Utilization of an Online Cash-Pay Pharmacy for Topical 5-Fluorouracil Prescriptions in Older Patients.

BACKGROUND: High cost of prescription medications presents a challenging issue for older patients with multimorbidities. Topical 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) is an effective treatment for actinic keratoses (AK), a highly prevalent condition among elderly populations, but it is often associated with unpredictable retail prices and high out-of-pocket costs. One online pharmacy offers branded prescription medications at fixed, low prices, but it may be less accessible to older patients for numerous reasons. OBJECTIVE: To determine if the number of patients receiving topical 5-FU from an online pharmacy is proportionate to the national data on expected payment types for patients prescribed topical 5-FU for AK. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study using weighted pooled data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) on topical 5-FU prescriptions for AK from 2007-2016. Data regarding online pharmacy use were provided by Dermatology.com for the year 2019. RESULTS: Among patients with AK prescribed topical 5-FU, the most prevalent payment source was Medicare (54%) followed by private insurance (40%). On the online pharmacy, the majority of patients had commercial insurance (71%) followed by Medicaid (12%). LIMITATIONS: Data from Dermatology.com are limited. CONCLUSIONS: Lower-cost medications from the online pharmacy site may improve adherence and outcomes in older adults and decrease total cost associated with AK treatment. However, the online pharmacy is underutilized by this population. J Drugs Dermatol. 2020;19(4): doi:10.36849/JDD.2020.4690.

Épidémiologie des kératoses actiniques: Epidemiology of actinic keratosis.

Actinic keratosis is a premalignant skin lesion resulting from proliferation of atypical epidermal keratinocytes. Actinic keratoses are very frequent and their prevalence is increasing. Risk factors for actinic keratosis include intrinsic and environmental factors, particularly exposure to ultraviolet radiation and advanced age. The main factor is the exposition to ultraviolet radiation. Better sun protection decreases the risk of actinic keratosis and also the risk of progression to squamous cell carcinoma, even though not all actinic keratoses progress to invasive squamous cell carcinoma. A diagnosis of actinic keratosis should encourage patients to do an annual dermatological screening of skin cancers. Given the economic cost of actinic keratoses, a global approach of health authorities could be interesting for their management. © 2019 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved. Cet article fait partie du numéro supplément Kératoses actiniques : comprendre et traiter réalisé avec le soutien institutionnel de Galderma International.

Bundled payment for actinic keratosis management: Pilot evaluation of developed models.

BACKGROUND: There is an opportunity to explore alternate payment models in dermatology. OBJECTIVE: To pilot 2 bundled payment models for actinic keratosis (AK) management. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted during September 2013-June 2016. Consecutive patients were recruited from clinics of 5 dermatologists. Patients had to be adults, have ≥1 year of care at the department, and have a history of AK. A bundled payment strategy was prospectively piloted for 1 year and compared with costs in the prior year. RESULTS: Overall, 400 participants were enrolled, and complete data was collected for 254 participants. During the year of bundled payments, actual total annual spending on claims was $70,557, whereas model 1 and model 2 bundled payment models would have totaled $67,310 and $74,422, respectively, for the patient cohort. Patient satisfaction surveys showed no difference in the quality of care. LIMITATIONS: Single-center study and limited sample size. International Classification of Diseases 9 and 10 codes were used to identify claims and might be inaccurate. Costs were modeled rather than fully implemented. CONCLUSION: Dermatologists should be aware of bundled payment models. More work is needed to elucidate the optimal formulation of a bundled payment for AK management, including the services covered, time delimitation, and risk stratification factors.

Use and Cost of Actinic Keratosis Destruction in the Medicare Part B Fee-for-Service Population, 2007 to 2015.

