Home-based narrowband UVB, topical corticosteroid or combination for children and adults with vitiligo: HI-Light Vitiligo three-arm RCT.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews suggest that narrowband ultraviolet B light combined with treatments such as topical corticosteroids may be more effective than monotherapy for vitiligo. OBJECTIVE: To explore the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of topical corticosteroid monotherapy compared with (1) hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B light monotherapy and (2) hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B light/topical corticosteroid combination treatment for localised vitiligo. DESIGN: Pragmatic, three-arm, randomised controlled trial with 9 months of treatment and a 12-month follow-up. SETTING: Sixteen UK hospitals - participants were recruited from primary and secondary care and the community. PARTICIPANTS: Adults and children (aged ≥ 5 years) with active non-segmental vitiligo affecting ≤ 10% of their body area. INTERVENTIONS: Topical corticosteroids [mometasone furoate 0.1% (Elocon®, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Merck & Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA) plus dummy narrowband ultraviolet B light]; narrowband ultraviolet B light (narrowband ultraviolet B light plus placebo topical corticosteroids); or combination (topical corticosteroids plus narrowband ultraviolet B light). Topical corticosteroids were applied once daily on alternate weeks and narrowband ultraviolet B light was administered every other day in escalating doses, with a dose adjustment for erythema. All treatments were home based. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was self-assessed treatment success for a chosen target patch after 9 months of treatment ('a lot less noticeable' or 'no longer noticeable' on the Vitiligo Noticeability Scale). Secondary outcomes included blinded assessment of primary outcome and percentage repigmentation, onset and maintenance of treatment response, quality of life, side effects, treatment burden and cost-effectiveness (cost per additional successful treatment). RESULTS: In total, 517 participants were randomised (adults, n = 398; and children, n = 119; 52% male; 57% paler skin types I-III, 43% darker skin types IV-VI). At the end of 9 months of treatment, 370 (72%) participants provided primary outcome data. The median percentage of narrowband ultraviolet B light treatment-days (actual/allocated) was 81% for topical corticosteroids, 77% for narrowband ultraviolet B light and 74% for combination groups; and for ointment was 79% for topical corticosteroids, 83% for narrowband ultraviolet B light and 77% for combination. Target patch location was head and neck (31%), hands and feet (32%), and rest of the body (37%). Target patch treatment 'success' was 20 out of 119 (17%) for topical corticosteroids, 27 out of 123 (22%) for narrowband ultraviolet B light and 34 out of 128 (27%) for combination. Combination treatment was superior to topical corticosteroids (adjusted risk difference 10.9%, 95% confidence interval 1.0% to 20.9%; p = 0.032; number needed to treat = 10). Narrowband ultraviolet B light was not superior to topical corticosteroids (adjusted risk difference 5.2%, 95% confidence interval -4.4% to 14.9%; p = 0.290; number needed to treat = 19). The secondary outcomes supported the primary analysis. Quality of life did not differ between the groups. Participants who adhered to the interventions for > 75% of the expected treatment protocol were more likely to achieve treatment success. Over 40% of participants had lost treatment response after 1 year with no treatment. Grade 3 or 4 erythema was experienced by 62 participants (12%) (three of whom were using the dummy) and transient skin thinning by 13 participants (2.5%) (two of whom were using the placebo). We observed no serious adverse treatment effects. For combination treatment compared with topical corticosteroids, the unadjusted incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £2328.56 (adjusted £1932) per additional successful treatment (from an NHS perspective). LIMITATIONS: Relatively high loss to follow-up limits the interpretation of the trial findings, especially during the post-intervention follow-up phase. CONCLUSION: Hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B light plus topical corticosteroid combination treatment is superior to topical corticosteroids alone for treatment of localised vitiligo. Combination treatment was relatively safe and well tolerated, but was effective in around one-quarter of participants only. Whether or not combination treatment is cost-effective depends on how much decision-makers are willing to pay for the benefits observed. FUTURE WORK: Development and testing of new vitiligo treatments with a greater treatment response and longer-lasting effects are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN17160087. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 64. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The Home Interventions and Light therapy for the treatment of vitiligo (HI-Light Vitiligo) trial aimed to find out whether or not treating vitiligo at home with a narrowband ultraviolet B light, either by itself or with a steroid ointment, is better than treatment using a steroid ointment only. We enrolled 517 children (aged ≥ 5 years) and adults who had small, active (i.e. recently changing) patches of vitiligo into the study. Participants received one of three possible treatment options: steroid ointment (plus dummy light), hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B light therapy (plus placebo ointment) or both treatments used together. We asked participants to judge how noticeable their target vitiligo patch was after 9 months of treatment. We considered the treatment to be successful if the participants' responses were either 'a lot less noticeable' or 'no longer noticeable'. The results showed that using both treatments together was better than using a steroid ointment on its own. Around one-quarter of participants (27%) who used both treatments together said that their vitiligo was either 'no longer noticeable' or 'a lot less noticeable' after 9 months of treatment. This was compared with 17% of those using steroid ointment on its own and 22% of those using narrowband ultraviolet B light on its own. All treatments were able to stop the vitiligo from spreading. Patches on the hands and feet were less likely to respond to treatment than patches on other parts of the body. The trial found that the vitiligo tended to return once treatments were stopped, so ongoing intermittent treatment may be needed to maintain the treatment response. The treatments were found to be relatively safe and easy to use, but light treatment required a considerable time commitment (approximately 20 minutes per session, two or three times per week). This trial showed that using steroid ointment and narrowband ultraviolet B light together is likely to be better than steroid ointment alone for people with small patches of vitiligo. Steroid ointment alone can still be effective for some people and remains a useful treatment that is able to stop vitiligo from spreading. The challenge is to make hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B light treatment available as normal care in the NHS for people with vitiligo.

