A trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis of topical 5-fluorouracil vs. imiquimod vs. ingenol mebutate vs. methyl aminolaevulinate conventional photodynamic therapy for the treatment of actinic keratosis in the head and neck area performed in the Netherlands

M H E Jansen, J P H M Kessels, I Merks, P J Nelemans, N W J Kelleners-Smeets, K Mosterd, B A B Essers, M H E Jansen, J P H M Kessels, I Merks, P J Nelemans, N W J Kelleners-Smeets, K Mosterd, B A B Essers

Abstract

Background: Actinic keratosis (AK) is a common premalignant skin condition that might have the ability to progress into squamous cell carcinoma. Due to the high incidence of AK, treatment of this disease significantly impacts healthcare spending.

Objectives: To determine which commonly prescribed field-directed treatment is the most cost-effective, when comparing 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) 5%, imiquimod (IMQ) 5%, ingenol mebutate (IM) 0·015% and methyl aminolaevulinate photodynamic therapy (MAL-PDT) for AK in the head and neck region.

Methods: We performed an economic evaluation from a healthcare perspective. Data were collected alongside a single-blinded, prospective, multicentre randomized controlled trial with 624 participants in the Netherlands. The outcome measure was expressed as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, which is the incremental costs per additional patient with ≥ 75% lesion reduction compared with baseline. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02281682.

Results: The trial showed that 5-FU was the most effective field treatment for AK in the head and neck region. Twelve months post-treatment, the total mean costs for 5-FU were significantly lower (€433) than the €728, €775 and €1621 for IMQ, IM and MAL-PDT, respectively. The results showed that 5-FU was a dominant cost-effective treatment (more effective and less expensive) compared with the other treatments, 12 months post-treatment.

Conclusions: Based on these results, we consider 5-FU 5% cream as the first-choice treatment option for multiple AKs in the head and neck area. What's already known about this topic? Due to the increasing incidence of actinic keratosis (AK), the recommended treatment results in a considerable socioeconomic burden for (dermatological) healthcare. Although cost-effectiveness modelling studies have been performed in which different treatments for AK were compared, a prospective clinical trial comparing four frequently prescribed treatments on effectiveness and resource consumption within a time horizon of 12 months has never been conducted. What does this study add? This is the first study examining the cost-effectiveness of 5-fluorouracil 5% cream, imiquimod 5% cream, ingenol mebutate 0·015% gel and methyl aminolaevulinate photodynamic therapy, with data collected in a randomized controlled trial over a time horizon of 12 months. We found that 5-fluorouracil was a dominant cost-effective treatment (more effective and less costly), based on data from the Netherlands. Linked Comment: Steeb et al. Br J Dermatol 2020; 183:612.

© 2020 The Authors. British Journal of Dermatology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Cost‐effectiveness plane for 5‐fluorouracil (5‐FU) vs. imiquimod (IMQ), 5‐FU vs. ingenol mebutate (IM) and 5‐FU vs. methyl aminolaevulinate photodynamic therapy (MAL‐PDT). The bootstrapped incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios of 5‐FU compared with the other treatments cover 100% of the quadrant in which 5‐FU is a dominant treatment. Therefore it is a more effective and cost‐saving treatment.

