首页> 外文期刊>International journal of dermatology >Comparison of clinical and cost-effectiveness of psoralen+ultraviolet A versus psoralen+sunlight in the treatment of chronic plaque psoriasis in a developing economy
【24h】

Comparison of clinical and cost-effectiveness of psoralen+ultraviolet A versus psoralen+sunlight in the treatment of chronic plaque psoriasis in a developing economy

机译:在发展中经济体中,补骨脂素+紫外线A与补骨脂素+阳光治疗慢性斑块状牛皮癣的临床和成本效益比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Psoralen+ultraviolet A (PUVA) therapy is an established modality for psoriasis. As India is a tropical country that has good availability of natural sunlight psoralen+sunlight (PUVAsol) may be a more convenient option. To compare the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of PUVA versus PUVAsol in chronic plaque psoriasis. Cases of chronic plaque psoriasis with body surface area ≥10% or Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) ≥10, excluding erythrodermic or pustular psoriasis, were randomized to receive either PUVA or PUVAsol, with endpoint being the achievement of PASI 90 or completion of 12weeks treatment, whichever is earlier. Cost analysis was also undertaken. Thirty-six cases (16 in PUVA and 20 in PUVAsol group) completed treatment. In the PUVA group, 15 cases (93.75%) responded to therapy while in the PUVAsol group, 15 (75%) responded (P=0.29). Mean baseline PASI in the PUVA and PUVAsol groups was 16 and 14.4, respectively, and at endpoint was 1.62 and 3.77. There was a significantly greater reduction in PASI in the PUVA group at 2 and 4weeks but at 8 and 12weeks and endpoint, it was comparable. Treatment failure occurred in 6.25% and 25% of cases respectively (P=0.29). Side effects were higher with PUVA. Total cost of therapy was significantly higher in the PUVA group (P=0.002). Cost-effectiveness ratio was US$0.72 with PUVA and US$0.37 with PUVAsol. Both PUVA and PUVAsol were equally efficacious, with PUVAsol being twice as cost effective. Hence, PUVAsol may be recommended as treatment for psoriasis in a developing economy such as India.
机译:补骨脂素+紫外线A(PUVA)治疗是牛皮癣的一种既定模式。由于印度是一个自然阳光充足的热带国家,因此补骨脂+日光(PUVAsol)可能是一个更方便的选择。为了比较PUVA和PUVAsol在慢性斑块状牛皮癣中的功效和成本效益。将体表面积≥10%或牛皮癣面积和严重程度指数(PASI)≥10的慢性斑块状牛皮癣病例(不包括红皮病性或脓疱性牛皮癣)随机接受PUVA或PUVAsol,终点为达到PASI 90或完成治疗12周,以较早者为准。还进行了成本分析。 36例(PUVA中16例,PUVAsol组20例)完成了治疗。在PUVA组中,有15例(93.75%)对治疗有反应,而在PUVAsol组中,有15例(75%)对治疗有反应(P = 0.29)。 PUVA和PUVAsol组的平均基线PASI分别为16和14.4,终点为1.62和3.77。在第2周和第4周时,PUVA组的PASI降低明显更大,但在第8周和第12周及终点时,这是可比较的。治疗失败的发生率分别为6.25%和25%(P = 0.29)。 PUVA的副作用较高。 PUVA组的总治疗费用明显更高(P = 0.002)。 PUVA的成本效益比为0.72美元,PUVAsol的成本效益比为0.37美元。 PUVA和PUVAsol的功效相同,PUVAsol的成本效益是其两倍。因此,在印度这样的发展中经济体中,PUVAsol可能被推荐作为牛皮癣的治疗药物。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号