Cost effectiveness of home ultraviolet B phototherapy for psoriasis: economic evaluation of a randomised controlled trial (PLUTO study)

Adherence to Psoriasis Therapies

Understanding the underlying causes of nonadherence among patients with psoriasis and adopting strategies to address these issues may allow providers to share responsibility and work alongside patients to overcome these barriers. The review explores patient adherence to different types of psoriasis treatment, suggestions for interventions to overcome barriers, and methods to promote adherence that have been published in the literature.

Home Narrowband UV-B Treatment for Psoriasis: A Cohort Study

This cohort study describes and identifies patient characteristics associated with use of in-office narrowband UV-B (NBUVB) or systemic therapy following home NBUVB machine receipt.

Oral and Topical Vitamin D, Sunshine, and UVB Phototherapy Safely Control Psoriasis in Patients with Normal Pretreatment Serum 25-Hydroxyvitamin D Concentrations: A Literature Review and Discussion of Health Implications

Vitamin D, sunshine and UVB phototherapy were first reported in the early 1900s to control psoriasis, cure rickets and cure tuberculosis (TB). Vitamin D also controlled asthma and rheumatoid arthritis with intakes ranging from 60,000 to 600,000 International Units (IU)/day. In the 1980s, interest in treating psoriasis with vitamin D rekindled. Since 1985 four different oral forms of vitamin D (D2, D3, 1-hydroxyvitaminD3 (1(OH)D3) and 1,25-dihydroxyvitaminD3 (calcitriol)) and several topical formulations have been reported safe and effective treatments for psoriasis-as has UVB phototherapy and sunshine. In this review we show that many pre-treatment serum 25(OH)D concentrations fall within the current range of normal, while many post-treatment concentrations fall outside the upper limit of this normal (100 ng/mL). Yet, psoriasis patients showed significant clinical improvement without complications using these treatments. Current estimates of vitamin D sufficiency appear to underestimate serum 25(OH)D concentrations required for optimal health in psoriasis patients, while concentrations associated with adverse events appear to be much higher than current estimates of safe serum 25(OH)D concentrations. Based on these observations, the therapeutic index for vitamin D needs to be reexamined in the treatment of psoriasis and other diseases strongly linked to vitamin D deficiency, including COVID-19 infections, which may also improve safely with sufficient vitamin D intake or UVB exposure.

Home Narrowband Ultraviolet B Phototherapy for Photoresponsive Skin Conditions: A Health Technology Assessment

BACKGROUND

Skin conditions are photoresponsive if they respond to ultraviolet (UV) radiation with partial or complete clearing. Ultraviolet phototherapy is performed by exposing the skin to UV radiation on a regular basis under medical supervision. Three types of UV radiation are used to treat photoresponsive skin conditions: broadband ultraviolet B (BB-UVB), psoralen plus ultraviolet A (PUVA), and narrowband ultraviolet B (NB-UVB). Narrowband UVB phototherapy is generally more effective than BB-UVB and safer than PUVA in the management of several photoresponsive skin conditions. While typically performed in an outpatient clinic setting, home NB-UVB phototherapy may be a viable option for people with limited access to outpatient treatment. We conducted a health technology assessment of home NB-UVB phototherapy for people with photoresponsive skin conditions that included an evaluation of the effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, and budget impact of publicly funding home NB-UVB phototherapy, and patient preferences and values.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence. We assessed the risk of bias of each included study using version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized studies, and we assessed the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We performed a systematic economic literature search and conducted a cost-utility analysis with a 10-year horizon from a public payer perspective. The cost-utility analysis was conducted for psoriasis based on the available clinical evidence. We also analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding home NB-UVB phototherapy in people with photoresponsive skin conditions in Ontario. To contextualize the potential value of NB-UVB phototherapy, we spoke with people with photoresponsive skin conditions.

