Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology (Dec 2020)
Cost Effectiveness of Emollients in the Prevention of Relapses in Atopic Dermatitis
Abstract
Elise Cabout,1 Sebastien Eymere,1 Robert Launois,1 Flavia Aslanian,2 Charles Taïeb,3,4 Sophie Seité5 1Réseau d’évaluation en Économie de la Santé (REES), Paris, France; 2Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust, London, UK; 3EMMA, Fontenay-sous-Bois, France; 4Hôpital Necker Enfants-Malades, Santé Publique, Paris, France; 5La Roche-Posay Dermatological Laboratories, Levallois-Perret, FranceCorrespondence: Sophie SeitéLa Roche-Posay Dermatological Laboratories, 62 Quai Charles Pasqua, Levallois-Perret 92300, FranceTel +33 1 49 64 33 40Email [email protected]: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is chronic inflammatory skin condition, characterized by its remission-relapse cycles. This predominantly pediatric disease is becoming more and more prevalent. Emollients are part of the therapeutic management and particularly a way to increase time between relapses. The follow-up of AD and relapses have a great impact on patient’s quality of life, expenditures and society costs. The aim of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of different emollients prescribed to AD patients.Methods: A three-state Markov simulation model was developed over a six-year period with 28 days cycles. Two perspectives were adopted, a health care system perspective and a societal perspective. Four different emollients (A, B, C, D) were compared with no emollient use. Time without flare-up was the key endpoint of the study. quality adjusted life-years (QALYs) were assessed as a secondary outcome. Cost and effectiveness data were derived from (i) randomized clinical trials and literature review for the efficacy of treatments, (ii) resource utilization and quality of life data, and (iii) unit prices from official price lists.Results: The six-year health care costs associated with emollient A amount to £ 1844.23 and generate 4.58 years-without flare-up. Compared to emollient B, emollient A is costlier (Δ £ 41) but more effective (0.097 years). The ICER is £ 428.30 per year without flare-up. Emollient A is the dominant strategy compared to no treatment (£ 2,251.01; 3.99 years without flare-ups). When accounting for the societal costs, emollient A is the dominant strategy.Discussion: According to the analysis, treatment with preventive emollient was a cost-effective option compared with no treatment in adult AD patients. In this comparative study, emollient A is the most efficient strategy from a willingness to pay £ 200 with a probability of 49%.Keywords: atopic dermatitis, cost-effectiveness, Markov model
