Abstract

Although used for decades in psoriasis, access to phototherapy is becoming increasingly restricted. Besides patient inconvenience, this is in large part to do with a perception of "high cost." We previously reported a comprehensive analysis of direct and indirect phototherapy treatment cost. However, no robust data exist on the actual savings associated with providing phototherapy in the treatment pathway. To quantify the cost savings achieved by phototherapy by delaying alternative treatments. Costs accruing through the UK-wide established treatment pathway with and without phototherapy were analysed. Direct and indirectly incurred drug treatment costs were calculated using drug tariff, laboratory cost, estate rates and clinic review costs. To enhance reliability, ranges of cost scenarios were calculated by varying parameters such as drug dosing. Medium annual cost savings per patient were £2200 [range: £1800-£2900] for NB-UVB, and £3700 [range: £2500-£5300] if both NB-UVB and PUVA courses were administered, respectively. As the provider treated 656±76 patients per year during the 6-year observational window, this amounted to savings of £Mio 2.4 [range: £Mio 1.6-£Mio 3.4], even excluding additional non-modelled drug-associated costs (eg diagnostics, adverse event management). Since we only consider cost savings by delay of drug treatment for the duration of phototherapy, drug price reductions through biosimilar introduction only have a small effect. We provide spreadsheets allowing adaptation cost savings projections by varying input variables. Healthcare providers may achieve significant cost savings by implementing and/or widening access to phototherapy.

Highlights

  • Narrowband UVB (NB‐UVB) treatment is effective in psoriasis as shown in numerous clinical trials,[1,2,3,4,5] as well as in a recent detailed real‐world study which showed that NB‐UVB achieved significant reduction in the use of steroid creams.[6]

  • |2 inferior efficacy, as well as expense. The latter is reflected in treatment guidelines, such as the most recently published British Association of Dermatology (BAD) guidelines which fail to even include NB‐UVB in the biologic drug treatment pathway

  • Since high‐quality randomized trials are almost always funded by commercial sponsors, there is a relative dearth on both efficacy as well as economics data for phototherapy

Read more

Summary

| INTRODUCTION

Narrowband UVB (NB‐UVB) treatment is effective in psoriasis as shown in numerous clinical trials,[1,2,3,4,5] as well as in a recent detailed real‐world study which showed that NB‐UVB achieved significant reduction in the use of steroid creams.[6]. This leads to under‐ representation or even exclusion from comparative treatment analyses aiming a synthesizing clinical trial data (eg Ref.[9,10]) To address this knowledge gap, we recently undertook detailed efficacy analysis under real‐world conditions using methodology to minimize reporting and selection bias.[12] Using long‐term comprehensive data from a healthcare provider in Scotland (NHS Tayside), we subsequently presented detailed cost figures, showing that this provider had incurred an average cost of £257 ± 64 per completed course over the course of 6 years.[13] This figure included both direct costs (job plan allocations, support staff), as well as an exhaustive list of indirect cost (pension contributions, administration, estate, depreciation, etc),[13] and data were obtained from four independently operated sites, thereby minimizing random effects attributable to site‐specific cost efficiency. Despite using a single provider for modelling, the model as such is directly transferable to any other health economic context by adjusting the input variables to reflect local practice, respectively

| Ethics statement
| DISCUSSION
Findings
| Limitations
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call