Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You and Your Team.

Learn More →

Direct Medical Cost for Surgical and Medical Treatment of Condylomata Acuminata

Direct Medical Cost for Surgical and Medical Treatment of Condylomata Acuminata We read with interest the article by Alam and Stiller,1 in particular the conclusions that they reach as to the cost advantages of the treatment modalities considered for external genital warts (EGWs). We have concerns about the article and the conclusions that were reached. The methodology adopted by the authors is inappropriate with regard to the assessment of cost-effectiveness in treating a disease such as EGWs, in which recurrence is a critical issue. Regarding the article by Langley et al,2 we were concerned that the impact of high recurrence rates in EGW treatment was only poorly understood and that physicians were accepting claims for cost-effectiveness based on models of treatment that do not represent the decisions faced in a real world environment. Unfortunately, Alam and Stiller explicitly exclude any consideration of recurrence and the long-run efficacy of treatment, therapy switching, and/or the use of combination therapy.3 As a result, their analysis is flawed, and we doubt that their results can be considered a guide to the cost advantages of competing modalities. We also have concerns with the consensus estimates of "reported effectiveness in clearing condylomata" that were reported in Table 5.1 These certainly do not represent what we understand to be the evidence for initial or sustained clearance in a US treating population. We believe that the estimate for podofilox is far too high, and it certainly does not represent the sustained clearance reported for podofilox in the key pivotal studies used for approval by the Food and Drug Administration. Langley et al2 compared imiquimod and podofilox as first-line therapy for EGWs and reported the results of those studies that implemented the most acceptable and rigorous study designs (double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled). No specific guidelines for study results were presented by Alam and Stiller.1 Langley et al2 did not eliminate or determine articles based on placebo responses. Indeed, from our reading of the pivotal clinical trial results, in sustained clearance terms and for the indicated treatment regimen, imiquimod has more than twice the sustained clearance of podofilox. As for the therapy options, we think that it would have been useful to your readership for Alam and Stiller to have pointed out that imiquimod is in a new class of products. Imiquimod is an immune response modifier that induces the production of alpha interferon and other cytokines in the skin, which in turn stimulate several other aspects of the innate immune response. Imiquimod also stimulates acquired immunity, in particular the cellular arm, which is important for control of viral infections and tumors. Imiquimod is also being used extensively, with considerable success, in other dermatological applications.4-6 In this respect, we are concerned that Alam and Stiller failed to recognize the practical impact of imiquimod in a treatment setting. It is incorrect to assume that imiquimod always needs 16 weeks for wart clearance (which is how they estimate the cost of imiquimod use in their model). In the study of Langley et al,2 the actual duration of imiquimod therapy was considerably shorter and was modeled accordingly, with a substantial number of patients achieving sustained clearance after the use of only 2 prescriptions covering an 8-week period. We hope that these comments will be useful to your readership in providing a better understanding of the need for the appropriate cost-effectiveness modeling of competing products in disease states such as EGWs. References 1. Alam MStiller M Direct medical costs for surgical and medical treatment of condylomata acuminata. Arch Dermatol. 2001;137337- 341Google Scholar 2. Langley PCTyring SKSmith MH The cost-effectiveness of patient-applied versus provider-administered intervention strategies for the treatment of external genital warts. Am J Manag Care. 1999;569- 77Google Scholar 3. Smith KJGermain MSkelton H Bowen's disease in immunosuppressed patients treated with imiquimod 5% cream and cox inhibitor, sulindac: potential applications for this combination of immunotherapy. Dermatol Surg. 2001;27143- 146Google ScholarCrossref 4. Mackenzie-Wood AKossard Sde Launey JWilkinson BOwens ML Imiquimod 5% cream in the treatment of Bowen's disease. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2001;44462- 470Google ScholarCrossref 5. Hengge UREsser SSchultewolter T et al. Self-administered topical 5% imiquimod for the treatment of common warts and molluscum contagiosum. Br J Dermatol. 2000;143921- 922Google ScholarCrossref 6. Ahmed IBerth-Jones J Imiquimod: a novel treatment for lentigo maligna. Br J Dermatol. 2000;143843- 845Google ScholarCrossref http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Archives of Dermatology American Medical Association

