Cost‐effectiveness of topical pharmacological, oral pharmacological, physical and combined treatments for acne vulgaris

Acne vulgaris is a common skin condition that may cause psychosocial distress. There is evidence that topical treatment combinations, chemical peels and photochemical therapy (combined blue/red light) are effective for mild‐to‐moderate acne, while topical treatment combinations, oral antibiotics combined with topical treatments, oral isotretinoin and photodynamic therapy are most effective for moderate‐to‐severe acne. Effective treatments have varying costs. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England considers cost‐effectiveness when producing national clinical, public health and social care guidance.

[1]  D. Thiboutot,et al.  Reviewing the global burden of acne: how could we improve care to reduce the burden? * , 2020, The British journal of dermatology.

[2]  Medicines And Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency , 2020, Definitions.

[3]  B. Sevimli Dikicier.  Topical treatment of acne vulgaris: efficiency, side effects, and adherence rate , 2019, The Journal of international medical research.

[4]  A. Layton,et al.  The management of acne vulgaris in primary care: a cohort study of consulting and prescribing patterns using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink , 2017, The British journal of dermatology.

[5]  L. Curtis,et al.  Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2016 , 2015 .

[6]  K Bhate,et al.  A global perspective on the epidemiology of acne , 2015, The British journal of dermatology.

[7]  Yooyun Chung,et al.  Saving the NHS one blood test at a time , 2014, BMJ quality improvement reports.

[8]  A. Aa.  Assessment of general health and quality of life in patients with acne using a validated generic questionnaire. , 2009 .

[9]  John Brazier,et al.  Deriving an algorithm to convert the eight mean SF-36 dimension scores into a mean EQ-5D preference-based score from published studies (where patient level data are not available). , 2008, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[10]  C. Gerlinger,et al.  A Noninferiority Margin for Acne Lesion Counts , 2008 .

[11]  M. Aalabaf-Sabaghi.  Decision modelling for health economic evaluation , 2007, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

[12]  Deborah M Caldwell,et al.  Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence , 2005, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[13]  G. Lu,et al.  Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons , 2004, Statistics in medicine.

[14]  Jerry Tan,et al.  Psychosocial impact of acne vulgaris: evaluating the evidence. , 2004, Skin therapy letter.

[15]  H. Baldwin.  The interaction between acne vulgaris and the psyche. , 2002, Cutis.

[16]  M. Sculpher,et al.  Representing uncertainty: the role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. , 2001, Health economics.

[17]  J. Newton,et al.  Measuring quality of life in people referred for specialist care of acne: comparing generic and disease-specific measures. , 2000, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

[18]  Paul Kind,et al.  UK population norms for EQ-5D , 1999 .