RESULTS

We included one randomized controlled trial in the clinical evidence review. We found that home NB-UVB phototherapy is at least as effective as outpatient clinic NB-UVB phototherapy for the treatment of mild to severe psoriasis (the only photoresponsive skin condition investigated in the included study). In the included study, 82% of participants were treated at home, compared with 79% treated in an outpatient clinic setting (many participants had experience with both treatment settings). They demonstrated an improvement in baseline Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 50 (mean difference 2.8%, 95% confidence interval -8.6% to 14.2%), with the mean difference exceeding the preset noninferiority margin of -15%. Similar results were observed for other psoriasis area and severity indices (GRADE: Moderate). Episodes of mild erythema, burning sensation, severe erythema, and blistering were reported in both treatment groups, but were too few to allow a comparative safety assessment (GRADE: Low).The primary economic evaluation showed that home NB-UVB phototherapy is more costly (incremental cost $4,509) and has higher quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs; incremental QALY 0.29) than outpatient clinic NB-UVB. Our best estimate of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of home NB-UVB compared with outpatient clinic NB-UVB is $15,675 per QALY gained. The probability of home NB-UVB being cost-effective versus outpatient clinic NB-UVB is 77% at a willingness-to-pay of $50,000 per QALY gained. Publicly funding home NB-UVB phototherapy in the psoriasis population would lead to about $0.7 million each year and a total 5-year net budget impact of about $3.3 million. Publicly funding home treatment for people with photoresponsive skin conditions would lead to about $1.3 million each year and a total 5-year net budget impact of $6.3 million; however, this scenario accounted for the cost of phototherapy only (it did not include treatment-specific medical costs for conditions other than psoriasis).People with photoresponsive skin conditions with whom we spoke viewed home NB-UVB phototherapy as beneficial for those with health conditions that make it difficult to travel, for those with busy schedules, and for those who may not have the means to pay for travel to clinics.

CONCLUSIONS

Home NB-UVB phototherapy is at least as effective as outpatient clinic NB-UVB phototherapy for the treatment of mild to severe psoriasis (GRADE: Moderate). We are uncertain if adverse events happen more often or less often with home NB-UVB phototherapy than outpatient clinic NB-UVB phototherapy (GRADE: Low).Home NB-UVB phototherapy has an ICER of $15,675 per QALY gained, and the probability of home NB-UVB phototherapy being cost-effective is 77% at a willingness-to-pay of $50,000 per QALY gained. When accounting for the cost of phototherapy and other psoriasis-specific treatment costs (e.g., physician visits and adjuvant treatments), publicly funding home NB-UVB phototherapy in the psoriasis population would lead to a total 5-year net budget impact of about $3.3 million. Funding home NB-UVB phototherapy to people with photoresponsive skin conditions would lead to a total 5-year net budget impact of $6.3 million.People with photoresponsive skin conditions with whom we spoke viewed both outpatient clinic and home NB-UVB phototherapy to be effective treatment options.

Home UV Phototherapy

Phototherapy is an effective treatment for multiple dermatoses. However, patient inconvenience and poor access to office-based phototherapy may jeopardize adherence and treatment outcome. Home phototherapy offers a convenient, accessible, and effective therapy. We describe the history of home phototherapy, the devices available, and associated costs. A literature review used PubMed. Keywords included: "home phototherapy," "tanning beds," "narrowband ultraviolet B." In a randomized control trial, home phototherapy had similar efficacy to office-based phototherapy. Home phototherapy is associated with significant cost savings treatment and increased adherence. Home phototherapy should be considered for its economic value, good tolerability, adherence, and efficacy.

Home vs hospital narrowband UVB treatment by a hand-held unit for new-onset vitiligo: A pilot randomized controlled study

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy and safety of narrowband ultraviolet B (NB-UVB) phototherapy in home vs in hospital for the management of limited new-onset vitiligo.

METHODS

Patients with new-onset vitiligo (<3 months) with <5% body surface area involvement were recruited and randomly assigned to either a home-based or a hospital-based treatment group. Both groups were administered NB-UVB phototherapy thrice a week. The body surface area (BSA) involved with vitiligo, Vitiligo Area Scoring Index (VASI), the effectiveness of repigmentation, Vitiligo Quality of Life index (VitiQoL), and the cost of treatment were examined.

RESULTS

A total of 100 patients completed the study. Patients in both groups exhibited improvements demonstrated by BSA and VSAI decrease. No significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of skin repigmentation (P > 0.05). Improvements in the VitiQoL scores were reduced to the greatest degree at week 8 for all patients in both groups. Adverse events, such as painful erythema, burning, blistering, and excessive hyperpigmentation, were more frequently observed in the home-based treatment group than in the hospital-based treatment group. The cost of phototherapy in hospital exceeded the cost of home phototherapy after 7 weeks of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Home NB-UVB phototherapy treatment was as effective as treatment in hospital, but exhibited cost-effective and a better compliance. However, the education of the patients should be strengthened to avoid excessive UVB exposure and related adverse events.

