The Use of Decision-Analytical Modelling in Economic Evaluation of Patch Testing in Allergic Contact Dermatitis
Abstract
Objective: The objective of this observational prospective study was to demonstrate the cost effectiveness of patch testing in patients suspected of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) and to determine the order in which different severity groups rank in terms of cost effectiveness. Design and Setting: This observational study was conducted on 567 patients from 10 investigator sites in the US over a period of 1 year. All patients with a suspicion of contact allergy who exhibited at least moderate disease activity were included in the study and were stratified according to disease severity and whether or not they were patch tested. In each severity category, the cost effectiveness of patch testing was evaluated. Patients who were ruled out for contact allergy (without the use of patch test) by the first 6 months after admission were excluded. A validated dermatology-specific quality of life (DSQL) instrument was administered to all patients at the start of the study, and at 6 and 12 months thereafter. The cost-effectiveness analysis is demonstrated using a decision-analytical model. Costs included office visits and prescription costs without generic substitution. The cost of patch testing was not included due to the large variation in price among commercially available products. Main Outcome Measures and Results: Patch testing was performed on 22% of patients with mild disease, 41% of patients with moderate disease and 50% of those with severe disease. There was a significant difference between the patch-tested and non-patch-tested groups in terms of the time to obtain a confirmed diagnosis (medians = 8 and 175 days, respectively) and a significant difference in the ratio of patients who had a confirmed diagnosis (88 and 69%, respectively). As a result of changes made in their lifestyle, 66% of patients in the patch-tested group and 51% in the non-patch-tested group reported 75% or more improvement in their disease symptoms after 6 months. Early confirmation of diagnosis helped reduce the prediagnosis cost of treatment which was mostly based on preliminary diagnosis. The greatest quality-of-life (QOL) benefits from patch testing relative to nonpatch testing occurred in patients with recurrent/chronic ACD. Conclusions: Patch testing is most cost effective and reduces the cost of therapy in patients with severe ACD. Greater improvements in quality of life were seen in patients with recurrent/chronic ACD who were patch tested than patients who were not patch tested within the same group. Results were not sensitive to changes due to the addition of indirect costs or costs using generic substitution.Download Info
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic Info
Article provided by Springer Healthcare | Adis in its journal PharmacoEconomics.
Volume (Year): 14 (1998)
Issue (Month): 1 ()
Pages: 79-95
Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML
(with abstract),
plain text
(with abstract),
BibTeX,
RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite),
ReDIF
Handle: RePEc:wkh:phecon:v:14:y:1998:i:1:p:79-95
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://pharmacoeconomics.adisonline.com/
For corrections or technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Dave Dustin).
Related research
Keywords: Pharmacoeconomics; Clinical-trial-design; Cost-utility; Quality-adjusted-life-years; Contact-dermatitis; Provocation-tests;Find related papers by JEL classification:
- C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods
- D - Microeconomics
- I - Health, Education, and Welfare
- Z - Other Special Topics
- I1 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health
- I19 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Other
- I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
- I11 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Analysis of Health Care Markets
References
No references listed on IDEASYou can help add them by filling out this form.
Citations
Lists
This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.Statistics
Access and download statisticsCorrections
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wkh:phecon:v:14:y:1998:i:1:p:79-95For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dave Dustin).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.