An economic evaluation of the randomized controlled trial of topical corticosteroid and home‐based narrowband ultraviolet B for active and limited vitiligo (the HI‐Light Vitiligo Trial)*

Abstract

Background Economic evidence for vitiligo treatments is absent. Objectives To determine the cost-effectiveness of (i) handheld narrowband ultraviolet B (NB-UVB) and (ii) a combination of topical corticosteroid (TCS) and NB-UVB compared with TCS alone for localized vitiligo. Methods Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a pragmatic, three-arm, placebo-controlled randomized controlled trial with 9 months' treatment. In total 517 adults and children (aged ≥ 5 years) with active vitiligo affecting < 10% of skin were recruited from secondary care and the community and were randomized 1: 1: 1 to receive TCS, NB-UVB or both. Cost per successful treatment (measured on the Vitiligo Noticeability Scale) was estimated. Secondary cost-utility analyses measured quality-adjusted life-years using the EuroQol 5 Dimensions 5 Levels for those aged ≥ 11 years and the Child Health Utility 9D for those aged 5 to < 18 years. The trial was registered with number ISRCTN17160087 on 8 January 2015.

Randomized controlled trial of topical corticosteroid and home‐based narrowband ultraviolet B for active and limited vitiligo: results of the HI‐Light Vitiligo Trial*

“…The trial protocol has been published previously 29,30 . No changes were made to the eligibility criteria or outcome measures after trial commencement.…”

“…The study was a multicentre, three‐arm, parallel‐group, pragmatic, placebo‐controlled randomized controlled trial, with nested health economics and process evaluation studies (reported separately) 30 …”

“…(4) To understand the barriers and facilitators to adoption of these interventions within the UK NHS. Objectives 3 and 4 are reported elsewhere 30 …”

“…The trial protocol has been published previously. 29,30 No changes were made to the eligibility criteria or outcome measures after trial commencement. The study was approved by the Health Research Authority East Midlands (Derby) Research Ethics Committee (14/EM/1173) and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (EudraCT 2014-003473-42).…”

“…The study was a multicentre, three-arm, parallel-group, pragmatic, placebo-controlled randomized controlled trial, with nested health economics and process evaluation studies (reported separately). 30 Trial interventions were delivered in secondary care across 16 UK hospitals. Participants were identified through secondary care dermatology clinics and general practice mailouts, and by self-referral.…”