Cost-effectiveness of Spironolactone for Adult Female Acne (SAFA): economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to estimate the cost-effectiveness of oral spironolactone plus routine topical treatment compared with routine topical treatment alone for persistent acne in adult women from a British NHS perspective over 24 weeks. DESIGN: Economic evaluation undertaken alongside a pragmatic, parallel, double-blind, randomised trial. SETTING: Primary and secondary healthcare, community and social media advertising. PARTICIPANTS: Women ≥18 years with persistent facial acne judged to warrant oral antibiotic treatment. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised 1:1 to 50 mg/day spironolactone (increasing to 100 mg/day after 6 weeks) or matched placebo until week 24. Participants in both groups could continue topical treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost-utility analysis assessed incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) using the EQ-5D-5L. Cost-effectiveness analysis estimated incremental cost per unit change on the Acne-QoL symptom subscale. Adjusted analysis included randomisation stratification variables (centre, baseline severity (investigator's global assessment, IGA <3 vs ≥3)) and baseline variables (Acne-QoL symptom subscale score, resource use costs, EQ-5D score and use of topical treatments). RESULTS: Spironolactone did not appear cost-effective in the complete case analysis (n=126 spironolactone, n=109 control), compared with no active systemic treatment (adjusted incremental cost per QALY £67 191; unadjusted £34 770). Incremental cost per QALY was £27 879 (adjusted), just below the upper National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's threshold value of £30 000, where multiple imputation took account of missing data. Incremental cost per QALY for other sensitivity analyses varied around the base-case, highlighting the degree of uncertainty. The adjusted incremental cost per point change on the Acne-QoL symptom subscale for spironolactone compared with no active systemic treatment was £38.21 (complete case analysis). CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate a high level of uncertainty, particularly with respect to estimates of incremental QALYs. Compared with no active systemic treatment, spironolactone was estimated to be marginally cost-effective where multiple imputation was performed but was not cost-effective in complete case analysis. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN12892056).