The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pimecrolimus and tacrolimus for atopic eczema: a systematic review and economic evaluation

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pimecrolimus and tacrolimus for atopic eczema: a systematic review and economic evaluation
The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pimecrolimus and tacrolimus for atopic eczema: a systematic review and economic evaluation
OBJECTIVES: To consider the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pimecrolimus for mild to moderate atopic eczema and tacrolimus for moderate to severe atopic eczema compared with current standard treatment in adults and children.
DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases. Experts and the manufacturers of these agents were also approached for information.
REVIEW METHODS: The systematic review was carried out using standard methodological guidelines and a stringent quality assessment strategy. A state transition (Markov) model was developed to estimate cost--utility of tacrolimus and pimecrolimus separately, compared with current standard practice with topical corticosteroids, (a) as first-line treatment and (b) as second-line treatment. Pimecrolimus was also compared to emollients only.
RESULTS: The pimecrolimus trial reports were of varying quality; however when compared with a placebo (emollient), pimecrolimus was found to be more effective and to provide quality of life improvements. There is very little evidence available about pimecrolimus compared with topical corticosteroids. Compared with a placebo (emollient), both 0.03% and 0.1% tacrolimus were found to be more effective. Compared with a mild corticosteroid, 0.03% tacrolimus is more effective in children as measured by a 90% or better improvement in the Physician's Global Evaluation (PGE). Compared with potent topical corticosteroids, no significant difference in effectiveness is seen with 0.1% tacrolimus as measured by a 75% or greater improvement in the PGE. Minor application site adverse effects are common with tacrolimus. However, this did not lead to increased rates of withdrawal from treatment in trial populations. The PenTag economic model demonstrates a large degree of uncertainty, which was explored in both deterministic and stochastic analyses. This is the case for the cost-effectiveness of pimecrolimus and tacrolimus in first- or second-line use compared with topical steroids. In all cases immunosuppressant regimes were estimated to be more costly than alternatives and differences in benefits to be small and subject to considerable uncertainty.
CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence from a small number of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that pimecrolimus is more effective than placebo treatment in controlling mild to moderate atopic eczema. Although greater than for pimecrolimus, the evidence base for tacrolimus in moderate to severe atopic eczema is also limited. At both 0.1% and 0.03% potencies, tacrolimus appears to be more effective than the placebo treatment and mild topical corticosteroids. However, these are not the most clinically relevant comparators. Compared with potent topical corticosteroids, no significant difference was shown. Short-term adverse effects with both immunosuppressants are relatively common, but appear to be mild. Experience of long-term use of the agents is lacking so the risk of rare but serious adverse effects remains unknown. No conclusions can be confidently drawn about the cost-effectiveness of pimecrolimus or tacrolimus compared with active topical corticosteroid comparators. Areas for further research should focus on the effectiveness and safety of the treatments through good-quality RCTs and further economic analysis. [References: 102]
Adrenal Cortex Hormones Adult Adverse Effects Analogs & Derivatives Child Comparative Study Cost-Benefit Analysis Dermatitis,Atopic Dermatologic Agents Drug Therapy Economics Emollients Humans Immunosuppressive Agents Markov Chains medline Methods Quality of Life Randomized Controlled Trials Research Support,Non-U.S.Gov't Tacrolimus Therapeutic Use Therapeutic Use.
1366-5278
Garside, R.
7178cdef-fe0c-4bba-92f8-8c23d1f50386
Stein, K.
dba3ca57-81c5-4172-a80e-2b38f61a7cc1
Castelnuovo, E.
94e87c73-3d71-40e0-b451-2cfd95270489
Pitt, M.
ee0d6a9d-e552-49ce-9351-b4de8d3923d1
Ashcroft, D.
2a5f95ce-258a-4954-9c1e-5e7e6e7cf448
Dimmock, P.
9f7906cf-c01f-4490-8ecb-75ce9ca635cf
Payne, L.
862f8fcf-711d-4146-a723-a9109339c70a
Garside, R.
7178cdef-fe0c-4bba-92f8-8c23d1f50386
Stein, K.
dba3ca57-81c5-4172-a80e-2b38f61a7cc1
Castelnuovo, E.
94e87c73-3d71-40e0-b451-2cfd95270489
Pitt, M.
ee0d6a9d-e552-49ce-9351-b4de8d3923d1
Ashcroft, D.
2a5f95ce-258a-4954-9c1e-5e7e6e7cf448
Dimmock, P.
9f7906cf-c01f-4490-8ecb-75ce9ca635cf
Payne, L.
862f8fcf-711d-4146-a723-a9109339c70a

Garside, R., Stein, K., Castelnuovo, E., Pitt, M., Ashcroft, D., Dimmock, P. and Payne, L. (2005) The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pimecrolimus and tacrolimus for atopic eczema: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technology Assessment, 9 (29). (doi:10.3310/hta9290).

