Economic evaluation of maintenance treatment with tacrolimus 0.1% ointment in adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis.

BACKGROUND: Rational health care decision-making based on outcomes and economic evidence is essential to provide the best possible care for individual patients with atopic dermatitis (AD). OBJECTIVES: To describe treatment outcomes and to evaluate resource utilization and associated cost of maintenance use of tacrolimus ointment (MU) vs. standard use of tacrolimus ointment (SU) in adults with AD. METHODS: A pan-European, phase III multicentre randomized clinical trial was conducted. Patients with mild to severe AD were randomized to tacrolimus 0.1% ointment (MU) or vehicle (SU) twice per week for 12 months. Disease exacerbations were treated by using open-label tacrolimus 0.1% ointment twice daily. Resource utilization data were collected prospectively alongside the clinical trial. Costs of pooled resource data were determined using German unit cost data. Direct and indirect costs were considered from third party payer, patient and societal perspectives. RESULTS: All patients with moderate and severe AD were included in a subanalysis, 75 patients in the MU arm (57% moderately affected) and 59 patients in the SU arm (59% moderately affected). In patients with moderate AD, the number of disease exacerbations in the MU arm was 2.4 vs. 5.5 in the SU arm (P<0.001); in patients with severe AD corresponding figures were 2.3 vs. 7.4 (P<0.001), respectively. Mean+/-SD total annual cost per patient was euro1525+/-1081 (MU) vs. euro1729+/-1209 (SU) in patients with moderate AD and euro2045+/-2013 (MU) vs. euro2904+/-1510 (SU) in patients with severe AD. CONCLUSIONS: Maintenance treatment with 0.1% tacrolimus ointment is more effective and leads to cost savings and improved health-related quality of life in comparison with standard use of 0.1% tacrolimus ointment, especially in patients with severe AD.

Costs of treating dystonias and hemifacial spasm with botulinum toxin A.

Botulinum toxin (BTX) has become a safe and effective therapeutic tool in the treatment of a variety of neurological disorders, especially dystonias. One major disadvantage, however, is the high cost of a single injection of BTX. In this study of 835 patients, we calculated the cost of treatment with BTX serotype A (BTX-A) for different dystonias and hemifacial spasm. The annual expenditure per patient for BTX-A injections in this cohort totalled (mean +/- standard deviation) 1030 Deutschmarks (DM) [1996 values] +/- DM610 [$US570 +/- $US340; 230 +/- 130 pounds sterling (Pound)] for blepharospasm (n = 158), DM1450 +/- DM1520 ($US800 +/- $US830; 310 Pounds +/- 280 Pounds) for craniocervical dystonia (n = 148), and DM1480 +/- DM780 ($US810 +/- $US430; 330 Pounds +/- 180 Pounds) for oromandibular dystonia (n = 16), while the treatment of cervical dystonia consumed DM4590 +/- DM2060 ($US2520 +/- $US1130; 960 Pounds +/- 420 Pounds) [n = 362] per patient. In order to alleviate symptoms in patients with hemifacial spasm (n = 151), DM510 +/- DM270 ($US280 +/- $US150; 110 Pounds +/- 60 Pounds) had to be spent annually. The expenses for surgical therapy for cervical dystonia were DM10,120 +/- DM1900 (n = 54). No major differences concerning expenditure could be found in this study between the 2 available preparations of BTX. However, there appeared to be a lower rate of adverse effects with the Botox formulation, compared with the Dysport formulation, of BTX-A (this difference was statistically significant, i.e. p < 0.001). Although the cost of an individual injection is high, other cost factors also substantially contribute to the societal costs of adult-onset dystonias. Some of these costs may be attenuated with the use of BTX. The subjective and objective relief of these socially devastating and sometimes painful conditions rewards the expenditure associated with the use of BTX-A.