Importance: Actinic keratosis is prevalent and has the potential to progress to keratinocyte carcinoma. Changes in the use and costs of actinic keratosis treatment are not well understood in the aging population. Objective: To evaluate trends in the use and costs of actinic keratosis destruction in Medicare patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: A billing claims analysis was performed of the Medicare Part B Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary Master Files and National Summary Data of premalignant skin lesion destructions performed from 2007 to 2015 among Medicare Part B fee-for-service beneficiaries. Main Outcomes and Measures: Mean number of actinic keratosis lesions destroyed and associated treatment payments in 2015 US dollars estimated per 1000 Medicare Part B fee-for-service beneficiaries. Data analysis was performed from November 2017 to July 2018. Results: More than 35.6 million actinic keratosis lesions were treated in 2015, increasing from 29.7 million in 2007. Treated actinic keratosis lesions per 1000 beneficiaries increased from 917 in 2007 to 1051 in 2015, while mean inflation-adjusted payments per 1000 patients decreased from $11 749 to $10 942 owing to reimbursement cuts. The proportion of actinic keratosis lesions treated by independently billing nurse practitioners and physician assistants increased from 4.0% in 2007 to 13.5% in 2015. Conclusions and Relevance: This study's findings suggest that actinic keratosis imposes continuously increasing levels of treatment burden in the Medicare fee-for-service population. Reimbursement decreases have been used to control rising costs of actinic keratosis treatment. Critical research may be warranted to optimize access to actinic keratosis treatment and value for prevention of keratinocyte carcinoma.

Evaluation of the costs of topical treatments for actinic keratosis based on lesion response and the affected area.

BACKGROUND: The cost of topical treatments for actinic keratosis (AK) has never been evaluated with respect to the actual cancerization field treated and the corresponding lesion response rate. Traditionally, evaluation in AK has been done in the context of patient response rate alone. The current study aimed to develop an economic model assessing the cost of topical treatments for the management of AK in Italy. METHODS: Data from Italian patients (N.=100) with five or more mild/moderate lesions on the face and/or scalp was used. The efficacy of the topical treatments which are available for the treatment of AK in Italy was considered. The outcome of interest was lesion response rates at three months and was based on published literature. The cost of each treatment was estimated according to the approval status of the drug and the cancerization area that required treatment. The analysis was replicated for four other European countries. RESULTS: The average costs of treatment with c-PDT, DL PDT, DHA, InMeb and IMQ were € 364.2, € 255.5, € 848.7, € 1039.1, and € 628.3, respectively. Taking into account the number of lesions cleared per patient, the cancerization area treated, and the number of visits required with each treatment, the total costs per lesion treated per patient were estimated at € 37.9, € 29, € 264.7, € 103.5, and € 115.4, respectively. The analysis produced consistent results when it was replicated for other countries. CONCLUSIONS: Daylight therapy with methyl aminolevulinate (DL PDT) is an effective treatment option for AK management with a favourable value for money profile.

Impact of topical fluorouracil cream on costs of treating keratinocyte carcinoma (nonmelanoma skin cancer) and actinic keratosis.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether treatment costs for keratinocyte carcinoma (KC) and actinic keratosis (AK) can be lowered by spending more on chemoprevention. OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of 1-course treatment with topical fluorouracil (5-FU) on the face and ears on KC and AK treatment costs over 3 years. METHODS: The Veterans Affairs Keratinocyte Carcinoma Chemoprevention trial compared the efficacy of topical 5-FU 5% with that of vehicle control cream for reducing KC risk. Trial data and administrative data on costs and utilization were analyzed to measure postrandomization encounters and treatment costs for KC and AK care. Adjusted models were used to test for statistically significant differences between treatment arms for number of treatment encounters and costs. RESULTS: One year after randomization, the control arm had a higher mean number of treatment encounters for squamous cell carcinoma (0.04) than the intervention arm (0.01) (P < .01). At 1 year, the intervention arm had lower treatment and dermatologic costs: $2106 (standard deviation, $2079) compared with $2444 (standard deviation, $2716) for the control patients (P = .02). After 3 years, the intervention arm incurred a cost of $771 less per patient. LIMITATIONS: Care not provided or paid for by the Department of Veterans Affairs was not included. Results may not be generalizable to other payers. CONCLUSION: We found significant cost savings for patients treated with 5-FU.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of Ingenol Mebutate Gel for the Treatment of Actinic Keratosis in Greece.

