Cost-effectiveness of topical pharmacological, oral pharmacological, physical and combined treatments for acne vulgaris.

BACKGROUND: Acne vulgaris is a common skin condition that may cause psychosocial distress. There is evidence that topical treatment combinations, chemical peels and photochemical therapy (combined blue/red light) are effective for mild-to-moderate acne, while topical treatment combinations, oral antibiotics combined with topical treatments, oral isotretinoin and photodynamic therapy are most effective for moderate-to-severe acne. Effective treatments have varying costs. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England considers cost-effectiveness when producing national clinical, public health and social care guidance. AIM: To assess the cost-effectiveness of treatments for mild-to-moderate and moderate-to-severe acne to inform relevant NICE guidance. METHODS: A decision-analytical model compared costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of effective topical pharmacological, oral pharmacological, physical and combined treatments for mild-to-moderate and moderate-to-severe acne, from the perspective of the National Health Service in England. Effectiveness data were derived from a network meta-analysis. Other model input parameters were based on published sources, supplemented by expert opinion. RESULTS: All of the assessed treatments were more cost-effective than treatment with placebo (general practitioner visits without active treatment). For mild-to-moderate acne, topical treatment combinations and photochemical therapy (combined blue/red light) were most cost-effective. For moderate-to-severe acne, topical treatment combinations, oral antibiotics combined with topical treatments, and oral isotretinoin were the most cost-effective. Results showed uncertainty, as reflected in the wide confidence intervals around mean treatment rankings. CONCLUSION: A range of treatments are cost-effective for the management of acne. Well-conducted studies are needed to examine the long-term clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of the full range of acne treatments.

A systematic review and network meta-analysis of topical pharmacological, oral pharmacological, physical and combined treatments for acne vulgaris.

BACKGROUND: Various treatments for acne vulgaris exist, but little is known about their comparative effectiveness in relation to acne severity. OBJECTIVES: To identify best treatments for mild-to-moderate and moderate-to-severe acne, as determined by clinician-assessed morphological features. METHODS: We undertook a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing topical pharmacological, oral pharmacological, physical and combined treatments for mild-to-moderate and moderate-to-severe acne, published up to May 2020. Outcomes included percentage change in total lesion count from baseline, treatment discontinuation for any reason, and discontinuation owing to side-effects. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and bias adjustment models. Effects for treatments with ≥ 50 observations each compared with placebo are reported below. RESULTS: We included 179 RCTs with approximately 35 000 observations across 49 treatment classes. For mild-to-moderate acne, the most effective options for each treatment type were as follows: topical pharmacological - combined retinoid with benzoyl peroxide (BPO) [mean difference 26·16%, 95% credible interval (CrI) 16·75-35·36%]; physical - chemical peels, e.g. salicylic or mandelic acid (39·70%, 95% CrI 12·54-66·78%) and photochemical therapy (combined blue/red light) (35·36%, 95% CrI 17·75-53·08%). Oral pharmacological treatments (e.g. antibiotics, hormonal contraceptives) did not appear to be effective after bias adjustment. BPO and topical retinoids were less well tolerated than placebo. For moderate-to-severe acne, the most effective options for each treatment type were as follows: topical pharmacological - combined retinoid with lincosamide (clindamycin) (44·43%, 95% CrI 29·20-60·02%); oral pharmacological - isotretinoin of total cumulative dose ≥ 120 mg kg-1 per single course (58·09%, 95% CrI 36·99-79·29%); physical - photodynamic therapy (light therapy enhanced by a photosensitizing chemical) (40·45%, 95% CrI 26·17-54·11%); combined - BPO with topical retinoid and oral tetracycline (43·53%, 95% CrI 29·49-57·70%). Topical retinoids and oral tetracyclines were less well tolerated than placebo. The quality of included RCTs was moderate to very low, with evidence of inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence. Uncertainty in findings was high, in particular for chemical peels, photochemical therapy and photodynamic therapy. However, conclusions were robust to potential bias in the evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Topical pharmacological treatment combinations, chemical peels and photochemical therapy were most effective for mild-to-moderate acne. Topical pharmacological treatment combinations, oral antibiotics combined with topical pharmacological treatments, oral isotretinoin and photodynamic therapy were most effective for moderate-to-severe acne. Further research is warranted for chemical peels, photochemical therapy and photodynamic therapy for which evidence was more limited. What is already known about this topic? Acne vulgaris is the eighth most common disease globally. Several topical, oral, physical and combined treatments for acne vulgaris exist. Network meta-analysis (NMA) synthesizes direct and indirect evidence and allows simultaneous inference for all treatments forming an evidence network. Previous NMAs have assessed a limited range of treatments for acne vulgaris and have not evaluated effectiveness of treatments for moderate-to-severe acne. What does this study add? For mild-to-moderate acne, topical treatment combinations, chemical peels, and photochemical therapy (combined blue/red light; blue light) are most effective. For moderate-to-severe acne, topical treatment combinations, oral antibiotics combined with topical treatments, oral isotretinoin and photodynamic therapy (light therapy enhanced by a photosensitizing chemical) are most effective. Based on these findings, along with further clinical and cost-effectiveness considerations, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance recommends, as first-line treatments, fixed topical treatment combinations for mild-to-moderate acne and fixed topical treatment combinations, or oral tetracyclines combined with topical treatments, for moderate-to-severe acne.

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.

Home interventions and light therapy for the treatment of vitiligo (HI-Light Vitiligo Trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Vitiligo is a condition resulting in white patches on the skin. People with vitiligo can suffer from low self-esteem, psychological disturbance and diminished quality of life. Vitiligo is often poorly managed, partly due to lack of high-quality evidence to inform clinical care. We describe here a large, independent, randomised controlled trial (RCT) assessing the comparative effectiveness of potent topical corticosteroid, home-based hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B-light (NB-UVB) or combination of the two, for the management of vitiligo. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The HI-Light Vitiligo Trial is a multicentre, three-arm, parallel group, pragmatic, placebo-controlled RCT. 516 adults and children with actively spreading, but limited, vitiligo are randomised (1:1:1) to one of three groups: mometasone furoate 0.1% ointment plus dummy NB-UVB light, vehicle ointment plus NB-UVB light or mometasone furoate 0.1% ointment plus NB-UVB light. Treatment of up to three patches of vitiligo is continued for up to 9 months with clinic visits at baseline, 3, 6 and 9 months and four post-treatment questionnaires.The HI-Light Vitiligo Trial assesses outcomes included in the vitiligo core outcome set and places emphasis on participants' views of treatment success. The primary outcome is proportion of participants achieving treatment success (patient-rated Vitiligo Noticeability Scale) for a target patch of vitiligo at 9 months with further independent blinded assessment using digital images of the target lesion before and after treatment. Secondary outcomes include time to onset of treatment response, treatment success by body region, percentage repigmentation, quality of life, time-burden of treatment, maintenance of response, safety and within-trial cost-effectiveness. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approvals were granted by East Midlands-Derby Research Ethics Committee (14/EM/1173) and the MHRA (EudraCT 2014-003473-42). The trial was registered 8 January 2015 ISRCTN (17160087). Results will be published in full as open access in the NIHR Journal library and elsewhere. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN17160087.