References

    1. Gupta AK, Paquet M, Villanueva E et al Interventions for actinic keratoses. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 12:CD004415.
    1. Flohil SC, van der Leest RJ, Dowlatshahi EA et al Prevalence of actinic keratosis and its risk factors in the general population: the Rotterdam Study. J Invest Dermatol 2013; 133:1971–8.
    1. Nestor MS, Zarraga MB. The incidence of nonmelanoma skin cancers and actinic keratoses in South Florida. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol 2012; 5:20–4.
    1. Glogau RG. The risk of progression to invasive disease. J Am Acad Dermatol 2000; 42:23–4.
    1. Marks R, Rennie G, Selwood TS. Malignant transformation of solar keratoses to squamous cell carcinoma. Lancet 1988; 1:795–7.
    1. Werner RN, Sammain A, Erdmann R et al The natural history of actinic keratosis: a systematic review. Br J Dermatol 2013; 169:502–18.
    1. Jetter N, Chandan N, Wang S, Tsoukas M. Field cancerization therapies for management of actinic keratosis: a narrative review. Am J Clin Dermatol 2018; 19:543–57.
    1. Lanoue J, Chen C, Goldenberg G. Actinic keratosis as a marker of field cancerization in excision specimens of cutaneous malignancies. Cutis 2016; 97:415–20.
    1. Stockfleth E. The importance of treating the field in actinic keratosis. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2017; 31 (Suppl. 2):8–11.
    1. Siegel JA, Korgavkar K, Weinstock MA. Current perspective on actinic keratosis: a review. Br J Dermatol 2017; 177:350–8.
    1. Bickers DR, Lim HW, Margolis D et al The burden of skin diseases: 2004. A joint project of the American Academy of Dermatology Association and the Society for Investigative Dermatology. J Am Acad Dermatol 2006; 55:490–500.
    1. Calzavara‐Pinton P, Zane C, Arisi M et al Evaluation of the treatment costs of topical treatments for actinic keratosis based on lesion response and area affected. G Ital Dermatol Venereol 2018; 153:764–75.
    1. Nieves D, Puig‐Peiro R, Ferrandiz C et al Cost‐effectiveness analysis of 5‐fluorouracil 0.5%/salicylic acid 10% in the treatment of actinic keratosis in Spain. Expert Rev Pharmacoeconom Outcomes Res 2015; 15:539–43.
    1. Wojcik R, Lowin J, Vilardell D et al The cost‐effectiveness of 5‐FU‐SA in the treatment of actinic keratoses of the face and scalp in the UK secondary care setting. J Med Econ 2017; 20:221–7.
    1. Nistico S, Del Duca E, Torchia V et al Cost‐efficacy analysis of 3% diclofenac sodium, ingenol mebutate, and 3.75% imiquimod in the treatment of actinic keratosis. Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol 2018; 32:2058738418757925.
    1. Athanasakis K, Boubouchairopoulou N, Tarantilis F et al Cost‐effectiveness of ingenol mebutate gel for the treatment of actinic keratosis in Greece. Clin Ther 2017; 39:993–1002.
    1. van Rijsingen MC, Seubring I, Grutters JP et al Real‐life data on patient characteristics, cost and effectiveness of field‐directed treatment for actinic keratoses: an observational study. Acta Derm Venereol 2016; 96:346–50.
    1. Jansen MHE, Kessels JPHM, Nelemans PJ et al Randomized trial of four treatment approaches for actinic keratosis. N Engl J Med 2019; 380:935–46.
    1. Beljaards RC, Borgonjen RJ, Engelen JWM et al Richtlijn Actinische Keratose [Guideline on Actinic Keratosis]. Utrecht: Nederlandse Vereniging voor Dermatologie en Venereologie, 2010. (in Dutch).
    1. emc. Aldara 5% cream . Summary of product characteristics. Available at: (last accessed 23 January 2020).
    1. Hakkaart‐van Roijen L, Linden van der N, Bouwmands C et al Kostenhandleiding: methodologie van kostenonderzoek en referentieprijzen voor economsiche evaluaties in de gezondheidszorg [Costing manual: methodology of costing research and reference prices for economic evaluations in healthcare]. Available at: (last accessed 23 January 2020) (in Dutch).
    1. Central Bureau of Statistics . Inflation and prices. Available at: (last accessed 23 January 2020).
    1. Briggs AH, Wonderling DE, Mooney CZ. Pulling cost‐effectiveness analysis up by its bootstraps: a non‐parametric approach to confidence interval estimation. Health Econ 1997; 6:327–40.
    1. Wilson EC. Cost effectiveness of imiquimod 5% cream compared with methyl aminolevulinate‐based photodynamic therapy in the treatment of non‐hyperkeratotic, non‐hypertrophic actinic (solar) keratoses: a decision tree model. Pharmacoeconomics 2010; 28:1055–64.
    1. Whitehead SJ, Ali S. Health outcomes in economic evaluation: the QALY and utilities. Br Med Bull 2010; 96:5–21.
    1. Petrou S, Gray A. Economic evaluation alongside randomised controlled trials: design, conduct, analysis, and reporting. BMJ Clin Res Ed 2011; 342:d1548.
    1. Jakobsen JC, Gluud C, Wetterslev J et al When and how should multiple imputation be used for handling missing data in randomised clinical trials – a practical guide with flowcharts. BMC Med Res Methodol 2017; 17:162.
    1. Prescriptor . Pharmacotherapeutic Compass. Available at: (last accessed 23 January 2020).

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe