Economic evaluation of blue-light therapy

What is it about?

Mild-to-moderate chronic plaque psoriasis is often treated using various medications or combinations of medications. Blue-light therapy, produced by a portable medical device, represents an alternative way to treat this disease. The aim of this study was to investigate cost-effectiveness of blue-light therapy versus a two-compound formulation (TCF) (Dovobet® gel (calcipotriol and betamethasone))in mild-to-moderate chronic plaque psoriasis. A Markov model was used to describe the course of disease amongst Dutch patients with a psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) score ≤ 10 over a 52-week time horizon. Effectiveness outcomes were % reduction in PASI and disease-controlled days (DCDs). Costs were calculated using updated results of previous studies and other sources. Our results showed that there was no significant difference in PASI reduction between blue-light therapy and TCF (71% vs. 72%) (difference: 1%; 95%CI: -7%, 3%). However, blue-light therapy was associated with a cost-savings of €248 (95%CI: €92, €437) since its total costs were €886 vs. €832 for TCF. Consequently, treatment of mild-to-moderate chronic plaque psoriasis using blue-light therapy may be more cost-effective than TCF. Further studies of the long-term efficacy and safety of blue-light therapy would help to reduce uncertainty about its cost-effectiveness.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

Many Dutch patients with mild-to-moderate psoriasis currently receive semi-liquid dosage forms (ointment or gel) of different mono-therapies or combination therapies as a first-line therapy. Blue-light therapy represents a new option to these types of treatment and our study suggests that blue-light therapy followed by UVB is cost-effective versus TCF followed by UVB since it is similar in effectiveness but could reduce total costs over a 52-week period.

Perspectives