 |
|
Costs of Treatment in Patients With Moderate to Severe Plaque Psoriasis
Economic Analysis in a Randomized Controlled Comparison of Methotrexate and Cyclosporine
Brent C. Opmeer, PhD;
Vera M. R. Heydendael, MD;
Corianne A. J. M. de Borgie, PhD;
Phyllis I. Spuls, MD, PhD;
Patrick M. M. Bossuyt, PhD;
Jan D. Bos, MD, PhD;
Menno A. de Rie, MD, PhD
Arch Dermatol. 2004;140:685-690.
Objectives To document and compare the costs of treatment of psoriasis with 2 established systemic agents that differ substantially in their unit costs: methotrexate vs cyclosporine.
Design Cost-minimization analysis within a randomized controlled trial.
Setting Outpatient dermatology department at an academic hospital.
Patients Adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, with no previous methotrexate or cyclosporine treatment.
Intervention Sixteen weeks of treatment with methotrexate or cyclosporine and an additional 36 weeks of follow-up.
Main Outcome Measures Direct and indirect medical and nonmedical costs associated with resource utilization during treatment and follow-up.
Results Average cumulative total costs associated with 16 weeks of treatment were $1593 for methotrexate and $2114 for cyclosporine ($521 less for methotrexate); during 36 weeks of follow-up, these costs were $2418 and $2306, respectively. The overall difference in cumulative 1-year costs was $409, or approximately 10% of the total costs.
Conclusions After 1 year, the overall difference in total costs between methotrexate and cyclosporine for 16 weeks of treatment and follow-up is relatively small. Systemic medication costs are only a fraction of the costs directly and indirectly generated by utilization of health care resources and associated with individual patients rather than with methotrexate or cyclosporine. Economic arguments can be supportive of but not decisive for individual patient decisions and guidelines for systemic therapy. Rational decision making for the treatment of psoriasis may include costs only within a long-term horizon and may consider the societal and patient benefits of different alternatives.
From the Departments of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics (Drs Opmeer, de Borgie, and Bossuyt) and Dermatology (Drs Heydendael, Spuls, Bos, and de Rie), Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. The authors have no relevant financial interest in this article.
|
