Cargando…

A Systematic Literature Review of Economic Evaluations and Cost Studies of the Treatment of Psoriasis, Atopic Dermatitis, and Chronic Urticaria

INTRODUCTION: Psoriasis (PSO), atopic dermatitis (AD), and chronic urticaria (CU) are common manifestations of immunological skin and subcutaneous conditions and have been shown to have a substantial impact on the quality of life of patients. The cost of treating those conditions can also be high, a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Igarashi, Atsuyuki, Yuasa, Akira, Yonemoto, Naohiro, Kamei, Kazumasa, LoPresti, Michael, Murofushi, Toshiaki, Ikeda, Shunya
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Healthcare 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9357586/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35909186
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13555-022-00774-2
Descripción
Sumario:INTRODUCTION: Psoriasis (PSO), atopic dermatitis (AD), and chronic urticaria (CU) are common manifestations of immunological skin and subcutaneous conditions and have been shown to have a substantial impact on the quality of life of patients. The cost of treating those conditions can also be high, as the use of biologic treatments has become more common for moderate to severe patients. In this review, we examine characteristics of economic evaluations and cost studies conducted for the three conditions. METHODS: A literature search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from January 1, 2016 to October 26, 2020 to identify economic evaluations where the cost of one or more drug treatment was evaluated and cost studies covering any intervention type. Each database was searched using keyword and MeSH terms related to treatment costs (e.g., health care cost, drug cost, etc.) and each condition (e.g., PSO, AD, eczema, CU, etc.). RESULTS: A total of 123 studies were reviewed, including 104 studies (85%) of PSO (including psoriasis, plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and psoriasis vulgaris), 14 studies (11%) of AD, and 5 studies (4%) of CU. Seventy-two studies (59%) reviewed reported the inclusion of biologic treatments, 10 studies (8%) did not include biologic treatments, and 41 studies (33%) did not report whether or not a biologic treatment was included. While nearly all studies (98%) included direct costs, only 22 studies (18%) included indirect costs. CONCLUSIONS: Economic evaluations for AD and CU may be needed in order to better understand the value of new treatments. Moreover, a clearer delineation for biologic treatments and indirect costs (i.e., productivity losses and gains) may be required. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13555-022-00774-2.