Home phototherapy for patients with vitiligo: challenges and solutions

Vitiligo is a chronic autoimmune condition involving selective dysfunction and destruction of melanocytes in the skin, hair, or both. The typical presentation is well-demarcated depigmented skin patches. Given vitiligo is the most common cause of depigmentation worldwide and early disease responds best to treatment, prompt diagnosis and proactive management of vitiligo are critical. While a wide variety of treatments has demonstrated variable effectiveness in treating vitiligo, phototherapy remains standard of care because of its proven efficacy and favorable side effect profile. However, many patients with vitiligo are unable to access affordable, consistent, or convenient phototherapy. To address these issues, home-based phototherapy has emerged as a patient-centered alternative. The purpose of this review is to discuss management of vitiligo with a specific focus on access to home-based phototherapy (HBPT) for patients with this condition. Key challenges to HBPT include misperceptions around safety and efficacy, inadequate physician education and training, insurance and financial barriers, and appropriate patient selection. Solutions to these challenges are presented, such as approaches to improve physician education and increasing the evidence surrounding the effectiveness and safety of this treatment for vitiligo. In addition, various practical considerations are discussed to guide dermatologists on how to approach HBPT as a treatment option for patients with vitiligo.

Prescribing Home Narrowband UVB Phototherapy: A Review of Current Approaches

Conventional, full-body phototherapy equipment is costly and therefore patients are usually treated in dermatology centres. Such office-based therapy is often not feasible for those patients who live far away from a phototherapy centre due to lost time and wages, inability to travel because of extensive skin disease, or prohibitive travel costs. Home phototherapy has emerged as a modality that meets the needs of those patients. Our aim was to review available studies on UV sources, treatment protocols, efficacy, and safety of home phototherapy. A literature review was conducted on PubMed using the terms "home" AND "phototherapy" AND ("guide" OR "approach" OR "review" OR "protocol"). From the data extracted, narrowband UVB (311 nm) offers the best balance between safety and efficacy and is recommended for home phototherapy by most authors. Treatment is safe and possible adverse effects are related to overexposure (erythema, blistering). The usual treatment protocol was administering treatments on alternating days, including weekends, with dosing based on the patient's Fitzpatrick skin type. We also provide information on the available home phototherapy systems in Canada and their reimbursement. Home phototherapy is underused in Canada. Narrowband UVB phototherapy sources equipped with a 3-dimensional panel provides a practical and safe option.

Narrowband ultraviolet B treatment for psoriasis is highly economical and causes significant savings in cost for topical treatments

BACKGROUND

Narrowband ultraviolet B (NB-UVB) treatment for psoriasis is considered expensive. However, existing data are based on estimates and do not consider indirect cost savings.

OBJECTIVES

To define the actual costs of NB-UVB incurred by the service provider, as well as treatment-associated cost savings.

METHODS

We performed data linkage of (i) comprehensive treatment records and (ii) prescribing data for all NB-UVB treatment episodes spanning 6 years in a population of 420 000. We minimized data fluctuation by compiling data from four independent treatment sites, and using drug prescriptions unrelated to psoriasis as a negative control.

RESULTS

National Health Service Tayside spent an average of £257 per NB-UVB treatment course (mean 257 ± 63, range 150-286, across four independent treatment sites), contrasting sharply with the estimate of £1882 used by the U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. The cost of topical treatments averaged £128 per patient in the 12 months prior to NB-UVB, accounting for 42% of the overall drug costs incurred by these patients. This was reduced by 40% to £53 per patient over the 12-month period following NB-UVB treatment, while psoriasis-unrelated drug prescription remained unchanged, suggesting disease-specific effects of NB-UVB. The data were not due to site-specific factors, as confirmed by highly similar results observed between treatment sites operated by distinct staff. Finally, we detail all staff hours directly and indirectly involved in treatment, allowing direct translation of cost into other healthcare systems.

CONCLUSIONS

NB-UVB is a low-cost treatment; cost figures currently used in health technology appraisals are an overestimate based on the data presented here. Creating or extending access to NB-UVB is likely to offer additional savings by delaying or avoiding costly third-line treatments for many patients.

