Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis of using methotrexate vs goeckerman therapy for psoriasis

DSpace/Manakin Repository

Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis of using methotrexate vs goeckerman therapy for psoriasis

Citable link to this page

 

 
Title: Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis of using methotrexate vs goeckerman therapy for psoriasis
Author: Chen, Suephy; Shaheen, Allison; Garber, Alan M

Note: Order does not necessarily reflect citation order of authors.

Citation: Chen, Suephy, Allison Shaheen, and Alan M. Garber. 1998. Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis of using methotrexate vs goeckerman therapy for psoriasis. Archives of Dermatology 134, 12:1602-1608.
Access Status: Full text of the requested work is not available in DASH at this time (“dark deposit”). For more information on dark deposits, see our FAQ.
Full Text & Related Files:
Abstract: Design Net benefit and cost-effectiveness depend on the costs, efficacy, and utilities of therapy. Utilities are quantitative measures of patient preferences. We obtained costs by using resource-based accounting techniques. Efficacy was estimated from literature reports. We surveyed patients with psoriasis, dermatologists, and healthy subjects using utility assessment methods. All assumptions were examined in a sensitivity analysis.

Main Outcome Measures For net benefit, if benefits outweighed the costs, it was deemed worth providing. For the cost-effectiveness analysis, the ratio of costs-to-effectiveness of less than $35,000 was considered cost-effective.

Results Using utilities from healthy nonexperts, the costs of both therapies exceeded the benefits in mild and moderate psoriasis. In severe psoriasis, only methotrexate demonstrates a net benefit. Both therapies were cost-effective compared with no therapy. Liquid methotrexate should be chosen over the tablet form since it was cheaper and had the same outcome. Goeckerman was cost-effective against liquid methotrexate in severe, but not mild or moderate psoriasis. There was a trend for therapies to be more cost-effective when using patient utilities and less with dermatologist utilities. The results were highly sensitive to efficacy and utilities.

Conclusions The results of this study need to be confirmed in other settings, but they demonstrate that the tools of cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis have great potential value in dermatology. Once efficacy is better characterized and utilities better quantified, these types of analyses will be crucial for health care policy.
Published Version: doi:10.1001/archderm.134.12.1602
Citable link to this page: http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:11595724
Downloads of this work:

Show full Dublin Core record

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

 
 

Search DASH


Advanced Search
 
 

Submitters