhibition was assessed with a BioRad Gel imager, and the diameter of lucent areas of bacterial inhibition recorded. Human corneal epithelial cells cultured on glass cover-slips were exposed to corresponding doses of UVC from the same device. Live/dead staining was performed and the results quantified. RESULTS: There was 100% inhibition of growth for all bacteria tested, at all exposure times. A 30-second exposure of human corneal epithelium to UVC gave no statistically significant decrease (P = 0.877) in the ratio of live to dead cells when compared to control cultures. CONCLUSION: The results confirmed that a 1 second exposure to germicidal UVC from this LED source was sufficient to inhibit microbial proliferation in the four bacterial strains tested in vitro. The literature suggests UVC at this dose could potentially be beneficial in treating corneal surface infections, without causing significant adverse effects, supported by our findings in human corneal epithelium exposed to UVC.

Paradoxical effects of cost reduction measures in managed care systems for treatment of severe psoriasis.

BACKGROUND: Insurance companies vary widely in their coverage policies for severe psoriasis therapies. Unfortunately, coverage policies for psoriasis therapies do not necessarily follow current treatment paradigms, such that more expensive second or third line treatments may be more easily obtained than first line treatments. METHODS: We reviewed insurance policy bulletins, statements of coverage/medical necessity, and prior authorization forms for three large insurance carriers regarding psoriasis treatment with biologic agents and phototherapy. A cost comparison was performed to estimate total costs to patients and insurer under the current system as well as a hypothetical system in which co-pays and deductibles are eliminated. Additionally, we reviewed the total cost to an insurer for placing a patient on a trial of home phototherapy before approving use of expensive biologics. RESULTS: Requirements for coverage for phototherapy treatments are often the same, if not more stringent, than those for biologics. On an annual per patient basis, insurance companies pay an estimated $5, $76, and $23,408 for home phototherapy, office phototherapy, and biologics, respectively. The first year cost to patients, however, is estimated to be $2,590, $3,040, and $920 for home phototherapy, office phototherapy, and biologics, respectively. An initial 3-month trial of home phototherapy yields a graded annual cost savings to insurers of $21,610 to $2,110 per patient. DISCUSSION: The evolution of psoriasis treatment has resulted in a paradoxical situation in which the use of lower-cost psoriasis treatments, with longer safety track records, is discouraged relative to newer options. If co-pays, deductibles, and prior authorization requirements that discourage phototherapy were reduced or eliminated, more patients and physicians would likely choose phototherapy over biologics. This has the potential to reduce overall healthcare costs for psoriasis management.

Medium-dose is more effective than low-dose ultraviolet A1 phototherapy for localized scleroderma as shown by 20-MHz ultrasound assessment.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies suggest that ultraviolet (UV) A1 phototherapy is an effective treatment for localized scleroderma (LS); however, the optimum UVA1 dose remains to be determined. OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare the immediate and long-term efficacy of low- versus medium-dose UVA1 phototherapy for plaque-type LS. METHODS: Three comparable plaques in 16 patients were treated with 20 J/cm2 UVA1, 70 J/cm2 UVA1, or no irradiation. In total, 30 treatments were given. Skin thickness was determined by high-frequency ultrasound examination and clinical scoring. Assessments were done at baseline, immediately after treatment, and 3, 6, and 12 months thereafter. RESULTS: Ultrasound measurement showed a significantly greater reduction of skin thickness with 70 J/cm2 than with 20 J/cm2 at all time points of the study except immediately after UVA1 treatment. The clinical score of the irradiated plaques also decreased substantially but failed to detect a significant difference between the two dose regimens. LIMITATIONS: Our results only pertain to plaque-type LS and are limited by a small sample size. CONCLUSION: Medium-dose provides for better long-term results than low-dose UVA1 in LS as shown by ultrasound assessment. With clinical scoring, no significant difference between the two UVA1 dose regimens was detected, indicating that ultrasound measurement is a more sensitive method for quantifying treatment-induced skin changes in patients with LS.