Direct Medical Cost for Surgical and Medical Treatment of Condylomata Acuminata

Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-medical-association/direct-medical-cost-for-surgical-and-medical-treatment-of-condylomata-Uu00q2S8Ri
Publisher
American Medical Association
Copyright
Copyright © 2002 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.
ISSN
0003-987X
eISSN
1538-3652
DOI
10.1001/archderm.138.4.533
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

We read with interest the article by Alam and Stiller,1 in particular the conclusions that they reach as to the cost advantages of the treatment modalities considered for external genital warts (EGWs). We have concerns about the article and the conclusions that were reached. The methodology adopted by the authors is inappropriate with regard to the assessment of cost-effectiveness in treating a disease such as EGWs, in which recurrence is a critical issue. Regarding the article by Langley et al,2 we were concerned that the impact of high recurrence rates in EGW treatment was only poorly understood and that physicians were accepting claims for cost-effectiveness based on models of treatment that do not represent the decisions faced in a real world environment. Unfortunately, Alam and Stiller explicitly exclude any consideration of recurrence and the long-run efficacy of treatment, therapy switching, and/or the use of combination therapy.3 As a result, their analysis is flawed, and we doubt that their results can be considered a guide to the cost advantages of competing modalities. We also have concerns with the consensus estimates of "reported effectiveness in clearing condylomata" that were reported in Table 5.1 These certainly do not represent what we understand to be the evidence for initial or sustained clearance in a US treating population. We believe that the estimate for podofilox is far too high, and it certainly does not represent the sustained clearance reported for podofilox in the key pivotal studies used for approval by the Food and Drug Administration. Langley et al2 compared imiquimod and podofilox as first-line therapy for EGWs and reported the results of those studies that implemented the most acceptable and rigorous study designs (double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled). No specific guidelines for study results were presented by Alam and Stiller.1 Langley et al2 did not eliminate or determine articles based on placebo responses. Indeed, from our reading of the pivotal clinical trial results, in sustained clearance terms and for the indicated treatment regimen, imiquimod has more than twice the sustained clearance of podofilox. As for the therapy options, we think that it would have been useful to your readership for Alam and Stiller to have pointed out that imiquimod is in a new class of products. Imiquimod is an immune response modifier that induces the production of alpha interferon and other cytokines in the skin, which in turn stimulate several other aspects of the innate immune response. Imiquimod also stimulates acquired immunity, in particular the cellular arm, which is important for control of viral infections and tumors. Imiquimod is also being used extensively, with considerable success, in other dermatological applications.4-6 In this respect, we are concerned that Alam and Stiller failed to recognize the practical impact of imiquimod in a treatment setting. It is incorrect to assume that imiquimod always needs 16 weeks for wart clearance (which is how they estimate the cost of imiquimod use in their model). In the study of Langley et al,2 the actual duration of imiquimod therapy was considerably shorter and was modeled accordingly, with a substantial number of patients achieving sustained clearance after the use of only 2 prescriptions covering an 8-week period. We hope that these comments will be useful to your readership in providing a better understanding of the need for the appropriate cost-effectiveness modeling of competing products in disease states such as EGWs. References 1. Alam MStiller M Direct medical costs for surgical and medical treatment of condylomata acuminata. Arch Dermatol. 2001;137337- 341Google Scholar 2. Langley PCTyring SKSmith MH The cost-effectiveness of patient-applied versus provider-administered intervention strategies for the treatment of external genital warts. Am J Manag Care. 1999;569- 77Google Scholar 3. Smith KJGermain MSkelton H Bowen's disease in immunosuppressed patients treated with imiquimod 5% cream and cox inhibitor, sulindac: potential applications for this combination of immunotherapy. Dermatol Surg. 2001;27143- 146Google ScholarCrossref 4. Mackenzie-Wood AKossard Sde Launey JWilkinson BOwens ML Imiquimod 5% cream in the treatment of Bowen's disease. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2001;44462- 470Google ScholarCrossref 5. Hengge UREsser SSchultewolter T et al. Self-administered topical 5% imiquimod for the treatment of common warts and molluscum contagiosum. Br J Dermatol. 2000;143921- 922Google ScholarCrossref 6. Ahmed IBerth-Jones J Imiquimod: a novel treatment for lentigo maligna. Br J Dermatol. 2000;143843- 845Google ScholarCrossref

Journal

Archives of DermatologyAmerican Medical Association

Published: Apr 1, 2002

Keywords: genital warts,surgical procedures, operative,health care costs

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$499/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create folders to
organize your research

Export folders, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month