An over-the-counter moisturizer is as clinically effective as, and more cost-effective than, prescription barrier creams in the treatment of children with mild-to-moderate atopic dermatitis: a randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a prevalent skin disorder with significant cost of treatment. Several prescription device moisturizers have been approved by the FDA to treat AD but are significantly more expensive than well-crafted over-the-counter (OTC) moisturizers. No studies have been performed to compare both the clinical efficacy and cost-efficacy of these prescription devices to OTC moisturizers. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to compare the clinical efficacy and cost-efficacy of a glycyrrhetinic acid-containing barrier repair cream (BRC-Gly, Atopiclair®), a ceramide-dominant barrier repair cream (BRC-Cer, EpiCeram®) and an OTC petroleum-based skin protectant moisturizer (OTC-Pet, Aquaphor Healing Ointment®) as monotherapy for mild-to-moderate AD in children. METHODS: Thirty-nine patients, age 2-17 years, with mild-to-moderate AD were randomized 1:1:1 to receive one of three treatments-BRC-Gly, BRC-Cer or OTC-Pet-with instructions to apply the treatment three times daily for three weeks. Disease severity and improvement was assessed at baseline and on days 7 and 21. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference for any efficacy assessment was found between the three groups at each time point. The OTC-Pet was found to be at least 47 times more cost-effective than BRC-Gly or BRC-Cer. LIMITATIONS: The relatively small sample size of 39 subjects was not sufficient to establish OTC-Pet as superior treatment in AD. CONCLUSIONS: OTC-Pet is as effective in treating mild-to-moderate AD as both BRC-Gly and BRC-Cer and is at least 47 times more cost-effective. NAME OF REGISTRY: II-AF-ATD-Aquaphor, Comparing the Efficacy and Cost-Effectiveness of Aquaphor to Atopiclair and EpiCeram in Children with Mild to Moderate Atopic Dermatitis. REGISTRATION IDENTIFIER: NCT01093469.

Cost-effectiveness of moderate-to-severe psoriasis treatment.

Psoriasis is a common, chronic inflammatory disease that can cause as much disability as cancer, diabetes or other major medical illnesses. Traditional therapies for treating moderate-to-severe psoriasis include phototherapy, methotrexate, oral retinoids and ciclosporin. New biological treatments provide further therapeutic options, but add to the already considerable cost of managing psoriasis. Expert panels have published guidelines for the use of biological agents in managing moderate-to-severe psoriasis; however, few if any of these guidelines appropriately consider the cost-effectiveness of treatment options. When considering cost-effectiveness in addition to safety and efficacy, ultraviolet Type B phototherapy seems to be the best first-line agent for the control of moderate-to-severe psoriasis, despite a small potential for cumulative toxicity. The biologics should be considered as second-line agents alongside the traditional systemic treatments when phototherapy proves to be ineffective or is otherwise contraindicated, such as in patients with psoriatic arthritis.