You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 134 No. 12, December 1998 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  Study
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (12)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Topic Collections
 •Dermatology
 •Dermatologic Disorders
 •Psoriasis
 •Alert me on articles by topic
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Cost-effectiveness and Cost-Benefit Analysis of Using Methotrexate vs Goeckerman Therapy for Psoriasis

A Pilot Study

Suephy Chen, MD; Allison Shaheen, SB; Alan Garber, MD, PhD

Arch Dermatol. 1998;134:1602-1608.

Objective  To analyze the net benefit and cost-effectiveness of methotrexate use and Goeckerman therapy for psoriasis.

Design  Net benefit and cost-effectiveness depend on the costs, efficacy, and utilities of therapy. Utilities are quantitative measures of patient preferences. We obtained costs by using resource-based accounting techniques. Efficacy was estimated from literature reports. We surveyed patients with psoriasis, dermatologists, and healthy subjects using utility assessment methods. All assumptions were examined in a sensitivity analysis.

Main Outcome Measures  For net benefit, if benefits outweighed the costs, it was deemed worth providing. For the cost-effectiveness analysis, the ratio of costs-to-effectiveness of less than $35,000 was considered cost-effective.

Results  Using utilities from healthy nonexperts, the costs of both therapies exceeded the benefits in mild and moderate psoriasis. In severe psoriasis, only methotrexate demonstrates a net benefit. Both therapies were cost-effective compared with no therapy. Liquid methotrexate should be chosen over the tablet form since it was cheaper and had the same outcome. Goeckerman was cost-effective against liquid methotrexate in severe, but not mild or moderate psoriasis. There was a trend for therapies to be more cost-effective when using patient utilities and less with dermatologist utilities. The results were highly sensitive to efficacy and utilities.

Conclusions  The results of this study need to be confirmed in other settings, but they demonstrate that the tools of cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis have great potential value in dermatology. Once efficacy is better characterized and utilities better quantified, these types of analyses will be crucial for health care policy.


From the Department of Dermatology (Dr Chen), Graduate Business School (Ms Shaheen), and Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research and School of Medicine (Dr Garber), Stanford University, Stanford, Calif; and Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, Calif (Dr Garber).



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Cost-effectiveness of Methotrexate and Goeckerman Therapy: A Flawed Analysis
Lim et al.
Arch Dermatol 1999;135:717-718.
FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1998 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.