The Association of Industry Payments to Physicians with Prescription of Brand-Name Intranasal Corticosteroids.

Objectives To examine the association of industry payments for brand-name intranasal corticosteroids with prescribing patterns. Study Design Cross-sectional retrospective analysis. Setting Nationwide. Subjects and Methods We identified physicians prescribing intranasal corticosteroids to Medicare beneficiaries 2014-2015 and physicians receiving payment for the brand-name intranasal corticosteroids Dymista and Nasonex. Prescription and payment data were linked by physician, and we compared the proportion of prescriptions written for brand-name intranasal corticosteroids in industry-compensated vs non-industry-compensated physicians. We associated the number and dollar amount of industry payments with the relative frequency of brand-name prescriptions. Results In total, 164,587 physicians prescribing intranasal corticosteroids were identified, including 7937 (5%) otolaryngologists; 10,800 and 3886 physicians received industry compensation for Dymista and Nasonex, respectively. Physicians receiving industry payment for Dymista prescribed more Dymista as a proportion of total intranasal corticosteroid prescriptions than noncompensated physicians (3.1% [SD = 9.6%] vs 0.2% [SD = 2.5%], respectively, P < .001). Similar trends were seen for Nasonex (12.0% [SD = 16.8%] vs 4.8% [SD = 13.6%], P < .001). The number and dollar amount of payment were significantly correlated to the relative frequency of Dymista (ρ = 0.26, P < .001 and ρ = 0.20, P < .001, respectively) and Nasonex prescriptions (ρ = 0.09, P < .001 and ρ = 0.15, P < .001, respectively). For Dymista, this association was stronger in otolaryngologists than general practitioners ( P < .001). There was a stronger correlation between the percentage of prescriptions and the number and dollar amount of payments for Dymista than for Nasonex ( P = .014 and P < .001). Conclusions Industry compensation for brand-name intranasal corticosteroids is significantly associated with prescribing patterns. The magnitude of association may depend on physician specialty and the drug's time on the market.

Comparison of the Efficacy, Side Effects, and Cost of Modafinil and Intranasal Mometasone Furoate in Obstructive Sleep Apnea-Hypopnea Syndrome: A Preliminary Clinical Study.

BACKGROUND Obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS) is characterized by repeated episodes of reduction in airflow due to the collapse of the upper airway during sleep. The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcome, side effects, and cost of treatment between modafinil and intranasal mometasone furoate in patients with OSAHS. MATERIAL AND METHODS Patients with OSAHS (N=250) were divided into two groups: the modafinil group (MG) (N=125) were treated with 100 mg modafinil twice a day; the intranasal mometasone furoate group (IMFG) (N=125) were treated with 100 µg of intranasal mometasone furoate in the evening. Quality of life, grading of OSAHS, plain-film radiography, the adenoidal-nasopharyngeal ratio (AN ratio), side effects, cost of treatment, and beneficial effects after discontinuation of treatment were evaluated for all patients. RESULTS Duration of sleep apnea was significantly reduced in the IMFG compared with the MG (p=0.0145, q=9.262). Modafinil and intranasal mometasone furoate both had moderate effects on improvement of the OSAHS score. The IMFG showed a significantly greater beneficial effect on the AN ratio when compared with the MG (p=0.0001, q=6.584). No adverse events of treatment with modafinil and intranasal mometasone furoate were reported. Cost of treatment and beneficial effect after discontinuation were both significantly greater for the IMFG compared with the MG. CONCLUSIONS The findings of this preliminary clinical study were that for patients diagnosed with OSAHS, night-time treatment with intranasal mometasone furoate was more effective than modafinil.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of mometasone furoate versus beclomethasone dipropionate for the treatment of pediatric allergic rhinitis in Colombia.

INTRODUCTION: Allergic rhinitis (AR) is one of the most common chronic respiratory diseases observed in the pediatric population, producing a significant morbidity, and an economic burden due to direct medical costs and indirect costs. Despite the high prevalence of AR in children and the importance of the use of topical intranasal corticosteroids for its treatment, comparative analyses of alternative treatments in pediatric patients, in terms of both cost and effectiveness are lacking. METHODS: A decision-analysis model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) compared to beclomethasone dipropionate nasal spray (BDNS) for treating pediatric patients with AR over a 12-month period. Effectiveness parameters were obtained from a published study in which authors performed a systematic review of the literature. Cost data were obtained from a hospital's bills and from the national manual of drug prices. The study assumed the perspective of the national healthcare in Colombia. The outcomes were three effectiveness measures summarized in a therapeutic index (TIX). RESULTS: For the base-case analysis, the model showed that compared to BDNS, therapy with MFNS was associated with lower costs (US$229.78 vs. 289.74 average cost per patient over 12 months) and a greater improvement in TIX score (0.9724 vs. 0.8712 score points on average per patient over 12 months), thus leading to dominance. CONCLUSION: The present analysis shows that in Colombia, compared with BDNS, therapy with MFNS for treating pediatric patients with AR is a dominant strategy because it showed a greater improvement in a TIX reflecting both efficacy and safety, at lower total treatment costs.