Cost-efficacy analysis of 3% diclofenac sodium, ingenol mebutate, and 3.75% imiquimod in the treatment of actinic keratosis.

Actinic keratosis (AK) is a clinical condition characterized by keratinocytic dysplastic lesions of the epidermis, affecting individuals chronically exposed to sunlight. Topical therapies allow the treatment of a whole area of affected skin and currently include diclofenac sodium gel, 5-fluorouracil cream, 5-fluorouracil and acetylsalicylic acid solution, imiquimod cream, and ingenol mebutate gel. Due to the comparable efficacy of 3% diclofenac, ingenol mebutate, and 3.75% imiquimod in treating AK multiple lesions, a pharmacoeconomic evaluation of cost-effectiveness of the three treatments was needed. A cost-efficacy analysis comparing 3% diclofenac sodium with ingenol mebutate and 3.75% imiquimod was performed. In this analysis, efficacy data were combined with quality-of-life measurement derived from previous studies as well as the costs associated with the management of these lesions in Italy. Patients' demographics and clinical characteristics were assumed to reflect those from the clinical studies considered.

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.