Search

Objective: To examine the relative cost effectiveness of topical calcipotriol and short-contact dithranol in the treatment of mild to moderate plaque psoriasis.Design and Setting: This was a modelling study from the perspective of the UK National Health Service as payer.Methods: The interventions were compared using 2 decision-analytic models: one using a short term horizon (12 weeks) and the other using a longer term horizon (up to 1 year). Clinical success of treatment and relapse rates were obtained from the results of randomised controlled trials.Main Outcome Measures and Results: The outcome measure used was the degree of improvement in psoriasis as judged by the patient. In the short term comparison, calcipotriol was the most effective treatment (60.8% success), but it was also the most expensive (96.03 Pounds; 2000 values). The incremental cost per success was 577.50 Pounds using a 12-week course of calcipotriol compared with short-contact dithranol. Over the long term horizon, first-line treatment with calcipotriol still had the highest expected cost per successful treatment (164.91 Pounds), but the incremental cost using this strategy was 38.66 Pounds compared with short-contact dithranol. In terms of cost per successful day's treatment (i.e. the cost for a day in which the patient reported a marked improvement or cleared lesions), the cost of each additional successful day's treatment was 19.93 Pounds when using calcipotriol as first-line treatment rather than short-contact dithranol.Conclusion: The combination of differences in drug acquisition costs and relapse rates can lead to large differences in the comparative cost effectiveness of topical treatments for plaque psoriasis. From the perspective of the prescriber, the results of this analysis suggest that selecting short-contact dithranol as first-line treatment was the most cost-effective strategy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, the use of alternative therapies has become widespread. In particular, there has been a resurgence in the public's demand for herbal remedies, despite a lack of high-quality evidence to support the use of many of them. Given the increasing pressures to control healthcare spending in most countries, it is not surprising that attention is being focused on the cost effectiveness of herbal remedies. We address the question of whether there is sufficient information to enable the assessment of the cost effectiveness of herbal remedies. In so doing, we discuss the current state of play with several of the more high-profile alternative herbal remedies [Chinese medicinal herbs for atopic eczema, evening primrose oil, ginkgo biloba, hypericum (St John's wort)] and some which have made the transition from being alternative to being orthodox remedies. We use historical context to discuss, on the one hand, the increasing commodification of herbal remedies and on the other, the trend towards greater regulatory control and licensing of alternative herbal remedies. We argue that unless great care is exercised, these changes are not necessarily in the best interests of patients. In order to identify cost-effective care, we need reliable information about the costs as well as the efficacy and safety of the treatments being assessed. For most alternative therapies, such data are not available. We believe that studies to gather such data are long overdue. Whilst we argue strongly in favour of control of some herbal remedies, we urge caution with the trend towards licensing of all herbal remedies. We argue that the licensing of those herbal remedies with equivocal benefits and few risks, as evidenced by a long history of safe use, increases barriers to entry and increases societal healthcare costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]