PURPOSE: The present study aimed to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of ingenol mebutate (IM) versus other topical alternatives for the treatment of actinic keratosis (AK). METHODS: The analysis used a decision tree to calculate the clinical effects and costs of AK first-line treatments, IM (2-3 days), diclofenac 3% (for 8 or 12 weeks), imiquimod 5% (for 4 or 8 weeks), during a 24-month horizon, using discrete intervals of 6 months. A hypothetical cohort of immunocompetent adult patients with clinically confirmed AK on the face and scalp or trunk and extremities was considered. Clinical data on the relative efficacy were obtained from a network meta-analysis. Inputs concerning resource use derived from an expert panel. All costs were calculated from a Greek third-party payer perspective. FINDINGS: IM 0.015% and 0.05% were both cost-effective compared with diclofenac and below a willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) (€199 and €167 per QALY, respectively). Comparing IM on the face and scalp AK lesions for 3 days versus imiquimod for 4 weeks resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €10,868 per QALY. IM was dominant during the 8-week imiquimod period. IM use on the trunk and extremities compared with diclofenac (8 or 12 weeks) led to incremental cost-effectiveness ratios estimated at €1584 and €1316 per QALY accordingly. Results remained robust to deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. IMPLICATIONS: From a social insurance perspective in Greece, IM 0.015% and IM 0.05% could be the most cost-effective first-line topical field treatment options in all cases for AK treatment.
PURPOSE: The present study aimed to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of ingenol mebutate (IM) versus other topical alternatives for the treatment of actinic keratosis (AK). METHODS: The analysis used a decision tree to calculate the clinical effects and costs of AK first-line treatments, IM (2-3 days), diclofenac 3% (for 8 or 12 weeks), imiquimod 5% (for 4 or 8 weeks), during a 24-month horizon, using discrete intervals of 6 months. A hypothetical cohort of immunocompetent adult patients with clinically confirmed AK on the face and scalp or trunk and extremities was considered. Clinical data on the relative efficacy were obtained from a network meta-analysis. Inputs concerning resource use derived from an expert panel. All costs were calculated from a Greek third-party payer perspective. FINDINGS: IM 0.015% and 0.05% were both cost-effective compared with diclofenac and below a willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) (€199 and €167 per QALY, respectively). Comparing IM on the face and scalp AK lesions for 3 days versus imiquimod for 4 weeks resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €10,868 per QALY. IM was dominant during the 8-week imiquimod period. IM use on the trunk and extremities compared with diclofenac (8 or 12 weeks) led to incremental cost-effectiveness ratios estimated at €1584 and €1316 per QALY accordingly. Results remained robust to deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. IMPLICATIONS: From a social insurance perspective in Greece, IM 0.015% and IM 0.05% could be the most cost-effective first-line topical field treatment options in all cases for AK treatment.
Authors: Aleksandra Lesiak; Anna Maćkowska; Igor A Bednarski; Paweł Kolano; Irmina Olejniczak-Staruch; Anna Woźniacka; Joanna Sieniawska; Joanna Narbutt Journal: Postepy Dermatol Alergol Date: 2019-08-30 Impact factor: 1.837
Authors: M H E Jansen; J P H M Kessels; I Merks; P J Nelemans; N W J Kelleners-Smeets; K Mosterd; B A B Essers Journal: Br J Dermatol Date: 2020-02-19 Impact factor: 9.302
Authors: Markus V Heppt; Igor Dykukha; Sara Graziadio; Rafael Salido-Vallejo; Matt Chapman-Rounds; Mary Edwards Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-03-16 Impact factor: 4.241