Home ultraviolet light therapy for psoriasis: why patients choose other options.

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.

Explicit and implicit copayments for phototherapy: examining the cost of commuting.

BACKGROUND: Whereas phototherapy is a safe and cost-effective treatment modality for psoriasis, economic disincentives discourage its use, including both direct and indirect costs to the patient. PURPOSE: To determine when it may be cost-effective for patients to purchase a home light unit versus driving to clinic for outpatient phototherapy sessions. METHODS: Estimates of expenses associated with 3 months of outpatient phototherapy were determined and compared to the price of a home phototherapy unit. Factors examined included the cost of gasoline (based on the national average), fuel efficiency of the vehicle, cost of owning and operating a motor vehicle, lost wages, and copayments. RESULTS: The cost for a standard 6-bulb narrowband UVB home unit is approximately $2600. Direct and indirect expenses imposed on patients increase with distance travelled to the dermatologist. If a patient lives 20 or more miles away from the dermatologist, the expenses associated with travel can total more than the out of pocket expense of purchasing a home phototherapy unit. LIMITATIONS: This small analysis only accounted for the first 3 months of treatment and likely underestimates the total costs that patients would experience over a lifetime of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: It may be beneficial for physicians to educate patients on the cost-burden of in-office versus home phototherapy because patients can use these parameters to determine which option would be more cost-effective for them.

Acitretin prescribing patterns in women of childbearing potential.

BACKGROUND: Acitretin is indicated for severe psoriasis, but it is also a potent teratogen whose use should be avoided in women of childbearing potential. Topical medications, phototherapy, cyclosporine A, and new biologic agents provide safer alternatives for women of childbearing age with moderate to severe psoriasis. PURPOSE: To determine the demographics of acitretin prescribing patterns as an assessment of acitretin use in women of child-bearing potential. METHODS: We examined National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) data from the years 1990-2009 to determine demographic data on patients who were prescribed etretinate or acitretin. We used age under 50 as a proxy for childbearing potential. RESULTS: From 1996-2009, there were an estimated 29 million office visits for psoriasis. Females accounted for 14.3 million of these visits, and 6.5 million (45.6%) of them were under the age of 50. The NAMCS contained only one record of a female patient under the age of 50 being prescribed acitretin from 1996-2009, the years during which acitretin had been available in the United States. This corresponds to an estimated 2.3% of all psoriasis patients prescribed acitretin during this time (20,000 out of 890,000). LIMITATIONS: The NAMCS estimates national trends based on a large nationwide database. While the use of acitretin in women under 50 is low, the precision of the estimate is limited by the small sample size provided by this database. CONCLUSIONS: There are now many alternative treatments besides acitretin for women of childbearing potential with moderate to severe psoriasis. Acitretin is used at most infrequently in this population. In females of reproductive potential, acitretin should be reserved for non-pregnant patients who are unresponsive to other therapies or whose clinical condition contraindicates the use of other treatments.

Acitretin in dermatology: a review.

INTRODUCTION: Acitretin is a systemic retinoid drug used in the treatment of severe psoriasis. It has also been used for a spectrum of other difficult-to-treat dermatoses, including hyperkeratotic and inflammatory dermatoses and non-melanoma skin cancers. Here we review the available data regarding both FDA-approved and off-label uses of acitretin, clinically relevant adverse events, precautions and monitoring. METHODS: A PubMed literature search was conducted utilizing the search term "acitretin," which yielded 714 hits. Results were further limited to English language clinical trials in human subjects. Of 78 articles evaluated for relevance, 60 were included for review. RESULTS: Acitretin is effective as monotherapy and in multidrug therapeutic regimens for the treatment of psoriasis and other hyperkeratotic and inflammatory disorders, as well as for malignancy chemoprevention. Its use is limited by its teratogenic potential and other adverse effects, including mucocutaneous effects and hepatotoxicity. Potential adverse effects may be reduced or avoided by using lower doses of acitretin or in combination with other therapies. LIMITATIONS: The reviewed studies include many small trials and case reports of the use of acitretin for psoriasis. Studies of acitretin therapy for the treatment of other cutaneous disorders are limited. CONCLUSION: Acitretin is a beneficial treatment for psoriasis, and should be considered when not contraindicated. Particularly when used in combination with ultraviolet (UV) phototherapy, is a safe and cost effective therapeutic strategy.

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.

A review of phototherapy protocols for psoriasis treatment.

Phototherapy is a mainstay in the treatment of psoriasis and is available as psoralen plus UVA (PUVA), broadband UVB (BB-UVB), and narrowband UVB (NB-UVB). Phototherapy can be administered in the hospital, outpatient clinic, or in the patient's home. The purpose of this review is to provide some practical guidance to general dermatologists and residents on the specifics of using phototherapy, which, despite its decreasing use, remains one of our most safe and effective treatment strategies for psoriasis care. We conducted a literature review of home phototherapy, BB-UVB, NB-UVB, and PUVA phototherapy using PubMed, MD Consult, and reference lists. A variety of protocols for BB-UVB, NB-UVB, and PUVA have been used in clinical trials. NB-UVB is more effective than BB-UVB and safer than PUVA. Typical regimens for NB-UVB involve dosing 3 times per week for at least 3 months. Treatment must be independently developed to suit each participant's needs. Ultraviolet light is an effective, relatively safe modality that is a valuable tool in the treatment of psoriasis. NB-UVB phototherapy is considered the first-line treatment for extensive plaque type psoriasis.

Trends in home phototherapy adoption in the US: monetary disincentives are only the tip of the iceberg.

There are often multiple hurdles that must be crossed to obtain home phototherapy devices. To identify these obstacles, we examined survey data from the National Biological Corporation on patients who never acquired a home unit after being given a prescription from their doctors. Additionally, physicians' prescribing patterns were assessed from data gathered by IMS Health. Physician education of and willingness to prescribe home phototherapy was assessed via a survey distributed at the 9th Annual Dermatology Chief Residents' Meeting. When psoriasis patients were written a prescription for home phototherapy, less than half acquired a unit. Most patients (72%) stated that they did not get a unit secondarily to the high out-of-pocket expenses. In 2006, dermatologists wrote 94,385 new scripts for etanercept, compared with only 1073 scripts for home phototherapy. Very few (35%) dermatology residents receive formal training on home phototherapy. When it comes to the reasons behind patients receiving significantly more expensive biologics instead of home phototherapy for their psoriasis, high copays and deductibles are just the tip of the iceberg. It is likely that even more patients are never prescribed a home unit due to lack of physician training or frustration with meager and often inadequate reimbursements from insurance.

A review of home phototherapy for psoriasis.

BACKGROUND: Phototherapy is a mainstay in the treatment of psoriasis and other photoresponsive dermatoses and home phototherapy has broadened therapeutic options. PURPOSE: To describe the history of home phototherapy, the technological advances in the safety and efficacy of the equipment available, and the associated issues of cost, convenience, adherence, and quality of life. METHODS: We conducted a literature review of home phototherapy, broad-band UVB, narrow-band UVB, and PUVA phototherapy using PUBMED. A Google search of home phototherapy equipment and technology was also undertaken. RESULTS: Technological advances in home phototherapy equipment have allowed for more treatment options and improvements in safety and efficacy. One randomized, controlled trial found results comparable to office-based phototherapy. Home phototherapy is convenient, cost-effective, and associated with better quality of life compared to outpatient phototherapy treatment. One trial found that adherence to home phototherapy regimens was better than to oral retinoids. CONCLUSIONS: Home phototherapy is a well-tolerated, efficacious, economical and patient friendly therapeutic option. Advantages of home phototherapy include improved quality of life, greater convenience, lower cost, and less time lost from work and social activities. Dermatologists should strongly consider home phototherapy as a first-line treatment option for appropriately selected psoriasis patients.

Review of home phototherapy.

BACKGROUND: Outpatient phototherapy is a safe, effective, and low-cost treatment modality for moderate to severe psoriasis. Barriers to outpatient phototherapy including patient inconvenience, patient co-pays, decreased physician compensation, and insurance disincentive structures have led to decreased use and underutilization of phototherapy. Home phototherapy can potentially overcome many of the barriers associated with outpatient treatment but is not widely used because of concerns over safety and efficacy, lack of resident and physician education, and lack of insurance coverage. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to review the use of phototherapy with emphasis on the safety, efficacy, and practical use of home phototherapy. METHODS: A comprehensive Pubmed literature search was done using the keywords NB-UVB, narrowband UVB, BB-UVB, broadband UVB, PUVA, psoralen and UVA, UVA, history of phototherapy, mechanism of phototherapy, phototherapy in dermatology, home phototherapy, and phototherapy for psoriasis. All relevant articles were reviewed. CONCLUSIONS: Home NB-UVB phototherapy can be as safe, effective, and cost-effective as outpatient phototherapy. Further, home UVB is more convenient for patients, has higher patient satisfaction, and a lower treatment burden compared to outpatient phototherapy. Home NB-UVB should be considered as a treatment option for patients eligible for phototherapy.

Paradoxical effects of cost reduction measures in managed care systems for treatment of severe psoriasis.

BACKGROUND: Insurance companies vary widely in their coverage policies for severe psoriasis therapies. Unfortunately, coverage policies for psoriasis therapies do not necessarily follow current treatment paradigms, such that more expensive second or third line treatments may be more easily obtained than first line treatments. METHODS: We reviewed insurance policy bulletins, statements of coverage/medical necessity, and prior authorization forms for three large insurance carriers regarding psoriasis treatment with biologic agents and phototherapy. A cost comparison was performed to estimate total costs to patients and insurer under the current system as well as a hypothetical system in which co-pays and deductibles are eliminated. Additionally, we reviewed the total cost to an insurer for placing a patient on a trial of home phototherapy before approving use of expensive biologics. RESULTS: Requirements for coverage for phototherapy treatments are often the same, if not more stringent, than those for biologics. On an annual per patient basis, insurance companies pay an estimated $5, $76, and $23,408 for home phototherapy, office phototherapy, and biologics, respectively. The first year cost to patients, however, is estimated to be $2,590, $3,040, and $920 for home phototherapy, office phototherapy, and biologics, respectively. An initial 3-month trial of home phototherapy yields a graded annual cost savings to insurers of $21,610 to $2,110 per patient. DISCUSSION: The evolution of psoriasis treatment has resulted in a paradoxical situation in which the use of lower-cost psoriasis treatments, with longer safety track records, is discouraged relative to newer options. If co-pays, deductibles, and prior authorization requirements that discourage phototherapy were reduced or eliminated, more patients and physicians would likely choose phototherapy over biologics. This has the potential to reduce overall healthcare costs for psoriasis management.

Tanning beds as an alternative for psoriasis when office-based phototherapy is not accessible.

Many systemic therapies for psoriasis have significant toxicities. Office-based phototherapy is not always practical for many patients. We present a case report and review of using a tanning bed in conjunction with low-dose acitretin as an alternative treatment for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.

Adherence to acitretin and home narrowband ultraviolet B phototherapy in patients with psoriasis.

BACKGROUND: In the treatment of psoriasis, patient adherence to oral medications is poor and even worse for topical therapy. However, few data exist about adherence rates to home phototherapy, adding to concerns about the appropriateness of home phototherapy as a psoriasis treatment option. OBJECTIVE: We sought to assess adherence to both oral acitretin and home ultraviolet B phototherapy for the treatment of psoriasis. METHODS: In all, 27 patients with moderate to severe psoriasis were treated with 10 to 25 mg of acitretin daily, combined with narrowband ultraviolet B, 3 times weekly at home, for 12 weeks. Adherence to acitretin was monitored by an electronic monitoring medication bottle cap, and to phototherapy by a light-sensing data logger. RESULTS: Adherence data were collected on 22 patients for acitretin and 16 patients for adherence to ultraviolet B. Mean adherence to acitretin decreased steadily during the 12-week trial (slope -0.24), whereas mean adherence to home phototherapy remained steady at 2 to 3 d/wk. Adherence was similar between patients who reported side effects and those who did not. LIMITATIONS: Small sample size and lack of follow-up on some patients were limitations of this study. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence rates to home phototherapy were very good and higher than adherence rates for the oral medication. Side effects of treatment were well tolerated in this small group and did not affect use of the treatment. Home phototherapy with acitretin may be an appropriate option for some patients with extensive psoriasis.