PURPOSE: The present study aimed to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of ingenol mebutate (IM) versus other topical alternatives for the treatment of actinic keratosis (AK). METHODS: The analysis used a decision tree to calculate the clinical effects and costs of AK first-line treatments, IM (2-3 days), diclofenac 3% (for 8 or 12 weeks), imiquimod 5% (for 4 or 8 weeks), during a 24-month horizon, using discrete intervals of 6 months. A hypothetical cohort of immunocompetent adult patients with clinically confirmed AK on the face and scalp or trunk and extremities was considered. Clinical data on the relative efficacy were obtained from a network meta-analysis. Inputs concerning resource use derived from an expert panel. All costs were calculated from a Greek third-party payer perspective. FINDINGS: IM 0.015% and 0.05% were both cost-effective compared with diclofenac and below a willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) (€199 and €167 per QALY, respectively). Comparing IM on the face and scalp AK lesions for 3 days versus imiquimod for 4 weeks resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €10,868 per QALY. IM was dominant during the 8-week imiquimod period. IM use on the trunk and extremities compared with diclofenac (8 or 12 weeks) led to incremental cost-effectiveness ratios estimated at €1584 and €1316 per QALY accordingly. Results remained robust to deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. IMPLICATIONS: From a social insurance perspective in Greece, IM 0.015% and IM 0.05% could be the most cost-effective first-line topical field treatment options in all cases for AK treatment.

Variation in the Cost of Managing Actinic Keratosis.

Importance: Actinic keratosis (AK), a skin growth induced by ultraviolet light exposure, requires chronic management because a small proportion can progress into squamous cell skin cancer. Spending for AK management was more than $1 billion in 2004. Investigating geographic variation in AK spending presents an opportunity to decrease waste or recoup excess spending. Objective: To evaluate geographic variation in health care cost for management of AKs and the association with patient-related and health-related factors. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study was performed using data from the MarketScan medical claims database of 488 324 continuously enrolled members with 2 or more claims for AK. Data from January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2012, was used. Main Outcomes and Measures: Annual costs of care were calculated for outpatient visits, AK destruction, and medications for AKs, and the total of these components. Costs were adjusted for inflation to 2014 US dollars. To display cost variation, we calculated the ratio of mean cost in the highest quintile (Q5) relative to the mean in the lowest quintile (Q1), or the Q5:Q1 ratio; Q5:Q1 ratios were adjusted based on age, sex, history of nonmelanoma skin cancer, US geographic region, and population density (metropolitan statistical area). Results: Overall, data from 488 324 continuously enrolled members (mean [SD] age, 53.1 [7.5] years; 243 662 women) with 2 or more claims for AK were included. Overall, patients had 1 085 985 claims related to AK, and dermatologists accounted for 71.0% of claims. The 2-year total cost was $111.5 million, with $52.4 million in 2011 and $59.1 million in 2012. The unadjusted Q5:Q1 ratios for total annual cost per patient ranged from 9.49 to 15.10. Adjusted ratios ranged from 1.72 to 1.80. Conclusions and Relevance: There is variation in AK management cost within and between regions. This is not fully explained by differences in patient characteristics such as age, sex, or comorbidities. The annual cost for 10 common conditions from Medicare had lower Q5:Q1 ratios that ranged from 1.33 (joint degeneration of back/neck) to 1.69 (chronic sinusitis) when compared with 1.72 to 1.80 for AKs. This suggests an opportunity to investigate and improve the value of health care delivery in the management of AKs.

Pharmacoeconomic Considerations in Treating Actinic Keratosis: An Update.

Actinic keratosis is one of the most common dermatological diagnoses worldwide, especially among the elderly, fair-skinned, and immunocompromised, and is associated with a risk of transformation to skin cancer. With actinic keratosis and skin cancer prevalence increasing as the aged population expands in the US, optimizing treatment strategies may produce cost savings for the healthcare system. Since the time of our last review in 2008, investigation of the economic considerations in treating actinic keratosis has advanced. To provide an update of treatment cost effectiveness and to review factors relating to the costs of care, we conducted a systematic review of pharmacoeconomic publications since December 2008. We identified 11 pharmacoeconomic studies, with one cost-of-treatment, five cost-effectiveness, and five cost-utility analyses. Photodynamic therapy (PDT) was well tolerated and produced a favorable cosmetic outcome in most studies. Ingenol mebutate, the newest but most expensive topical field therapy, 5-fluorouracil, and PDT were the most cost-effective treatments in our review. Patient adherence to therapy and the management of adverse effects were significant contributors to treatment costs. In the US, treatment guidelines and formalized cost-effectiveness analyses for actinic keratosis are absent from the recent literature. Future pharmacoeconomic investigation will depend on up-to-date comparative efficacy data, as well as clarification of rates of, and management strategies for, adverse effects, therapeutic non-adherence, and lesion recurrence.

Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Utility Analysis of Ingenol Mebutate Versus Diclofenac 3% and Imiquimod 5% in the Treatment of Actinic Keratosis in Spain. / Análisis de coste-efectividad y coste-utilidad de ingenol mebutato versus diclofenaco 3% e imiquimod 5% en el tratamiento de la queratosis actínica en España.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of ingenol mebutate in the treatment of actinic keratosis in Spain. METHODS: We used an adapted Markov model to simulate outcomes in a cohort of patients (mean age, 73 years) with actinic keratosis over a 5-year period. The comparators were diclofenac 3% and imiquimod 5%. The analysis was performed from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System based on direct costs (2015 retail price plus value added tax less the mandatory discount). A panel of experts estimated resources, taking unit costs from national databases. An annual discount rate of 3% was applied. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The effectiveness of ingenol mebutate-with 0.192 and 0.129 more clearances gained in treatments for face and scalp lesions and trunk and extremity lesions, respectively-was superior to diclofenac's. The total costs of treatment with ingenol mebutate were lower at € 551.50 (face and scalp) and € 622.27 (trunk and extremities) than the respective costs with diclofenac (€ 849.11 and € 844.93). The incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios showed that ingenol mebutate was a dominant strategy vs diclofenac. Ingenol mebutate also proved to be more effective than imiquimod, based on 0.535 and 0.503 additional clearances, and total costs of € 551.50 and € 527.89 for the two drugs, respectively. The resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was € 728.64 per clearance gained with ingenol mebutate vs imiquimod. CONCLUSIONS: Ingenol mebutate was a dominant treatment option vs diclofenac and was efficient vs imiquimod (i.e., more effective at a higher cost, achieving an incremental cost-utility ratio of<€30000/quality-adjusted life-years).

Evaluation of Resource Utilization and Treatment Patterns in Patients with Actinic Keratosis in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To compare health care resource utilization and treatment patterns between patients with actinic keratosis (AK) treated with ingenol mebutate gel (IngMeb) and those treated with other field-directed AK therapies. METHODS: A retrospective, propensity-score-matched, cohort study compared refill/repeat and adding-on/switching patterns and outpatient visits and prescriptions (health care resource utilization) over 6 months in patients receiving IngMeb versus those receiving imiquimod, 5-fluorouracil, diclofenac sodium, and methyl aminolevulinate or aminolevulinic acid photodynamic therapy (MAL/ALA-PDT). RESULTS: The final sample analyzed included four matched treatment cohort pairs (IngMeb and comparator; n = 790-971 per treatment arm). Refill rates were similar except for imiquimod (15% vs. 9% for imiquimod and IngMeb, respectively; P < 0.05). MAL/ALA-PDT treatment repetition rates were higher than IngMeb refill rates (20% vs. 10%; P < 0.05). Topical agent add-on/switch rates were comparable. PDT had higher switch rates than did IngMeb (5% vs. 2%; P < 0.05). The IngMeb cohort had a significantly lower proportion of patients with at least one AK-related outpatient visit during the 6-month follow-up than did any other cohort: versus imiquimod (50% vs. 66%; P < 0.0001), versus 5-fluorouracil (50% vs. 69%; P < 0.0001), versus diclofenac sodium (51% vs. 56%; P = 0.034), and versus MAL/ALA-PDT (50% vs. 100%; P < 0.0001). There were significantly fewer AK-related prescriptions among patients receiving IngMeb than among patients in other cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Results based on the first 6 months after treatment initiation suggested that most field-directed AK therapies had clinically comparable treatment patterns except imiquimod, which was associated with higher refill rates, and PDT, which was associated with significantly more frequent treatment sessions and higher switching rates. IngMeb was also associated with significantly fewer outpatient visits than were other field-directed therapies.

