Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35909186›Full record

ReviewDermatology and therapy2022

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

Atsuyuki Igarashi, Akira Yuasa, Naohiro Yonemoto, Kazumasa Kamei, Michael LoPresti, Toshiaki Murofushi, Shunya Ikeda

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Dermatology and therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Comparing EQ-5D-5L, PROPr, SF-6D and TTO utilities in patients with chronic skin diseases.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2025
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Atsuyuki IgarashiDepartment of Dermatology, NTT Medical Center Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Akira YuasaPfizer Japan Inc., Shinjuku Bunka Quint Building, 3-22-7, Yoyogi, Shibuya-ku, Tokyo, 151-8589, Japan. akira.yuasa@pfizer.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3699-7231
Naohiro YonemotoPfizer Japan Inc., Shinjuku Bunka Quint Building, 3-22-7, Yoyogi, Shibuya-ku, Tokyo, 151-8589, Japan.
Kazumasa KameiPfizer Japan Inc., Shinjuku Bunka Quint Building, 3-22-7, Yoyogi, Shibuya-ku, Tokyo, 151-8589, Japan.
Michael LoPrestiINTAGE Healthcare Inc., Tokyo, Japan.
Toshiaki MurofushiINTAGE Healthcare Inc., Tokyo, Japan.
Shunya IkedaDepartment of Public Health, School of Medicine, International University of Health and Welfare, Narita, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPsoriasis (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.

methodsA 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.).

resultsA 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.

conclusionsEconomic 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.

Indexed as

Atopic dermatitisChronic urticariaCost analysisEconomic evaluationsPsoriasisPsoriatic arthritisSystematic reviewTreatment cost

Identifiers

PMID35909186
PMCPMC9357586

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.