Results of daily oral dosing with up to 60,000 international units (iu) of vitamin D3 for 2 to 6 years in 3 adult males

In the 1930's and 1940's, vitamin D was reported to be an effective treatment for a number of diseases, including asthma, psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, rickets and tuberculosis. High doses were used, 60,000 to 300,000 IU a day for asthma, and 200,000 to 600,000 IU a day for rheumatoid arthritis. Toxicity from hypercalcemia occurred after prolonged oral dosing with these supraphysiologic doses. Assays for measuring vitamin D in the blood were not available, and blood levels of vitamin D associated with hypercalcemia were unknown. A 2011 report on vitamin D toxicity showed that hypercalcemia resolved when 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25OHD) blood levels dropped below 400ng/ml in 2 patients with blood levels ranging from 645ng/ml to 1220ng/ml after accidental ingestion of massive doses of vitamin D. We now know that vitamin D is made in the skin in amounts ranging up to 25,000 IU a day with exposure to UVB radiation. There is little data on the safety and blood levels of 25OHD and calcium after prolonged daily intake of amounts of vitamin D in this range. In this report, one subject took increasing daily doses of vitamin D3 for 6 years starting in April 2009: 6500 IU for 6 months; increasing to 10,000 IU for 13 months; 20,000 IU for 24 months; 40,000 IU for 12 months; 50,000 IU for 10 months, and 60,000 IU since October 2014. 25OHD blood levels were 28, 81, 204, 216, 225, 166, and 218ng/ml. Subject 2 began 10,000 IU in Nov 2011, increased to 20,000 IU in Feb 2014, 25,000 IU in June 2014, and 30,000 IU in Oct 2014, and then decreased to 20,000 IU in June 2015. 25OHD blood levels were 96.6, 161.1 and 106.9ng/ml. He reported marked clinical improvement in his asthma. Subject 3 started on daily 10,000 IU in Sept 2013, increasing to 20,000 IU on Nov 2013. 25OHD blood levels were 31.4, 102, 164, 148, and 143ng/ml. No one developed hypercalcemia or any adverse events. The major finding of this case series is prolonged daily dosing of vitamin D3 with doses of 10,000 to 60,000 IU was safely tolerated.

The cost–effectiveness of blue-light therapy in the treatment of mild-to-moderate psoriasis

Aim: To investigate the cost–effectiveness of blue-light therapy versus a two-compound formulation (TCF) (Dovobet® gel [calcipotriol and betamethasone]) in mild-to-moderate psoriasis. Methods: A Markov model was applied to describe the course of disease among Dutch patients with a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score ≤ 10 over a 52-week time horizon. Patients received either 12-week blue-light therapy or two 4-week treatments with TCF. Patients, experiencing no PASI reduction after either therapy, were assumed to receive 12-week ultraviolet B phototherapy. Results: There was no significant difference in PASI reduction between two interventions (71 vs 72%). However, blue-light therapy was associated with a cost savings of EU€248. Conclusion: Treatment of mild-to-moderate chronic plaque psoriasis using blue-light therapy may be more cost-effective than TCF.

Phototherapy of Psoriasis, a Chronic Inflammatory Skin Disease

Phototherapy is an effective treatment modality for several skin diseases which has been in use from the era of the Egyptians. Insight into its mode of action has gradually accumulated over the past decades. A crucial biological effect of ultraviolet radiation is the induction of apoptosis in T lymphocytes and in keratinocytes in the epidermis. Via this mechanism inflammation-induced pathological changes characteristic of psoriasis are counteracted.Phototherapy remains the only therapeutic option for certain patient groups where modification of the systemic immune reactions is contraindicated, such as by HIV, internal malignancy or pregnancy. UVB treatment is highly cost-effective, which is important in this age of increasing health care costs.

High fluence light emitting diode-generated red light modulates characteristics associated with skin fibrosis

Skin fibrosis, often referred to as skin scarring, is a significant international health problem with limited treatment options. The hallmarks of skin fibrosis are increased fibroblast proliferation, collagen production, and migration speed. Recently published clinical observations indicate that visible red light may improve skin fibrosis. In this study we hypothesize that high-fluence light-emitting diode-generated red light (HF-LED-RL) modulates the key cellular features of skin fibrosis by decreasing cellular proliferation, collagen production, and migration speed of human skin fibroblasts. Herein, we demonstrate that HF-LED-RL increases reactive oxygen species (ROS) generation for up to 4 hours, inhibits fibroblast proliferation without increasing apoptosis, inhibits collagen production, and inhibits migration speed through modulation of the phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K)/Akt pathway. We demonstrate that HF-LED-RL is capable of inhibiting the unifying cellular processes involved in skin fibrosis including fibroblast proliferation, collagen production, and migration speed. These findings suggest that HF-LED-RL may represent a new approach to treat skin fibrosis. LED advantages include low cost, portability, and ease of use. Further characterizing the photobiomodulatory effects of HF-LED-RL on fibroblasts and investigating the anti-fibrotic effects of HF-LED-RL in human subjects may provide new insight into the utility of this therapeutic approach for skin fibrosis.

