Cost-effectiveness analysis of a psoriasis care instruction programme with dithranol compared with UVB phototherapy and inpatient dithranol treatment

Abstract

Summary Background This study was part of a large national cost‐effectiveness analysis, and was funded by the National Fund for Investigational Medicine of the Health Care Insurance Board. Objectives To compare the costs of treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis by dithranol short contact therapy in a care instruction programme (short contact therapy) with ultraviolet B phototherapy (UVB) and inpatient dithranol treatment (inpatient treatment), and relate these costs to treatment effectiveness. Methods An open randomized controlled multicentre study was performed. The costs (both medical and non‐medical) were calculated for the following periods: during treatment, per month during remission, after a relapse, and following an unsuccessful treatment. The effectiveness measures were the clinical response rate and the number of clearance days during follow‐up. Results The data from 216 patients were analysed. The mean overall costs per patient during treatment were €1641, €1258 and €7706 for short contact treatment, UVB and inpatient treatment, respectively. During the clearance period the mean costs per month per patient were €19, €5 and €25, respectively. The clinical response rates were 57%, 57% and 85%, respectively. The mean number of clearance‐days after short contact treatment was 160 [median 119; interquartile range (0–357)], which was not significantly different from the other two strategies: 211 clearance‐days after inpatienttreatment [241 (99–350)] and 136 clearance‐days after UVB [81 (0–266)]. Conclusion Short contact treatment is an attractive alternative for patients with moderate to severe psoriasis currently treated by inpatient treatment, as the costs of short contact treatment were significantly lower and the number of clearance days was comparable. Considering the higher costs, short contact treatment is not a first choice treatment when compared with UVB.

Economic barriers to implementation of innovations in health care: Is the long run–short run efficiency discrepancy a paradox?

“…A study about a new combined outpatient and hometreatment of psoriasis technology showed that 89% of the anticipated savings, based on the outcomes of an earlier performed cost-effectiveness analysis, could not be achieved in the short run when implementing this technology due to inflexibility of production factors labor and infrastructure [2,12]. In absolute figures this meant that only D 694 of the anticipated D 6058 savings per patient could be freed and consequently over D 5000 per patient could not be re-invested in the outpatient and home-treatment in the short run.…”

Etanercept, infliximab and adalimumab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis: a systematic review and economic evaluation

“…192 The model uses data from the Netherlands to estimate the health service costs of treating moderate-to-severe psoriasis if biologics are not used or patients do not respond to biologics. 188 It is assumed that there is no progression of HAQ for patients using biologics, based on elicitation of opinion from experts. There is considerable uncertainty about the 'rebound' of HAQ after withdrawal.…”

Inpatient Treatment for Severe Nonsurgical Dermatological Disorders: Prevalence, Care Infrastructure and Reimbursement in Switzerland

“…Our assumption is confirmed by Bickers et al [1], who published inpatient treatment costs for psoriasis in the USA of USD 6 million, in a country with a population 40 times larger. However, it is important to state that hospitalization for psoriasis in the USA is much less frequent than in Europe [11]. Nearly two thirds of the cases were grouped into the DRG J61B.…”