I Elías1, N Ortega-Joaquín1, P de la Cueva2, L J Del Pozo3, D Moreno-Ramírez4, A Boada5, M Aguilar6, A Mirada7, E Mosquera7, C Gibbons8, I Oyagüez9. 1. Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research Iberia, Madrid, España. 2. Departamento de Dermatología, Hospital Universitario Infanta Leonor, Madrid, España. 3. Departamento de Dermatología, Hospital Universitario Son Espases, Mallorca, España. 4. Departamento de Dermatología, Hospital Universitario Virgen de la Macarena, Sevilla, España. 5. Departamento de Dermatología, Hospital Universitario Germans Trias i Pujol, Badalona, Barcelona, España. 6. Departamento de Dermatología, Hospital Costa del Sol, Marbella, Málaga, España. 7. Laboratorios LEO Pharma, S. A., Barcelona, España. 8. LEO Pharma, Berkshire, Reino Unido. 9. Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research Iberia, Madrid, España. Electronic address: ioyaguez@porib.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To perform a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of ingenol mebutate in the treatment of actinic keratosis in Spain. METHODS: We used an adapted Markov model to simulate outcomes in a cohort of patients (mean age, 73 years) with actinic keratosis over a 5-year period. The comparators were diclofenac 3% and imiquimod 5%. The analysis was performed from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System based on direct costs (2015 retail price plus value added tax less the mandatory discount). A panel of experts estimated resources, taking unit costs from national databases. An annual discount rate of 3% was applied. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The effectiveness of ingenol mebutate-with 0.192 and 0.129 more clearances gained in treatments for face and scalp lesions and trunk and extremity lesions, respectively-was superior to diclofenac's. The total costs of treatment with ingenol mebutate were lower at € 551.50 (face and scalp) and € 622.27 (trunk and extremities) than the respective costs with diclofenac (€ 849.11 and € 844.93). The incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios showed that ingenol mebutate was a dominant strategy vs diclofenac. Ingenol mebutate also proved to be more effective than imiquimod, based on 0.535 and 0.503 additional clearances, and total costs of € 551.50 and € 527.89 for the two drugs, respectively. The resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was € 728.64 per clearance gained with ingenol mebutate vs imiquimod. CONCLUSIONS: Ingenol mebutate was a dominant treatment option vs diclofenac and was efficient vs imiquimod (i.e., more effective at a higher cost, achieving an incremental cost-utility ratio of<€30000/quality-adjusted life-years).
OBJECTIVE: To perform a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of ingenol mebutate in the treatment of actinic keratosis in Spain. METHODS: We used an adapted Markov model to simulate outcomes in a cohort of patients (mean age, 73 years) with actinic keratosis over a 5-year period. The comparators were diclofenac 3% and imiquimod 5%. The analysis was performed from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System based on direct costs (2015 retail price plus value added tax less the mandatory discount). A panel of experts estimated resources, taking unit costs from national databases. An annual discount rate of 3% was applied. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The effectiveness of ingenol mebutate-with 0.192 and 0.129 more clearances gained in treatments for face and scalp lesions and trunk and extremity lesions, respectively-was superior to diclofenac's. The total costs of treatment with ingenol mebutate were lower at € 551.50 (face and scalp) and € 622.27 (trunk and extremities) than the respective costs with diclofenac (€ 849.11 and € 844.93). The incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios showed that ingenol mebutate was a dominant strategy vs diclofenac. Ingenol mebutate also proved to be more effective than imiquimod, based on 0.535 and 0.503 additional clearances, and total costs of € 551.50 and € 527.89 for the two drugs, respectively. The resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was € 728.64 per clearance gained with ingenol mebutate vs imiquimod. CONCLUSIONS:Ingenol mebutate was a dominant treatment option vs diclofenac and was efficient vs imiquimod (i.e., more effective at a higher cost, achieving an incremental cost-utility ratio of<€30000/quality-adjusted life-years).
Authors: Keith Tolley; Giuseppe Argenziano; Pier Giacomo Calzavara-Pinton; Thomas Larsson; Lasse Ryttig Journal: Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 3.219