Health economic analyses of psoriasis management: a systematic literature search

In the course of the chronic skin disease psoriasis, where a variety of treatment interventions is available, a strong growth of health economic studies comparing treatment costs and benefits can be noticed. The objective was to identify health economic evaluations of psoriasis treatments that have been published to date. Of particular interest were the mostly used analysis and outcome parameters, the compared treatments, and the question, if available health economic studies may be used to perform a meta-analysis of qualitative findings. A systematic literature search using PubMed Medline, Ovid Medline, and Cochrane Library was performed for articles, published and available until mid of January 2016. Among the key words were the terms "psoriasis" and "cost-effectiveness". The search resulted in 318 articles without duplicates. Thereof 60 health economic analyses in psoriasis management were identified. Most of these are cost-effectiveness evaluations (45). The clinical parameter PASI (Psoriasis Area Severity Index) is the most often used cost-effectiveness outcome (33) followed by the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) (6). In case of cost-utility analyses, QALYs (quality-adjusted life-years) were mostly generated with the help of EuroQol five dimensions questionnaire (EQ-5D) (12), which was partly based on PASI and DLQI values. The majority of health economic studies is focusing on the direct medical and non-medical costs without consideration of productivity losses. Almost 70 % of 60 publications were conducted in Europe. Overall, most considered systemic treatments were the biological agents etanercept (36), adalimumab (27), and infliximab (26) followed by ustekinumab (17) and phototherapy (incl. UV-B, PUVA/psoralen combined with UV-A) (14). Comparisons including only topical treatments mostly focused on vitamin D treatment (14), corticosteroids (13), and coal tar products (6) followed by dithranol (5) and tazarotene (4). Given the setting, compared treatments, and study conditions, different results can be found for medical decision-making. Thereby, it can be noted that there are no standards on methods and outcomes measures available. This leads to a very limited comparability of health economic studies and presents no comfortable basis to examine a meta-analysis of health economic results. The presented systematic review shows the need for nationwide data and interpretation.

Improving access to home phototherapy for patients with psoriasis: current challenges and future prospects

Introduction

Although the treatment burden for phototherapy in the outpatient setting is considerable, prescription of home-based phototherapy has not been instigated. Home-based phototherapy seems more patient friendly in terms of avoiding the thrice-weekly hospital visits. So why are most treatments still given in a hospital setting? Is home-based treatment less effective? Are there financial barriers? Is the treatment not available? To answer these questions, a literature search was done.

Methods

A literature search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was performed, using the search terms “psoriasis” and “phototherapy”. Selection was based on two rounds; the first round involved screening the title and abstract of all records and second involved evaluating the full text of the remaining articles for eligibility according to inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Results

In total, 23 publications were included with consensus of both researchers. Overall, the patients reported being very satisfied with home-based phototherapy. Results regarding effectivity in terms of improvement from disease severity and in quality of life were variable but generally positive. Reasons for reluctance varied from medicolegal and social aspects to lack of reimbursement and unfamiliarity on the side of the prescriber.

Conclusion

In the treatment for psoriasis, home-based phototherapy is as effective and safe as phototherapy in an outpatient setting. Patients were more satisfied with home-based phototherapy. Factors that negatively influence the prescription of or choice for home-based phototherapy can be summarized in terms of lack of control, lack of knowledge, and lack of a good reimbursement system.

Visible Red Light Emitting Diode Photobiomodulation for Skin Fibrosis: Key Molecular Pathways

Skin fibrosis, also known as skin scarring, is an important global health problem that affects an estimated 100 million persons per year worldwide. Current therapies are associated with significant side effects and even with combination therapy, progression, and recurrence is common. Our goal is to review the available published data available on light-emitting diode-generated (LED) red light phototherapy for treatment of skin fibrosis. A search of the published literature from 1 January 2000 to present on the effects of visible red light on skin fibrosis, and related pathways was performed in January 2016. A search of PubMed and EMBASE was completed using specific keywords and MeSH terms. "Fibrosis" OR "skin fibrosis" OR "collagen" was combined with ("light emitting diode," "LED," "laser," or "red light"). The articles that were original research studies investigating the use of visible red light to treat skin fibrosis or related pathways were selected for inclusion. Our systematic search returned a total of 1376 articles. Duplicate articles were removed resulting in 1189 unique articles, and 133 non-English articles were excluded. From these articles, we identified six articles related to LED effects on skin fibrosis and dermal fibroblasts. We augmented our discussion with additional in vitro data on related pathways. LED phototherapy is an emerging therapeutic modality for treatment of skin fibrosis. There is a growing body of evidence demonstrating that visible LED light, especially in the red spectrum, is capable of modulating key cellular characteristic associated with skin fibrosis. We anticipate that as the understanding of LED-RL's biochemical mechanisms and clinical effects continue to advance, additional therapeutic targets in related pathways may emerge. We believe that the use of LED-RL, in combination with existing and new therapies, has the potential to alter the current treatment paradigm of skin fibrosis. There is a current lack of clinical trials investigating the efficacy of LED-RL to treat skin fibrosis. Randomized clinical trials are needed to demonstrate visible red light's clinical efficacy on different types of skin fibrosis.

Management of chronic pruritus with a UV filtering topical cream

Chronic pruritus is a common dermatological condition affecting 10-13% of the general population. UVB phototherapy has been demonstrated to be effective in relieving the symptoms of pruritus. However, phototherapy is rarely administered because the treatment is time-consuming and expensive, when compared to other topical drugs. In previous works, it has been reported that a topical cream, which selectively filters solar UVB can be used as a convenient alternative to traditional phototherapy. Here, we report the results of a pilot study aimed at assessing the effectiveness of the cream for treating pruritus. Seven patients with pruritus symptoms were included in the study. After 3 months of treatment (3 sessions per week), all patients noted improvement in pruritus symptoms. These preliminary results demonstrate that the novel topical cream could provide a convenient, low cost treatment for chronic pruritus patients.

Management of atopic dermatitis: safety and efficacy of phototherapy

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common chronic inflammatory skin disease that can affect all age groups. It is characterized by a relapsing course and a dramatic impact on quality of life for patients. Environmental interventions together with topical devices represent the mainstay of treatment for AD, in particular emollients, corticosteroids, and calcineurin inhibitors. Systemic treatments are reserved for severe cases. Phototherapy represents a valid second-line intervention in those cases where non-pharmacological and topical measures have failed. Different forms of light therapy are available, and have showed varying degrees of beneficial effect against AD: natural sunlight, narrowband (NB)-UVB, broadband (BB)-UVB, UVA, UVA1, cold-light UVA1, UVA and UVB (UVAB), full-spectrum light (including UVA, infrared and visible light), saltwater bath plus UVB (balneophototherapy), Goeckerman therapy (coal tar plus UVB radiation), psoralen plus UVA (PUVA), and other forms of phototherapy. In particular, UVA1 and NB-UVB have gained importance in recent years. This review illustrates the main trials comparing the efficacy and safety of the different forms of phototherapy. No sufficiently large randomized controlled studies have been performed as yet, and no light modality has been defined as superior to all. Parameters and dosing protocols may vary, although clinicians mainly refer to the indications included in the American Academy of Dermatology psoriasis guidelines devised by Menter et al in 2010. The efficacy of phototherapy (considering all forms) in AD has been established in adults and children, as well as for acute (UVA1) and chronic (NB-UVB) cases. Its use is suggested with strength of recommendation B and level of evidence II. Home phototherapy can also be performed; this technique is recommended with strength C and level of evidence III. Phototherapy is generally considered to be safe and well tolerated, with a low but established percentage of short-term and long-term adverse effects, with the most common being photodamage, xerosis, erythema, actinic keratosis, sunburn, and tenderness. A carcinogenic risk related to UV radiation has not been excluded. Phototherapy also has some limitations related to costs, availability, and patient compliance. In conclusion, phototherapy is an optimal second-line treatment for AD. It can be used as monotherapy or in combination with systemic drugs, in particular corticosteroids. It must be performed conscientiously, especially in children, and must take into account the patient's features and overall condition.

Phototherapy and photochemotherapy for psoriasis

Phototherapy is a first-line option for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis. Systematic reviews indicate near comparable efficacy of the different forms of phototherapy. Localized phototherapy can be an adjunctive treatment of recalcitrant plaques during systemic treatment of psoriasis. More than 200 psoralen-UV-A therapy treatment sessions is associated with an increased risk of keratinocytic cancers, whereas no increased risk has been demonstrated for narrow-band UV-B therapy. The mechanism of action of phototherapy in psoriasis is via inhibition of keratinocyte proliferation; induction of apoptosis in keratinocytes, dendritic, and T cells; and inhibition of Th1 and Th17 pathways, but activation of Th2.

Systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses of treatments for psoriasis

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory disease of the skin that has a major effect on an individual's physical and mental function. The disease is associated with increased healthcare resource use and costs, therefore cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) can be used to assist decision makers with determining which treatments are optimal within a constrained healthcare system budget.

OBJECTIVES

Our aim was to systematically review the current literature on the CEA of existing treatment options for psoriasis, assess the quality of these studies, and summarize the evidence on the drivers of cost effectiveness.

METHODS

A literature search using Medical Subject Headings and keywords was performed in the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Health Technology Assessment databases, as well as the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database; the CEA Registry was searched using keywords only. All references within the relevant review articles were examined manually. Two researchers independently determined the final articles and a third researcher resolved any discrepancies. We evaluated study quality in terms of the study perspective, effectiveness measures, cost measures, economic model, and time horizon. Any sensitivity analyses conducted in the studies were examined to identify the drivers of cost effectiveness, which included any variables leading to changes in the study conclusions.

RESULTS

Fifty-three articles were included in our final review: 70% did not explicitly include costs related to adverse events; approximately one-quarter used quality-adjusted life-years; and 34% applied a time horizon under 1 year. In 18 of the 38 studies that conducted a sensitivity analysis, the cost-effectiveness results were impacted by uncertainty. The main key drivers of cost effectiveness were the costs related to the treatment, values and choice of efficacy, utility values, hospitalization for non-responders, time horizon, model structure, and utility mapping method.

CONCLUSIONS

High-quality cost-effectiveness studies are required to facilitate resource allocation decision making. To improve study quality, future research should provide evidence on the long-term experience with psoriasis treatments, and resolve the uncertainty associated with key drivers of cost effectiveness.

Review of an established UK home phototherapy service 1998-2011: improving access to a cost-effective treatment for chronic skin disease

OBJECTIVES

To review the Tayside home phototherapy service, including numbers of patients treated, diagnoses and outcomes, side-effects and safety, cost-effectiveness and absolute costs. To consider why home or outpatient phototherapy is not available to all patients who might benefit and how this could be addressed.

STUDY DESIGN

Observational and cost analysis.

METHODS

Analysis of the Tayside home phototherapy database 1998 and 2011, home phototherapy patient questionnaires, outcome data, costs and a comparison with outpatient phototherapy. Review of literature and current national guidelines for phototherapy, traditional systemic and biologic therapies for psoriasis.

RESULTS

298 courses of home narrowband UVB (NB-UVB) phototherapy were undertaken by 212 patients between 1998 and 2011, five courses in 1998 increasing to 36 in 2011. The main diagnoses treated were psoriasis (72%), atopic dermatitis (8%), and desensitization of photodermatosis (7%). For psoriasis, 74.5% achieved clearance or minimal residual activity in a median of 30 exposures (range 10-60). The estimated costs to the hospital ranged from £229 to £314 per course (£307 to £422 per effective course for psoriasis), compared with £114 for out-patient therapy (£149 per effective course for psoriasis). The total cost to society (hospital and patient costs) is around £410 per course, compared to an estimated £550 for outpatient therapy for this group of patients. Treatment was well tolerated, erythema rates were similar to outpatient therapy, there were no complaints and the vast majority would choose home over outpatient phototherapy if required in the future.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospital supervised home phototherapy appears as safe and effective as outpatient therapy and provides equality of access for patients who cannot attend for outpatient therapy. These patients may otherwise be inadequately treated or given more costly and higher risk systemic therapies, particularly for psoriasis. Commissioners and clinicians involved in dermatology services should provide accessible phototherapy for all patients who might benefit, utilizing home phototherapy where outpatient access is not possible.

[Analysis of the cost effectiveness of home-based phototherapy with narrow-band UV-B radiation compared with biological drugs for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis]

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis is associated with high treatment costs due to the increasing use of biologic drugs. Phototherapy has been demonstrated to be safe and cost effective for the treatment of psoriasis, although it is limited by the requirement for patients to visit a hospital various times a week.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficiency of home-based phototherapy with narrow-band UV-B radiation compared with biologic drugs for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis under normal practice conditions in our setting.

METHODS

A retrospective cost-effectiveness study was undertaken in 12 patients with moderate to severe psoriasis. Half of the patients were treated with biologic drugs (2 with etanercept, 2 with adalimumab, and 2 with infliximab) and the other half with home-based phototherapy using a Waldmann UV100L-TL01 lamp. Clinical effectiveness was determined on the basis of achieving a 75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 75) within 16 weeks of treatment.

