Prednicarbate versus Fluocortin for Inflammatory Dermatoses
- 1 August 1997
- journal article
- clinical trial
- Published by Springer Nature in PharmacoEconomics
- Vol. 12 (2) , 193-208
- https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199712020-00009
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare, from a societal perspective, the cost effectiveness of topical prednicarbate 0.25% and fluocortin 0.75% in the treatment of inflammatory dermatoses, such as dermatitis and eczema, in Spain. Effectiveness and tolerability were determined by means of a meta-analysis of 17 randomised double-blind controlled clinical trials, using a MEDLINE search and a second-level reference search. The data were obtained on the basis of a per-protocol assessment system, and the Mantel-Haenszel method (as modified by Peto) was used to make the statistical analysis. In terms of economic assessment, a model was developed in which the expected total cost was determined by the cost of the medicine (adjusted to the recommended dosage) plus the costs derived from the ineffectiveness and/or adverse effects associated with the different treatments. A sensitivity analysis was carried out on the basis of changes in: (i) clinical effectiveness; (ii) price of prednicarbate; (iii) incidence of adverse reactions; (iv) costs associated with ineffectiveness and/or adverse effects; and (v) the regimen under which prednicarbate was administered. The meta-analysis showed that there was a statistically significant difference between the 2 alternatives (p = 0.001). The value of a combined odds ratio [and 95% confidence interval (95% CI)] for the combined studies of prednicarbate was 1.54 (95% CI 1.10 to 2.15), compared with 0.73 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.89) for fluocortin relative to moderate or moderate-to-high potency corticosteroids. Effectiveness was 84.9% for prednicarbate and 69.7% for fluocortin, while frequency of adverse effects was 3.5% for prednicarbate and 4.9% for fluocortin. The total expected cost per patient treated was found to be 4600 Spanish pesetas (Pta) [$US37.10; 1996 values] for prednicarbate and Pta5778 ($US46.60; 1996 values) for fluocortin. The total expected cost per patient successfully treated was Pta5608 ($US45.20) for prednicarbate and Pta8680 ($US70) for fluocortin. Prednicarbate has been shown to have a favourable cost-effectiveness ratio, when compared with fluocortin, for the treatment of dermatitis and eczema in Spain. Additional pharmacoeconomic studies on topical corticosteroids are required, including the use of new variables, long term analysis and/or the measurements of the effect of the drug on patients’ quality of life.Keywords
This publication has 34 references indexed in Scilit:
- DOUBLE‐BLIND STUDY OF PREDNICARBATE VERSUS FLUOCORTIN BUTYL ESTER IN ATOPIC DERMATITISInternational Journal of Dermatology, 1996
- [Evaluation of scientific evidence].1995
- Methodologic guidelines for systematic reviews of randomized control trials in health care from the potsdam consultation on meta-analysisJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1995
- [Pharmacoeconomics: the calculation of efficiency].1994
- Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI)-a simple practical measure for routine clinical useClinical and Experimental Dermatology, 1994
- Adverse Drug Reactions to Various Topical Glucocorticosteroids: Quantitative AspectsPublished by S. Karger AG ,1992
- ECZEMAS AND ERYTHEMATOSQUAMOUS DERMATOSES OF AGED SKIN - EFFICACY AND COMPATIBILITY OF PREDNICARBATE IN VARIOUS VEHICLES1989
- [Chemistry and pharmacology of prednicarbate (Hoe 777), a halogen-free topical anti-inflammatory active derivative of prednisolone-17-ethyl carbonic acid ester].1986
- How to read clinical journals: VII. To understand an economic evaluation (part A).1984
- [On an improved device for measuring skin tearing strength. Technical description and experimental results obtained from rat skin following therapy with topical corticoids (author's transl)].1977