To freeze or not to freeze: a cost-effectiveness analysis of wart treatment
Summary Background Several general practitioner (GP)‐prescribed and over‐the‐counter therapies for warts and verrucae are available. However, the cost‐effectiveness of these treatments is unknown. Objectives To compare the cost‐effectiveness of different treatments for cutaneous warts. Methods We...
Saved in:
Published in | British journal of dermatology (1951) Vol. 156; no. 4; pp. 687 - 692 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
Oxford, UK
Blackwell Publishing Ltd
01.04.2007
Blackwell |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Summary: | Summary
Background Several general practitioner (GP)‐prescribed and over‐the‐counter therapies for warts and verrucae are available. However, the cost‐effectiveness of these treatments is unknown.
Objectives To compare the cost‐effectiveness of different treatments for cutaneous warts.
Methods We designed a decision‐analytic Markov simulation model based on systematic review evidence to estimate the cost‐effectiveness of various treatments. The outcome measures studied are percentage of patients cured, cost of treatment and incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio for each treatment, compared with no treatment, after 18 weeks.
Results Duct tape was most cost‐effective but published evidence of its effectiveness is sparse. Salicylic acid was the most cost‐effective over‐the‐counter treatment commonly used. Cryotherapy administered by a GP was less cost‐effective than GP‐prescribed salicylic acid and less cost‐effective than cryotherapy administered by a nurse.
Conclusions Duct tape could be adopted as the primary treatment for cutaneous warts if its effectiveness is verified by further rigorous trials. Nurse‐administered cryotherapy is likely to be more cost‐effective than GP‐administered cryotherapy. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | istex:76773561048ECA4B0A3FC89A30CAB365D4C679AA ark:/67375/WNG-2P29KS1H-J ArticleID:BJD7768 Conflicts of interest None declared. This work was carried out in Norwich, U.K. and Nottingham, U.K. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Health. SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-4 ObjectType-Undefined-1 content type line 23 ObjectType-Review-2 ObjectType-Article-3 |
ISSN: | 0007-0963 1365-2133 |
DOI: | 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2007.07768.x |