ArticleAdvances in therapy2015
Cost-utility of first-line actinic keratosis treatments in Finland.
Article in Advances in therapy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Modeled Health Economic Impact of a Hypothetical Certolizumab Pegol Risk-Sharing Scheme for Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis in Finland.Advances in therapy · 2017Pooled it
- Pharmacoeconomic Considerations in Treating Actinic Keratosis: An Update.PharmacoEconomics · 2017Pooled it
- Health utilities for non-melanoma skin cancers and pre-cancerous lesions: A systematic review.Skin health and disease · 2021Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Coronary and Peripheral Artery Disease Antithrombotic Treatments in Finland.Advances in therapy · 2020Article
- Cost Assessment Modelling of Treatments for Highly Active Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis.Advances in therapy · 2020Article
- Economic Value of Adjunctive Brivaracetam Treatment Strategy for Focal Onset Seizures in Finland.Advances in therapy · 2020Article
- Patient-reported health outcomes in patients with non-melanoma skin cancer and actinic keratosis: results from a large-scale observational study analysing effects of diagnoses and disease progression.Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2018Observational
- Cost-effectiveness of pulse-echo ultrasonometry in osteoporosis management.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2018Article
- Pharmacoeconomic evaluations in the treatment of actinic keratoses.International journal of immunopathology and pharmacology · 2017Article
- Cost-effectiveness of apixaban and warfarin in the prevention of thromboembolic complications among atrial fibrillation patients.SpringerPlus · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCost-utility assessment of first-line actinic keratosis (AK) treatments for max 25 cm2 AK field.
methodsA probabilistic, 2-year decision tree model was used to assess costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), cost-effectiveness efficiency frontier, cost-effectiveness acceptability frontier (CEAF), and expected value of perfect information (EVPI) of AK treatments from the Finnish health care payer perspective with 3% discounting per annum. In the model, the first-line AK treatment resulted in complete clearance (CC) or non-CC with or without local skin responses (LSR), or AK recurrence. Non-CC AK was treated with methyl aminolevulinate+photodynamic therapy (MAL+PDT), and AK recurrence was retreated with the previous effective treatment. Costs included primary and secondary health care, outpatient drugs, and LSR management. QALYs were assessed with the EuroQol (EQ-5D-3L). Result robustness was assessed with sensitivity analyses.
resultsThe mean simulated per patient QALYs (costs) were 1.526 (€982) for MAL+PDT, 1.524 (€794) for ingenol mebutate gel (IngMeb) 0.015% (3 days), 1.522 (€869) for IngMeb 0.05% (2 days), 1.520 (€1062) for diclofenac 3% (12 weeks), 1.518 (€885) for imiquimod 3.75% (6 weeks), 1.517 (€781) for imiquimod 5% (4/8 weeks), and 1.514 (€1114) for cryosurgery when treating AK affecting any body part. IngMeb 0.015% was less costly and more effective (dominating) than other AK treatments indicated for face and scalp area with the exception of imiquimod 5% for which the ICER was estimated at €1933/QALY gained and MAL+PDT, which had an ICER of €82,607/QALY gained against IngMeb 0.015%. With willingness-to-pay €2526-18,809/QALY gained, IngMeb 0.015% had >50% probability for cost-effectiveness on the CEAF. IngMeb 0.05% dominated AK treatments indicated for trunk and extremities. EVPIs for face and scalp (trunk and extremities) analyses were €26 (€0), €86 (€58), and €250 (€169) per patient with the willingness-to-pay of €0, €15,000, and €30,000 per QALY gained, respectively.
conclusionIngMebs were cost-effective AK treatments in Finland.
fundingLEO Pharma.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.