Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
PharmacoEconomics
Published in: PharmacoEconomics 2/2017

01-02-2017 | Review article

Pharmacoeconomic Considerations in Treating Actinic Keratosis: An Update

Authors: Spencer M. Vale, Dane Hill, Steven R. Feldman

Published in: PharmacoEconomics | Issue 2/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Actinic keratosis is one of the most common dermatological diagnoses worldwide, especially among the elderly, fair-skinned, and immunocompromised, and is associated with a risk of transformation to skin cancer. With actinic keratosis and skin cancer prevalence increasing as the aged population expands in the US, optimizing treatment strategies may produce cost savings for the healthcare system. Since the time of our last review in 2008, investigation of the economic considerations in treating actinic keratosis has advanced. To provide an update of treatment cost effectiveness and to review factors relating to the costs of care, we conducted a systematic review of pharmacoeconomic publications since December 2008. We identified 11 pharmacoeconomic studies, with one cost-of-treatment, five cost-effectiveness, and five cost-utility analyses. Photodynamic therapy (PDT) was well tolerated and produced a favorable cosmetic outcome in most studies. Ingenol mebutate, the newest but most expensive topical field therapy, 5-fluorouracil, and PDT were the most cost-effective treatments in our review. Patient adherence to therapy and the management of adverse effects were significant contributors to treatment costs. In the US, treatment guidelines and formalized cost-effectiveness analyses for actinic keratosis are absent from the recent literature. Future pharmacoeconomic investigation will depend on up-to-date comparative efficacy data, as well as clarification of rates of, and management strategies for, adverse effects, therapeutic non-adherence, and lesion recurrence.
Literature
1.
Youl PH, Janda M, Aitken JF, Del Mar CB, Whiteman DC, Baade PD. Body-site distribution of skin cancer, pre-malignant and common benign pigmented lesions excised in general practice. BrJ Dermatol. 2011;165(1):35–43.CrossRef
2.
Lebwohl M. Actinic keratosis: epidemiology and progression to squamous cell carcinoma. Br J Dermatol. 2003;149(Suppl 66):31–3.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Traianou A, Ulrich M, Apalla Z, De Vries E, Bakirtzi K, Kalabalikis D, et al. Risk factors for actinic keratosis in eight European centres: a case-control study. Br J Dermatol. 2012;167(Suppl 2):36–42.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Rigel DS, Stein Gold LF. The importance of early diagnosis and treatment of actinic keratosis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013;68(1 Suppl 1):S20–7.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Landis ET, Davis SA, Taheri A, Feldman SR. Top dermatologic diagnoses by age. Dermatol Online J. 2014;20(4):22368.PubMed
6.
Salasche SJ. Epidemiology of actinic keratoses and squamous cell carcinoma. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2000;42(1 Pt 2):4–7.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Engel A, Johnson ML, Haynes SG. Health effects of sunlight exposure in the United States. Results from the first National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1971–1974. Arch Dermatol. 1988;124(1):72–9.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Flohil SC, van der Leest RJ, Dowlatshahi EA, Hofman A, de Vries E, Nijsten T. Prevalence of actinic keratosis and its risk factors in the general population: the Rotterdam Study. J Invest Dermatol. 2013;133(8):1971–8.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Feldman SR, Fleischer AB Jr. Progression of actinic keratosis to squamous cell carcinoma revisited: clinical and treatment implications. Cutis. 2011;87(4):201–7.PubMed
10.
Padilla RS, Sebastian S, Jiang Z, Nindl I, Larson R. Gene expression patterns of normal human skin, actinic keratosis, and squamous cell carcinoma: a spectrum of disease progression. Arch Dermatol. 2010;146(3):288–93.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Marks R, Rennie G, Selwood TS. Malignant transformation of solar keratoses to squamous cell carcinoma. Lancet. 1988;1(8589):795–7.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Criscione VD, Weinstock MA, Naylor MF, Luque C, Eide MJ, Bingham SF. Actinic keratoses: natural history and risk of malignant transformation in the Veterans Affairs Topical Tretinoin Chemoprevention Trial. Cancer. 2009;115(11):2523–30.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Werner RN, Sammain A, Erdmann R, Hartmann V, Stockfleth E, Nast A. The natural history of actinic keratosis: a systematic review. Br J Dermatol. 2013;169(3):502–18.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Chen GJ, Feldman SR, Williford PM, Hester EJ, Kiang SH, Gill I, et al. Clinical diagnosis of actinic keratosis identifies an elderly population at high risk of developing skin cancer. Dermatol Surg. 2005;31(1):43–7.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Ceilley RI, Jorizzo JL. Current issues in the management of actinic keratosis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013;68(1 Suppl 1):S28–38.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Guy GP Jr, Machlin SR, Ekwueme DU, Yabroff KR. Prevalence and costs of skin cancer treatment in the US, 2002–2006 and 2007–2011. Am J Prevent Med. 2015;48(2):183–7.CrossRef
