Process utilities for topical treatment in atopic dermatitis

Jenny Retzler, Adam Smith, Matthew Reaney, Raj Rout, Richard Hudson, Jenny Retzler, Adam Smith, Matthew Reaney, Raj Rout, Richard Hudson

Abstract

Purpose: Management of atopic dermatitis (AD) typically requires application of topical treatments, often multiple times a day. The cosmetic properties and burdensome application of these treatments can be detrimental to quality of life (QoL). Patients who achieve good disease control through use of systemic therapies may reduce the frequency and amount of topical applications, improving QoL. This study aimed to quantify the utility and disutility for topical AD treatment processes.

Methods: Seven vignettes describing different skincare regimens for people with moderate-to-severe AD were developed with input from healthcare professionals. 484 respondents from the general population completed time trade-off items for each vignette. Utility values for each regimen, and disutilities associated with the impact of changes to skincare regimens, were calculated. Analysis of variance assessed differences between skincare regimens.

Results: As skincare regimens increased in intensity (0.7968 for the most intense; 0.9999 for the least), utility values decreased. There were no statistically significant differences between skincare regimens followed by patients with good disease control (0.9862 to 0.9999); however, when compared to those involving topical corticosteroids and emollient combinations (0.7968 to 0.8835), significant differences were observed (p < 0.001). The largest disutilities (0.1521 to 0.1705) were between skincare regimens describing the use of topical corticosteroids plus emollient and those followed by patients with good disease control.

Conclusions: The application of topical treatments has a detrimental effect on QoL, which increases with the duration and frequency of applications. Further research is needed to investigate how health and process utilities interact and both can be integrated into medical decision-making.

Keywords: Atopic dermatitis; Process utility; Time trade-off; Topical treatment; Utility elicitation.

Conflict of interest statement

This work was conducted by York Health Economics Consortium (YHEC), and sponsored by Sanofi Genzyme. There are the following possible financial conflicts of interest: authors MR, RR and RH were employed by Sanofi Genzyme, JR was employed by YHEC, and ABS was provided with consultancy fees by YHEC. The authors report no non-financial conflicts of interest.

