Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of calcipotriol (Daivonex (R)/Dovonex (R)) andUVB phototherapy in the treatment of psoriasis: A Markov model for the Netherlands
Ma. De Rie et al., Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of calcipotriol (Daivonex (R)/Dovonex (R)) andUVB phototherapy in the treatment of psoriasis: A Markov model for the Netherlands, DERMATOLOGY, 202(1), 2001, pp. 38-43
Background: The high prevalence and chronic nature of psoriasis leads to hi
gh costs in relation to the treatment and control of the disease. A number
of clinical trials have shown that a combination therapy of calcipotriol cr
eam (Daivonex(R)/Dovonex(R), Leo Pharmaceutical Products) and ultraviolet B
phototherapy (UVB) decreases the total number of UVB exposures required co
mpared to UVB treatment alone. From a societal point of view, the addition
of calcipotriol to UVB therapy could achieve cost savings due to the fewer
UVB treatments needed and the reduced travelling and time off work for pati
ents. Fewer UVB exposures may also have other beneficial effects, i.e., sho
rtened waiting lists and less risk to patients of developing cancer or phot
oaging of the skin. Objective: To compare the cost-effectiveness of treatin
g psoriatic patients in the Netherlands with calcipotriol cream used daily
combined with twice weekly UVB treatments to emollient used daily combined
with UVB given 3 times weekly. Methods: Based on the clinical results from
a Canadian trial, a decision-analytical model was constructed to simulate t
reatment outcomes and estimate the costs of managing psoriatic patients in
the Netherlands over a period of 20 weeks from initiation of therapy. Unit
costs and details of standard treatment protocols were collected from Dutch
dermatology centres in hospitals and the community for use in the model. O
ther therapies, such as topical corticosteroids, tar or dithranol were not
investigated in this analysis. Results: The total cost of managing psoriati
c patients in the Netherlands over a 20-week period is estimated as EUR 1,1
75.90 for those treated with calcipotriol and UVB and EUR 1,212.14 for pati
ents treated with emollient and UVB. Thus, the former treatment, adding cal
cipotriol to UVB phototherapy, provides a minor cost saving of EUR 36.24 (3
%) compared to the cost of UVB treatment alone. Sensitivity analyses demons
trated that these results are sensitive to changes in the cost of UVB treat
ment. Conclusion: Calcipotriol treatment combined with UVB phototherapy is
a cost-neutral alternative to UVB phototherapy used with an emollient. The
patients achieve treatment success in the same time on both treatments but
the former, with calcipotriol, requires less exposure to UVB radiation. The
additional drug costs from using calcipotriol are offset by savings from t
he fewer UVB sessions required. Essential beneficial effects for patients a
re less inconvenience, less risk of developing photoaging of the skin and l
ess exposure to potentially carcinogenic radiations. Copyright (C) 2001 S.
Karger AG, Basel.