17.
Murray CJ, Vos T, Lozano R, Naghavi M, Flaxman AD, Michaud C, et al. Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 291 diseases and injuries in 21 regions, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet. 2012;380(9859):2197–223.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Vos T, Barber R, Bell B, Bertozzi-Villa A, Biryukov S, Bolliger I, et al. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 301 acute and chronic diseases and injuries in 188 countries, 1990–2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet. 2015;386(9995):743–800.CrossRef
19.
Housman TS, Feldman SR, Williford PM, Fleischer AB Jr, Goldman ND, Acostamadiedo JM, et al. Skin cancer is among the most costly of all cancers to treat for the Medicare population. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2003;48(3):425–9.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Halpern AC, Hanson LJ. Awareness of, knowledge of and attitudes to nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) and actinic keratosis (AK) among physicians. Int J Dermatol. 2004;43(9):638–42.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Del Rosso JQ, Kircik L, Goldenberg G, Brian B. Comprehensive management of actinic keratoses: practical integration of available therapies with a review of a newer treatment approach. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2014;7(9 Suppl S2–S12):S2–S12.
22.
23.
Gupta AK, Paquet M, Villanueva E, Brintnell W. Interventions for actinic keratoses. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;12:4415.
24.
Gupta AK, Paquet M. Network meta-analysis of the outcome ‘participant complete clearance’ in nonimmunosuppressed participants of eight interventions for actinic keratosis: a follow-up on a Cochrane review. Br J Dermatol. 2013;169(2):250–9.CrossRefPubMed
25.
26.
27.
Rosen RH, Gupta AK, Tyring SK. Dual mechanism of action of ingenol mebutate gel for topical treatment of actinic keratoses: rapid lesion necrosis followed by lesion-specific immune response. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2012;66(3):486–93.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Lebwohl M, Swanson N, Anderson LL, Melgaard A, Xu Z, Berman B. Ingenol mebutate gel for actinic keratosis. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(11):1010–9.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Batalla A, Florez A, Feal C, Peon G, Abalde MT, Salgado-Boquete L, et al. Clinical response to ingenol mebutate in patients with actinic keratoses. Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2015;106(10):e55–61.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Werner RN, Stockfleth E, Connolly SM, Correia O, Erdmann R, Foley P, et al. Evidence- and consensus-based (S3) guidelines for the treatment of actinic keratosis—International League of Dermatological Societies in cooperation with the European Dermatology Forum—Short version. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2015;29(11):2069–79.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Neidecker MV, Davis-Ajami ML, Balkrishnan R, Feldman SR. Pharmacoeconomic considerations in treating actinic keratosis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27(6):451–64.CrossRefPubMed
32.
33.
34.
Higashi MK, Veenstra DL, Langley PC. Health economic evaluation of non-melanoma skin cancer and actinic keratosis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2004;22(2):83–94.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Kirby JS, Delikat A, Leslie D, Miller JJ. Bundled payment models for actinic keratosis management. JAMA Dermatol. 2016;152(7):789–97.CrossRefPubMed
36.
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(11):1055–64.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Colombo GL, Chimenti S, Di Matteo S, Fargnoli MC, Frascione P, Silipo V, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of topical treatments for actinic keratosis in the perspective of the Italian health care system. G Ital Dermatol Venereol. 2010;145(5):573–81.PubMed
38.
Zane C, Facchinetti E, Rossi MT, Specchia C, Calzavara-Pinton PG. A randomized clinical trial of photodynamic therapy with methyl aminolaevulinate vs. diclofenac 3 % plus hyaluronic acid gel for the treatment of multiple actinic keratoses of the face and scalp. Br J Dermatol. 2014;170(5):1143–50.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Nistico S, Torchia V, Gliozzi M, Bottoni U, Del Duca E, Muscoli C. Pharmacoeconomy of drugs used in the treatment of actinic keratoses. Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol. doi:10.​1177/​0394632016648707​. (Epub 11 May 2016).
40.
Nieves D, Puig-Peiro R, Ferrandiz C, Plazas MJ, Brosa M. Cost-effectiveness analysis of 5-fluorouracil 0.5%/salicylic acid 10% in the treatment of actinic keratosis in Spain. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2015;15(3):539–43.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Elias I, Ortega-Joaquin N, de la Cueva P, Del Pozo LJ, Moreno-Ramirez D, Boada A, et al. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of ingenol mebutate versus diclofenac 3 % and imiquimod 5 % in the treatment of actinic keratosis in Spain. Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2016;107(6):498–508.CrossRefPubMed