Record type: Article

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To consider the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pimecrolimus for mild to moderate atopic eczema and tacrolimus for moderate to severe atopic eczema compared with current standard treatment in adults and children.
DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases. Experts and the manufacturers of these agents were also approached for information.
REVIEW METHODS: The systematic review was carried out using standard methodological guidelines and a stringent quality assessment strategy. A state transition (Markov) model was developed to estimate cost--utility of tacrolimus and pimecrolimus separately, compared with current standard practice with topical corticosteroids, (a) as first-line treatment and (b) as second-line treatment. Pimecrolimus was also compared to emollients only.
RESULTS: The pimecrolimus trial reports were of varying quality; however when compared with a placebo (emollient), pimecrolimus was found to be more effective and to provide quality of life improvements. There is very little evidence available about pimecrolimus compared with topical corticosteroids. Compared with a placebo (emollient), both 0.03% and 0.1% tacrolimus were found to be more effective. Compared with a mild corticosteroid, 0.03% tacrolimus is more effective in children as measured by a 90% or better improvement in the Physician's Global Evaluation (PGE). Compared with potent topical corticosteroids, no significant difference in effectiveness is seen with 0.1% tacrolimus as measured by a 75% or greater improvement in the PGE. Minor application site adverse effects are common with tacrolimus. However, this did not lead to increased rates of withdrawal from treatment in trial populations. The PenTag economic model demonstrates a large degree of uncertainty, which was explored in both deterministic and stochastic analyses. This is the case for the cost-effectiveness of pimecrolimus and tacrolimus in first- or second-line use compared with topical steroids. In all cases immunosuppressant regimes were estimated to be more costly than alternatives and differences in benefits to be small and subject to considerable uncertainty.
CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence from a small number of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that pimecrolimus is more effective than placebo treatment in controlling mild to moderate atopic eczema. Although greater than for pimecrolimus, the evidence base for tacrolimus in moderate to severe atopic eczema is also limited. At both 0.1% and 0.03% potencies, tacrolimus appears to be more effective than the placebo treatment and mild topical corticosteroids. However, these are not the most clinically relevant comparators. Compared with potent topical corticosteroids, no significant difference was shown. Short-term adverse effects with both immunosuppressants are relatively common, but appear to be mild. Experience of long-term use of the agents is lacking so the risk of rare but serious adverse effects remains unknown. No conclusions can be confidently drawn about the cost-effectiveness of pimecrolimus or tacrolimus compared with active topical corticosteroid comparators. Areas for further research should focus on the effectiveness and safety of the treatments through good-quality RCTs and further economic analysis. [References: 102]

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

Published date: July 2005
Additional Information: cao, 9706284 0 (Adrenal Cortex Hormones). 0 (Dermatologic Agents). 0 (Emollients). 0 (Immunosuppressive Agents). 0 (pimecrolimus). 109581-93-3 (Tacrolimus) Journal Article. Review English included in summary CV for PD RefMgr field[16]: England
Keywords: Adrenal Cortex Hormones Adult Adverse Effects Analogs & Derivatives Child Comparative Study Cost-Benefit Analysis Dermatitis,Atopic Dermatologic Agents Drug Therapy Economics Emollients Humans Immunosuppressive Agents Markov Chains medline Methods Quality of Life Randomized Controlled Trials Research Support,Non-U.S.Gov't Tacrolimus Therapeutic Use Therapeutic Use.

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 415430
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/415430
ISSN: 1366-5278
PURE UUID: 5923eed8-105a-4853-8254-1db46b40871a
ORCID for L. Payne: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-6594-5668

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 09 Nov 2017 17:30
Last modified: 16 Mar 2024 03:26

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: R. Garside
Author: K. Stein
Author: E. Castelnuovo
Author: M. Pitt
Author: D. Ashcroft
Author: P. Dimmock
Author: L. Payne ORCID iD

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×