RESULTS

Treatment was considered to be effective in 5 out of 6 patients (83%) treated with biologics and 4 out of 6 patients (66%) treated with home-based phototherapy. The direct costs required to achieve PASI 75 were 8256€ per patient for biologics and 903€ per patient for home-based phototherapy. The costs associated with effective treatment using biologic drugs in a single patient would provide effective home-based phototherapy for 9.1 patients.

LIMITATIONS

The study included a limited number of patients analyzed over a short time period (16 weeks) and the comparison group included multiple treatments with different predicted responses.

CONCLUSIONS

Although biologic drugs exhibited greater efficacy, home-based phototherapy was more efficient for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis. Home-based phototherapy represents a cost-effective treatment option for patients with psoriasis and may be appropriate for use in the Spanish health care system.

A pharmacoeconomic analysis of severe psoriasis therapy: a review of treatment choices and cost efficiency

INTRODUCTION

Psoriasis is a chronic, inflammatory disease afflicting 2% of the US population; it results in significant morbidity. The annual healthcare costs related to psoriasis are an estimated $11.3 billion and, with an expanding biologic market, an updated costs analysis is needed.

AREAS COVERED

Current treatments, including systemic agents (acitretin, cyclosporine, methotrexate), phototherapies and all available biologics (adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, alefacept, ustekinumab) appropriate for severe psoriasis are described mechanistically and with regard to their efficacy, quality-of-life improvements and side effects. A cost-efficacy model considering US health-system-based annual costs, clinical and quality-of-life improvements was created. Reported Psoriasis Area and Severity Index improvement of 75% from baseline (PASI-75) scores, Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) improvements and estimated costs of medications are described. Annual costs ranged from $1330 for methotrexate to $48,731 for high-dose etanercept. The lowest cost per achieving DLQI minimally important difference was from phototherapy; the highest was from alefacept. The lowest costs per patient achieving PASI-75 was from methotrexate and the highest was from alefacept.

EXPERT OPINION

Phototherapies and methotrexate offer high efficacy for their costs. Therapeutic approaches must be individualized for each patient given all considerations described.

Ginkgo biloba for the treatment of vitilgo vulgaris: an open label pilot clinical trial

Background

Vitiligo is a common hypopigmentation disorder with significant psychological impact if occurring before adulthood. A pilot clinical trial to determine the feasibility of an RCT was conducted and is reported here.

Methods

12 participants 12 to 35 years old were recruited to a prospective open-label pilot trial and treated with 60 mg of standardized G. biloba two times per day for 12 weeks. The criteria for feasibility included successful recruitment, 75% or greater retention, effectiveness and lack of serious adverse reactions. Effectiveness was assessed using the Vitiligo Area Scoring Index (VASI) and the Vitiligo European Task Force (VETF), which are validated outcome measures evaluating the area and intensity of depigmentation of vitiligo lesions. Other outcomes included photographs and adverse reactions. Safety was assessed by serum coagulation factors (platelets, PTT, INR) at baseline and week 12.

Results

After 2 months of recruitment, the eligible upper age limit was raised from 18 to 35 years of age in order to facilitate recruitment of the required sample size. Eleven participants completed the trial with 85% or greater adherence to the protocol. The total VASI score improved by 0.5 (P = 0.021) from 5.0 to 4.5, range of scale 0 (no depigmentation) to 100 (completely depigmented). The progression of vitiligo stopped in all participants; the total VASI indicated an average repigmentation of vitiligo lesions of 15%. VETF total vitiligo lesion area decreased 0.4% (P = 0.102) from 5.9 to 5.6 from baseline to week 12. VETF staging score improved by 0.7 (P = 0.101) from 6.6 to 5.8, and the VETF spreading score improved by 3.9 (P < 0.001)) from 2.7 to -1.2. There were no statistically significant changes in platelet count, PTT, or INR.

Conclusions

The criteria for feasibility were met after increasing the maximum age limit of the successful recruitment criterion; participant retention, safety and effectiveness criteria were also met. Ingestion of 60 mg of Ginkgo biloba BID was associated with a significant improvement in total VASI vitiligo measures and VETF spread, and a trend towards improvement on VETF measures of vitiligo lesion area and staging. Larger, randomized double-blind clinical studies are warranted and appear feasible.

Trial Registration

Clinical trials.gov registration number NCT00907062