42.
43.
Neittaanmaki-Perttu N, Gronroos M, Karppinen T, Snellman E, Rissanen P. Photodynamic therapy for actinic keratoses: a randomized prospective non-sponsored cost-effectiveness study of daylight-mediated treatment compared with light-emitting diode treatment. Acta Derm Venereol. 2016;96(2):241–4.CrossRefPubMed
44.
van Rijsingen MC, Seubring I, Grutters JP, Maessen-Visch MB, Alkemade HA, van Doorn R, 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(3):346–50.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Tolley K, Kemmett D, Thybo S, Nasr R, Smethurst H. A cost-utility analysis of ingenol mebutate gel for the treatment of actinic keratosis: a Scottish perspective. Eur J Health Econ. 2016;17(3):287–304.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Athanasakis K, Boubouchairopoulou N, Tarantilis F, Tsiantou V, Kontodimas S, Kyriopoulos J. Cost-effectiveness analysis of topical filed treatment therapies for the treatment of actinic keratosis in Greece. Value Health. 2015;18(7):A422.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Di Matteo S, Colombo GL, Pellacani G, Bruno GM. Cost-effectiveness analysis of ingenolo mebutato verse imiquimod in the treatment of actinic keratoses in the perspective of the Italian Health System. Value Health. 2014;17(7):A608.CrossRefPubMed
48.
Ortega-Joaquin N, Elias I, de la Cueva P, Del Pozo LJ, Boada A, Moreno D, et al. Cost-utility analysis of ingenol mebutate versus imiquimod 5 % for actinic keratosis treatment in Spain. Value Health. 2015;18(7):A423.CrossRef
49.
Littenberg B, Partilo S, Licata A, Kattan MW. Paper Standard Gamble: the reliability of a paper questionnaire to assess utility. Med Decis Making. 2003;23(6):480–8.CrossRefPubMed
50.
Chen SC, Bayoumi AM, Soon SL, Aftergut K, Cruz P, Sexton SA, et al. A catalog of dermatology utilities: a measure of the burden of skin diseases. J Invest Dermatol Symp Proc. 2004;9(2):160–8.CrossRef
51.
Foley P, Stockfleth E, Peris K, Basset-Seguin N, Cerio R, Antonio Sanches J, et al. Adherence to topical therapies in actinic keratosis: a literature review. J Dermatol Treat. doi:10.​1080/​09546634.​2016.​1178372. (Epub 10 May 2016).
52.
Shergill B, Zokaie S, Carr AJ. Non-adherence to topical treatments for actinic keratosis. Patient Prefer Adher. 2013;8:35–41.
53.
Erntoft S, Norlin JM, Pollard C, Diepgen TL. Patient-reported adherence and persistence to topical treatments for actinic keratosis: a longitudinal diary study. Br J Dermatol. doi:10.​1111/​bjd.​14680. Epub 18 Apr 2016.
54.
Yentzer B, Hick J, Williams L, Inabinet R, Wilson R, Camacho FT, et al. Adherence to a topical regimen of 5-fluorouracil, 0.5 %, cream for the treatment of actinic keratoses. Arch Dermatol. 2009;145(2):203–5.CrossRefPubMed
55.
Stockfleth E, Peris K, Guillen C, Cerio R, Basset-Seguin N, Foley P, et al. A consensus approach to improving patient adherence and persistence with topical treatment for actinic keratosis. Int J Dermatol. 2015;54(5):509–15.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
56.
Feldman SR, Fleischer AB Jr, Williford PM, Jorizzo JL. Destructive procedures are the standard of care for treatment of actinic keratoses. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1999;40(1):43–7.CrossRefPubMed
57.
Stockfleth E, Peris K, Guillen C, Cerio R, Basset-Seguin N, Foley P, et al. Physician perceptions and experience of current treatment in actinic keratosis. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2015;29(2):298–306.CrossRefPubMed
58.
Balkrishnan R, Cayce KA, Kulkarni AS, Orsagh T, Gallagher JR, Richmond D, et al. Predictors of treatment choices and associated outcomes in actinic keratoses: results from a national physician survey study. J Dermatol Treat. 2006;17(3):162–6.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Pharmacoeconomic Considerations in Treating Actinic Keratosis: An Update
Authors
Spencer M. Vale
Dane Hill
Steven R. Feldman
Publication date
01-02-2017
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
PharmacoEconomics / Issue 2/2017
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-016-0462-4

Other articles of this Issue 2/2017

PharmacoEconomics 2/2017 Go to the issue

Original Research Article

Economic Evaluation in Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy: Model Frameworks for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Review Article

Abiraterone Acetate for the Treatment of Chemotherapy-Naïve Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of an NICE Single Technology Appraisal

Review Article

A Review of US Drug Costs Relevant to Medicare, Medicaid, and Commercial Insurers Post-Affordable Care Act Enactment, 2010–2016

Systematic Review

Systematic Review of the Cost Effectiveness of Insulin Analogues in Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Review Article

A Review of Ruxolitinib for the Treatment of Myelofibrosis: A Critique of the Evidence

Practical Application

Emergent Challenges in Determining Costs for Economic Evaluations