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.

Photodynamic Therapy for Actinic Keratoses: A Randomized Prospective Non-sponsored Cost-effectiveness Study of Daylight-mediated Treatment Compared with Light-emitting Diode Treatment.

Daylight-mediated photodynamic therapy (DL-PDT) is considered as effective as conventional PDT using artificial light (light-emitting diode (LED)-PDT) for treatment of actinic keratoses (AK). This randomized prospective non-sponsored study assessed the cost-effectiveness of DL-PDT compared with LED-PDT. Seventy patients with 210 AKs were randomized to DL-PDT or LED-PDT groups. Effectiveness was assessed at 6 months. The costs included societal costs and private costs, including the time patients spent in treatment. Results are presented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The total costs per patient were significantly lower for DL-PDT (€132) compared with LED-PDT (€170), giving a cost saving of €38 (p = 0.022). The estimated probabilities for patients' complete response were 0.429 for DL-PDT and 0.686 for LED-PDT; a difference in probability of being healed of 0.257. ICER showed a monetary gain of €147 per unit of effectiveness lost. DL-PDT is less costly and less effective than LED-PDT. In terms of cost-effectiveness analysis, DL-PDT provides lower value for money compared with LED-PDT.