References

    1. Muto T, Hsieh SD, Sakurai Y, Yoshinaga H, Suto H, Okumura K, et al. Prevalence of atopic dermatitis in Japanese adults. British Journal of Dermatology. 2003;148(1):117–121. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2133.2003.05092.x.
    1. Barbarot S, Auziere S, Gadkari A, Girolomoni G, Puig L, Simpson EL, et al. Epidemiology of atopic dermatitis in adults: Results from an international survey. Allergy. 2018;73:1284. doi: 10.1111/all.13401.
    1. Zuberbier T, Orlow SJ, Paller AS, Taieb A, Allen R, Hernanz-Hermosa JM, et al. Patient perspectives on the management of atopic dermatitis. The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. 2006;118(1):226–232. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2006.02.031.
    1. Drucker AM, Wang AR, Li WQ, Sevetson E, Block JK, Qureshi AA. The burden of atopic dermatitis: Summary of a report for the national eczema association. Journal of Investigative Dermatology. 2017;137(1):26–30. doi: 10.1016/j.jid.2016.07.012.
    1. Simpson EL, Bieber T, Eckert L, Wu R, Ardeleanu M, Graham NM, et al. Patient burden of moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD): Insights from a phase 2b clinical trial of dupilumab in adults. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. 2016;74(3):491–498. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2015.10.043.
    1. Yu SH, Silverberg JI. Association between atopic dermatitis and depression in US adults. The Journal of Investigative Dermatology. 2015;135(12):3183–3186. doi: 10.1038/jid.2015.337.
    1. Eichenfield LF, Tom WL, Berger TG, Krol A, Paller AS, Schwarzenberger K, et al. Guidelines of care for the management of atopic dermatitis: section 2. Management and treatment of atopic dermatitis with topical therapies. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. 2014;71(1):116–132. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2014.03.023.
    1. Health Talk. 2018. Using leave-on emollients for eczema and side effects. Available from .
    1. Allergy UK, Sanofi Genzyme. Seeing red: Getting under the skin of adult eczema. 2017. Available from
    1. Su J, Kemp A, Varigos G, Nolan T. Atopic eczema: Its impact on the family and financial cost. Archives of Disease in Childhood. 1997;76(2):159–162. doi: 10.1136/adc.76.2.159.
    1. Carroll CL, Balkrishnan R, Feldman SR, Fleischer AB, Jr, Manuel JC. The burden of atopic dermatitis: Impact on the patient, family, and society. Pediatric Dermatology. 2005;22(3):192–199. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1470.2005.22303.x.
    1. Stewart KD, Johnston JA, Matza LS, Curtis SE, Havel HA, Sweetana SA, et al. Preference for pharmaceutical formulation and treatment process attributes. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016;10:1385–1399. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S101821.
    1. Florek AG, Wang CJ, Armstrong AW. Treatment preferences and treatment satisfaction among psoriasis patients: A systematic review. Archives of Dermatological Research. 2018;310(4):271–319. doi: 10.1007/s00403-018-1808-x.
    1. Fouere S, Adjadj L, Pawin H. How patients experience psoriasis: Results from a European survey. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. 2005;19(Suppl 3):2–6. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-3083.2005.01329.x.
    1. Schmitt J, Wozel G, Garzarolli M, Viehweg A, Bauer M, Leopold K. Effectiveness of interdisciplinary vs. dermatological care of moderate-to-severe psoriasis: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Acta dermato-venereologica. 2014;94(2):192–197. doi: 10.2340/00015555-1697.
    1. Eichenfield LF, Ahluwalia J, Waldman A, Borok J, Udkoff J, Boguniewicz M. Current guidelines for the evaluation and management of atopic dermatitis: A comparison of the Joint Task Force Practice Parameter and American Academy of Dermatology guidelines. Journal of Allergology. 2017;139(4S):S49–S57.
    1. Weidinger S, Novak N. Atopic dermatitis. Lancet. 2016;387:1109–1122. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00149-X.
    1. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care. 1997;35(11):1095–1108. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199711000-00002.
    1. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics. 2002;21(2):271–292. doi: 10.1016/S0167-6296(01)00130-8.
    1. Drummond MF, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2000.
    1. Brennan VK, Dixon S. Incorporating process utility into quality adjusted life years: A systematic review of empirical studies. PharmacoEconomics. 2013;31(8):677–691. doi: 10.1007/s40273-013-0066-1.
    1. Qualtrics. [program] Provo, UT; 2017. Available from: .
    1. McGill R, Tukey JW, Larsen WA. Variations of box plots. American Statistician. 1978;32(1):12–16.
    1. Schofield. J., Grindlay. D. & Williams, G. 2009. Skin conditions in the UK: A health care needs assessment.
    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Dupilumab for treating moderate to severe atopic dermatitis after topical treatments [ID1048]. Single Technology Appraisal 534. Committee Papers. 2018
    1. Eckert L, Gupta S, Amand C, Gadkari A, Mahajan P, Gelfand JM. Impact of atopic dermatitis on health-related quality of life and productivity in adults in the United States: An analysis using the National Health and Wellness Survey. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. 2017;77(2):274–279. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2017.04.019.
    1. Schmitt J, Meurer M, Klon M, Frick KD. Assessment of health state utilities of controlled and uncontrolled psoriasis and atopic eczema: A population-based study. British Journal of Dermatology. 2007;158(2):351–359. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2007.08354.x.
    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2013. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. Available from .
    1. Sullivan PW. Are utilities bounded at 1.0? Implications for statistical analysis and scale development. Medical Decision Making. 2011;31(6):787–789. doi: 10.1177/0272989X11400755.
    1. Stiggelbout AM, de Vogel-Voogt E. Health state utilities: A framework for studying the gap between the imagined and the real. Value Health. 2008;11(1):76–87. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00216.x.
    1. Krejci-Manwaring J, McCarty MA, Camacho F, Carroll CL, Johnson K, Manuel J, et al. Adherence with topical treatment is poor compared with adherence with oral agents: Implications for effective clinical use of topical agents. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. 2006;54(5 Suppl):S235–S236. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2005.10.060.
    1. Devaux S, Castela A, Archier E, Gallini A, Joly P, Misery L, et al. Adherence to topical treatment in psoriasis: A systematic literature review. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. 2012;26(Suppl 3):61–67. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-3083.2012.04525.x.
    1. Attema AE, Edelaar-Peeters Y, Versteegh MM, Stolk EA. Time trade-off: One methodology, different methods. The European Journal of Health Economics. 2013;14(S1):53–64. doi: 10.1007/s10198-013-0508-x.
    1. Ternent L, Tsuchiya A. A note on the expected biases in conventional iterative health state valuaion protocols. Medical Decision Making. 2013;33(4):544–546. doi: 10.1177/0272989X12475093.

Source: PubMed

スポンサーと協力者

医学的状態

薬物療法

3
購読する