Cost-effectiveness study of pediatric atopic dermatitis in Asia: atopiclair vs. regular emollient (AD-ATOP).

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a highly prevalent, chronic relapsing condition in childhood with significant financial burden and impact on the quality of life of patients and caregivers. Proactive maintenance treatment with moisturizing agents is the mainstay AD therapy. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of a non-steroidal barrier cream (Atopiclair), compared to regular emollient in pediatric patients with mild-to-moderate AD. METHODS: A Markov decision model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Atopiclair versus regular emollient in 12 Asia-Pacific countries, grouped by income categories based on gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. Data was obtained from structured literature review, expert opinion, fee schedules, and findings from a 2012 survey of 12 Asia-Pacific countries. Analysis was performed a societal perspective. RESULTS: In the base case analysis, Atopiclair was cost-effective against regular emollient, with USD786, USD499, and USD289 in cost savings per year for high, middle, and low-income countries, respectively. Sensitivity analyses showed that Atopiclair remained cost-effective versus regular emollient. CONCLUSIONS: Modelling analysis showed that Atopiclair is a cost-effective treatment compared to regular emollient for mild-to-moderate pediatric AD in the countries included in the study.

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.