Bundled Payment Models for Actinic Keratosis Management.

IMPORTANCE: Recent legislation encourages alternative payment models, such as bundled payments. There are no clear recommendations on bundled payment design, and research on bundled payments for dermatologic care is limited. OBJECTIVE: To investigate several methods to develop bundled payment models for actinic keratosis (AK) management and the likely effect on the cost of AK management. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cohort cost identification study using claims from Highmark Insurance and the MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters databases. Patients with claims for AK during the study period, January 2010 to December 2012, were included (N = 118 129). Utilization measures, such as visits and procedures, and direct costs were calculated and 8 bundled payment models were developed. Indirect costs were not included. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The actual health care costs and theoretical cost differences for the bundled payments. Costs are reported in 2012 US dollars and were adjusted for inflation. The proportion of patients and clinicians with annual AK claim costs less than or equal to the bundled payments were calculated. RESULTS: Eight bundled payment models were developed and 2, based on the 75th percentile payment, did not result in theoretical savings for any of the patient samples (increased annual spending of $1.04 million to $6.88 million). The median-based payment without adjustments resulted in the largest theoretical savings (decreased spending of $2.22 million to $6.43 million). In contrast, the mean-based payment with adjustments resulted in the smallest theoretical savings. The median-based with indirect payment (65.2% for patients and 62.0% for clinicians) and mean-based adjusted payments, with (68.9% and 66.2%) and without (68.1% and 65.6%) discount, were equal to or greater than the actual health care costs for similar proportions of patients and clinicians, respectively. In addition, both resulted in a decrease in overall health care costs for the patient cohort. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: It is important to consider alternative payment models, such as bundled payments, in preparation for payment reform. The dermatology profession needs to understand disease management in dollar terms to advocate on behalf of clinicians and patients for fair and reasonable reimbursement, regardless of payment type.

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.

Real-life Data on Patient Characteristics, Cost and Effectiveness of Field-directed Treatment for Actinic Keratoses: An Observational Study.

Actinic keratoses (AK) occur frequently; however, real-life clinical data on personalized treatment choice and costs are scarce. This multicentre one-year observational study investigated patient-characteristics, cost and effectiveness of methylaminolaevulinate photodynamic therapy (MAL-PDT), imiquimod (IMI) and 5-fluorour-acil (5-FU) in patients with AKs on the face/scalp. A total of 104 patients preferred MAL-PDT, 106 preferred IMI and 110 preferred 5-FU. At baseline, significant differences between treatment groups were found; most patients were severely affected (mean 32.5 AK in PDT-group, 20.2 in IMI-group, 22.8 in 5-FU-group). A mean reduction in lesions of 81% after MAL-PDT, 82% after IMI and 88% after 5-FU was found after one year. Annual costs were €1,950 for MAL-PDT, €877 for IMI and €738 for 5-FU. These results show that, compared with clinical trials, in the real-life clinical setting AK patients are usually more severely affected and treatment costs are much higher. Furthermore, patient characteristics are important factors in treatment choice.

Cost-utility of first-line actinic keratosis treatments in Finland.

