Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
País/Região como assunto
Ano de publicação
Tipo de documento
País de afiliação
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Dermatol Online J ; 21(2)2014 Dec 13.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25756482

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Psoriasis is a common inflammatory skin condition for which office-based and home phototherapy are safe and effective treatments. However, patients who are prescribed home phototherapy devices often choose other treatment options. OBJECTIVE: To determine the reasons why patients do not purchase a home phototherapy device after it has been recommended and prescribed by their physician. METHODS: Patients who were written a prescription for a home phototherapy device but did not fill the prescription were identified and contacted by the National Biological Corporation to participate in a telephone survey consisting of 4 questions regarding why they did not pursue a prescribed home ultraviolet device and how they were currently treating their psoriasis. RESULTS: The most common reason for not obtaining the prescribed home phototherapy device was using a biologic agent (31%). The second and third most frequently reported reasons were "cost share too high" and "insurance will not cover" (18% and 17%, respectively), together accounting for 35%. LIMITATIONS: The reason why patients were prescribed biologics while having an unfilled home phototherapy device prescription was not obtained. CONCLUSIONS: Out of pocket cost is a significant barrier to home phototherapy, even to patients who are well insured.


Assuntos
Cooperação do Paciente , Psoríase/terapia , Autocuidado/instrumentação , Terapia Ultravioleta/instrumentação , Fatores Biológicos/uso terapêutico , Gastos em Saúde , Humanos , Cobertura do Seguro , Seguro Saúde , Autocuidado/economia , Terapia Ultravioleta/economia
2.
Am J Clin Dermatol ; 14(4): 315-26, 2013 Aug.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23696234

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: During the last decade, the implementation of biologic agents has changed the therapeutic management of severe psoriasis. Biologic agents have clinically proven efficacy, but their use is associated with a much higher cost compared with traditional treatment options. Therefore, when assessing the use of these drugs for the treatment of psoriasis, it is important to consider their cost effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine and compare the cost effectiveness of biologic agents with regard to the cost per patient achieving a minimally important difference (MID) in the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and the cost per patient achieving a 75% improvement in the Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI-75). METHODS: A PubMed literature search was conducted to identify studies describing the efficacy of all currently US FDA-approved biologic therapies. The cost effectiveness of each agent over a 12-week period was determined and a sensitivity analysis was performed. Based on clinical efficacy at 12 weeks, treatment paradigms were extrapolated to estimate cost-effectiveness ratios after 1 year of treatment. Pooled data on each biologic agent at different doses were compared in a one-way sensitivity analysis and in an extreme case scenario analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies were included in the analysis. Intravenous (IV) infliximab 3 mg/kg was the most cost-effective biologic agent with respect to both the cost per patient achieving PASI-75 and the cost per patient achieving a DLQI MID. The next most cost-effective agents in terms of cost per patient achieving PASI-75 were subcutaneous (SQ) adalimumab 40 mg administered every other week (eow) after an 80-mg loading dose, SQ adalimumab 40 mg eow, and IV infliximab 5 mg/kg. In terms of cost per patient achieving DLQI MID, IV infliximab 5 mg/kg, SQ etanercept 25 mg once weekly, SQ etanercept 50 mg once weekly, and SQ adalimumab 50 mg eow after an 80-mg loading dose were the next most cost-effective agents behind IV infliximab 3 mg/kg. For both costs per patient achieving DLQI MID and PASI-75, alefacept was the least cost-effective agent up to a 10% level of variation at all doses except 0.025 mg/kg once weekly. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by the use of efficacy data from 12-week clinical trials that did not compare treatments head to head to determine relative efficacy and may not be generalizable to longer treatment periods. Additionally, the estimated cost of treatment did not take into account indirect costs or variations in costs due to insurance company price contracting. CONCLUSIONS: Biologic treatments that were most cost effective were so in respect to both the cost per patient achieving DLQI MID and per patient achieving PASI-75. This suggests that the same agents that are effectively clearing the disease are also effective in improving the patients' subjective assessment of dermatology-related quality of life.


Assuntos
Terapia Biológica/economia , Custos de Cuidados de Saúde , Psoríase/tratamento farmacológico , Psoríase/patologia , Adalimumab , Adulto , Alefacept , Anticorpos Monoclonais/economia , Anticorpos Monoclonais/uso terapêutico , Anticorpos Monoclonais Humanizados/economia , Anticorpos Monoclonais Humanizados/uso terapêutico , Terapia Biológica/métodos , Efeitos Psicossociais da Doença , Análise Custo-Benefício , Etanercepte , Feminino , Humanos , Imunoglobulina G/economia , Imunoglobulina G/uso terapêutico , Infliximab , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Psoríase/economia , Qualidade de Vida , Receptores do Fator de Necrose Tumoral/uso terapêutico , Proteínas Recombinantes de Fusão/economia , Proteínas Recombinantes de Fusão/uso terapêutico , Resultado do Tratamento , Estados Unidos
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA