RESUMEN
The use of antifungal/corticosteroid combinations as topical therapy for dermatophytoses has been criticized as being less effective, more expensive, and the cause of more adverse cutaneous reactions than antifungal monotherapy. The combination of clotrimazole and betamethasone diproprionate (Lotrisone) is a mix of an azole antifungal and a high-potency corticosteroid, and is one of the most widely prescribed of these combinations. Our objective was to describe the beneficial and deleterious effects of Lotrisone in the treatment of common cutaneous fungal infections and its relative cost-effectiveness. We did a literature review documenting clinical trial data and adverse reactions to Lotrisone and collected a cost analysis of topical antifungal prescribing data over a 2-month period from a large midwestern staff-model health maintenance organization (HMO). Lotrisone is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of tinea pedis, tinea cruris, and tinea corporis in adults and children more than 12 years of age. Treatment is limited to 2 weeks in the groin area and 4 weeks on the feet. The most concerning adverse effects of Lotrisone were reported in children and included treatment failure, striae distensae, hirsuitism, and growth retardation. This combination was also reported to have decreased efficacy in clearing candidal and Trichophyton infections as compared to single-agent antifungals. Lotrisone was considerably more expensive than clotrimazole alone and was found to account for more than 50% of topical antifungal expenditures as prescribed by primary care physicians, but only 7% of topical antifungals prescribed by dermatologists. We found that Lotrisone was shown to have the potential to induce many steroid-related side effects and to be less cost effective than antifungal monotherapy. This combination should be used judiciously in the treatment of cutaneous fungal infections and may not be appropriate for use in children.
Asunto(s)
Antiinflamatorios/economía , Antifúngicos/economía , Betametasona/análogos & derivados , Betametasona/economía , Clotrimazol/economía , Clotrimazol/uso terapéutico , Dermatomicosis/tratamiento farmacológico , Dermatomicosis/economía , Administración Tópica , Antiinflamatorios/administración & dosificación , Antiinflamatorios/efectos adversos , Antifúngicos/administración & dosificación , Antifúngicos/efectos adversos , Betametasona/administración & dosificación , Betametasona/efectos adversos , Betametasona/uso terapéutico , Clotrimazol/efectos adversos , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Combinación de Medicamentos , Costos de los Medicamentos , Glucocorticoides , HumanosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To examine the extra cost of using higher-priced drugs as initial therapy for dermatophyte infections, because the many available effective drugs vary considerably in cost. DESIGN: Cost analysis from the purchaser's perspective, comparing two prototypical regimens to treat tinea pedis: one in which all patients initially receive a lower-priced drug and those with unresponsive infections receive a higher-priced drug at a follow-up office visit, and one in which all patients receive the higher-priced drug from the outset. The reference drug was miconazole, an imidazole available without a prescription, for which reported overall efficacy rates are 70% to 100%. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The threshold efficacy rate (the efficacy rate of miconazole below which it is always less expensive to use a specific higher-priced drug first) and the extra cost (of beginning therapy with a higher-priced drug). RESULTS: Assuming the Medicare-approved charge for a follow-up visit ($21.98), it is less expensive to begin therapy with a prescription drug only if the efficacy rate of miconazole is less than 55%; this threshold efficacy rate varied from 26% (for a $0 total cost of the follow-up visit) to 79% (for an $89 total cost of the follow-up visit). If the efficacy rate of miconazole is 70%, the extra cost per patient for all patients to receive the least expensive prescription antifungal drug instead of miconazole first was $15.23 and $8.64 if total visit costs were $0 and $21.98; miconazole remained the less expensive alternative as long as the total cost of the follow-up visit was less than $50.76. CONCLUSION: For reported efficacy rates and standard costs of a follow-up office visit, using miconazole first and then treating only those patients with unresponsive infections with a higher-priced prescription drug is less expensive than treating all patients with the higher-priced drug.