INTRODUCTION: Cost-utility assessment of first-line actinic keratosis (AK) treatments for max 25 cm2 AK field. METHODS: A probabilistic, 2-year decision tree model was used to assess costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), cost-effectiveness efficiency frontier, cost-effectiveness acceptability frontier (CEAF), and expected value of perfect information (EVPI) of AK treatments from the Finnish health care payer perspective with 3% discounting per annum. In the model, the first-line AK treatment resulted in complete clearance (CC) or non-CC with or without local skin responses (LSR), or AK recurrence. Non-CC AK was treated with methyl aminolevulinate+photodynamic therapy (MAL+PDT), and AK recurrence was retreated with the previous effective treatment. Costs included primary and secondary health care, outpatient drugs, and LSR management. QALYs were assessed with the EuroQol (EQ-5D-3L). Result robustness was assessed with sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The mean simulated per patient QALYs (costs) were 1.526 (€982) for MAL+PDT, 1.524 (€794) for ingenol mebutate gel (IngMeb) 0.015% (3 days), 1.522 (€869) for IngMeb 0.05% (2 days), 1.520 (€1062) for diclofenac 3% (12 weeks), 1.518 (€885) for imiquimod 3.75% (6 weeks), 1.517 (€781) for imiquimod 5% (4/8 weeks), and 1.514 (€1114) for cryosurgery when treating AK affecting any body part. IngMeb 0.015% was less costly and more effective (dominating) than other AK treatments indicated for face and scalp area with the exception of imiquimod 5% for which the ICER was estimated at €1933/QALY gained and MAL+PDT, which had an ICER of €82,607/QALY gained against IngMeb 0.015%. With willingness-to-pay €2526-18,809/QALY gained, IngMeb 0.015% had >50% probability for cost-effectiveness on the CEAF. IngMeb 0.05% dominated AK treatments indicated for trunk and extremities. EVPIs for face and scalp (trunk and extremities) analyses were €26 (€0), €86 (€58), and €250 (€169) per patient with the willingness-to-pay of €0, €15,000, and €30,000 per QALY gained, respectively. CONCLUSION: IngMebs were cost-effective AK treatments in Finland. FUNDING: LEO Pharma.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of 5-fluorouracil 0.5%/salicylic acid 10% in the treatment of actinic keratosis in Spain.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of 5-fluorouracil 0.5%/salicylic acid 10% (5-FU/SA) in the treatment of isolated hyperkeratotic actinic keratosis lesions in Spain. METHODS: An analytical decision-making model was constructed to compare whether 5-FU/SA was a cost-effective option compared with cryotherapy from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System with a time horizon of 6 months. Costs were expressed in 2014 euros. RESULTS: The cost of patients with hyperkeratotic actinic keratosis treated with 5-FU/SA or cryotherapy was €266 and €285, respectively. 5-FU/SA was associated with higher rates of treatment success and, consequently, more quality-adjusted life years, than cryotherapy. Therefore, 5-FU/SA was the dominant treatment, as it was associated with a lower treatment cost and greater effectiveness than cryotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Economically, 5-FU/SA was a dominant option compared with cryotherapy in the treatment of isolated hyperkeratotic actinic keratosis lesions in Spain.

A randomized clinical trial of photodynamic therapy with methyl aminolaevulinate vs. diclofenac 3% plus hyaluronic acid gel for the treatment of multiple actinic keratoses of the face and scalp.

BACKGROUND: A gel containing diclofenac and hyaluronic acid (DHA) and photodynamic therapy with methyl aminolaevulinate (MAL-PDT) are widely used treatments for actinic keratoses (AKs). OBJECTIVES: The aim of this single-centre, open-label, prospective, nonsponsored, randomized controlled clinical trial was to compare the treatment results and cost-effectiveness of MAL-PDT and DHA. METHODS: Patients with multiple AKs of the face and scalp were randomized to receive MAL-PDT or DHA. After 90 days, the overall complete remission (CR) rate of patients and the CR rate of lesions according to thickness score were assessed, and patients and an investigator scored the cosmetic outcome. In addition, patients scored their overall satisfaction with the treatment. Patients with CR of all lesions were followed up for 12 months. RESULTS: Two hundred patients with a total of 1674 AKs were enrolled. The lesion CR rates at 3 months were 85·9% with MAL-PDT and 51·8% with DHA (P < 0·0001). AKs of all thicknesses were significantly more responsive to MAL-PDT. The patient CR rates at 3 months were 68% with MAL-PDT and 27% with DHA. At the 12-month examination, the number of patients with CR reduced to 37 with MAL-PDT and seven with DHA. Rating of cosmetic outcome was very good or excellent in the vast majority of patients with both treatments. The analysis of cost-effectiveness showed that the costs per patient with CR at 3 months and at 12 months are €566·7 and €1026·2, respectively, with MAL-PDT and €595·2 and €2295·6, respectively, with DHA. CONCLUSIONS: Efficacy, cosmetic outcome and patients' overall satisfaction with MAL-PDT are superior in comparison with DHA. MAL-PDT is more expensive but it is more cost-effective.