Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorChen, Suephy
dc.contributor.authorShaheen, Allison
dc.contributor.authorGarber, Alan M
dc.date.accessioned2014-01-28T20:32:39Z
dc.date.issued1998
dc.identifierQuick submit: 2013-12-19T21:49:21-05:00
dc.identifier.citationChen, 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.en_US
dc.identifier.issn0003-987Xen_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:11595724
dc.description.abstractDesign 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.en_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherAmerican Medical Associationen_US
dc.relation.isversionofdoi:10.1001/archderm.134.12.1602en_US
dc.relation.isversionofhttp://archderm.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=189710en_US
dash.licenseMETA_ONLY
dc.titleCost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis of using methotrexate vs goeckerman therapy for psoriasisen_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.date.updated2013-12-20T02:50:42Z
dc.description.versionVersion of Recorden_US
dc.rights.holderChen S; Shaheen A; Garber AM
dc.relation.journalArchives of Dermatologyen_US
dash.depositing.authorGarber, Alan M
dash.embargo.until10000-01-01
dc.identifier.doi10.1001/archderm.134.12.1602*
workflow.legacycommentsFLAG2: Cannot use publisher's version. Must obtain author's submitted version.en_US
dash.contributor.affiliatedGarber, Alan


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record