TY - JOUR
T1 - Cost-effectiveness of topical imiquimod and fluorouracil vs. photodynamic therapy for treatment of superficial basal-cell carcinoma
AU - Arits, A.H.M.M.
AU - Spoorenberg, E.
AU - Mosterd, K.
AU - Nelemans, P.
AU - Kelleners-Smeets, N.W.J.
AU - Essers, B.A.B.
PY - 2014/1/1
Y1 - 2014/1/1
N2 - Background A recent noninferiority randomized trial showed that in terms of clinical effectiveness imiquimod was superior and topical fluorouracil noninferior to methylaminolaevulinate photodynamic therapy (MAL-PDT) for treatment of superficial basal-cell carcinoma (sBCC). Although it was expected that MAL-PDT would be more costly than either cream, a full cost-effectiveness analysis is necessary to determine the balance between effectiveness and costs. Objective To determine whether imiquimod or topical fluorouracil are cost-effective treatments for sBCC compared with MAL-PDT. Methods An economic evaluation was performed from a healthcare perspective. Data on resource use and costs were collected alongside the randomized clinical trial. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was expressed as the incremental costs per additional patient free of tumour recurrence. Results At 12 months follow-up, the total mean costs for MAL-PDT were (sic)680, for imiquimod cream (sic)526 and for topical fluorouracil cream (sic)388. Both imiquimod and topical fluorouracil were cost-effective treatments compared with MAL-PDT. Comparing costs and effectiveness of both creams led to a incremental investment of (sic)4451 to achieve an additional patient free of tumour recurrence. The acceptability curve showed that, for a threshold value of _ 4451, the probability of imiquimod being more cost-effective than topical fluorouracil was 50%. Conclusion Based on the 12 months follow-up results, imiquimod and topical fluorouracil cream are more cost-effective than MAL-PDT for treatment of sBCC. Hence, substituting MAL-PDT with either imiquimod or topical fluorouracil results in cost savings; these savings will be larger for topical fluorouracil. Longterm follow-up effectiveness data are necessary to confirm the cost-effectiveness of imiquimod vs. topical 5-fluorouracil cream.
AB - Background A recent noninferiority randomized trial showed that in terms of clinical effectiveness imiquimod was superior and topical fluorouracil noninferior to methylaminolaevulinate photodynamic therapy (MAL-PDT) for treatment of superficial basal-cell carcinoma (sBCC). Although it was expected that MAL-PDT would be more costly than either cream, a full cost-effectiveness analysis is necessary to determine the balance between effectiveness and costs. Objective To determine whether imiquimod or topical fluorouracil are cost-effective treatments for sBCC compared with MAL-PDT. Methods An economic evaluation was performed from a healthcare perspective. Data on resource use and costs were collected alongside the randomized clinical trial. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was expressed as the incremental costs per additional patient free of tumour recurrence. Results At 12 months follow-up, the total mean costs for MAL-PDT were (sic)680, for imiquimod cream (sic)526 and for topical fluorouracil cream (sic)388. Both imiquimod and topical fluorouracil were cost-effective treatments compared with MAL-PDT. Comparing costs and effectiveness of both creams led to a incremental investment of (sic)4451 to achieve an additional patient free of tumour recurrence. The acceptability curve showed that, for a threshold value of _ 4451, the probability of imiquimod being more cost-effective than topical fluorouracil was 50%. Conclusion Based on the 12 months follow-up results, imiquimod and topical fluorouracil cream are more cost-effective than MAL-PDT for treatment of sBCC. Hence, substituting MAL-PDT with either imiquimod or topical fluorouracil results in cost savings; these savings will be larger for topical fluorouracil. Longterm follow-up effectiveness data are necessary to confirm the cost-effectiveness of imiquimod vs. topical 5-fluorouracil cream.
U2 - 10.1111/bjd.13066
DO - 10.1111/bjd.13066
M3 - Article
SN - 0007-0963
VL - 171
SP - 1501
EP - 1507
JO - British Journal of Dermatology
JF - British Journal of Dermatology
IS - 6
ER -