Cost-of-illness in psoriasis: Comparing inpatient and outpatient therapy

Treatment modalities of chronic plaque psoriasis have dramatically changed over the past ten years with a still continuing shift from inpatient to outpatient treatment. This development is mainly caused by outpatient availability of highly efficient and relatively well-tolerated systemic treatments, in particular BioLogicals. In addition, inpatient treatment is time- and cost-intense, conflicting with the actual burst of health expenses and with patient preferences. Nevertheless, inpatient treatment with dithranol and UV light still is a major mainstay of psoriasis treatment in Germany. The current study aims at comparing the total costs of inpatient treatment and outpatient follow-up to mere outpatient therapy with different modalities (topical treatment, phototherapy, classic systemic therapy or BioLogicals) over a period of 12 months. To this end, a retrospective cost-of-illness study was conducted on 120 patients treated at the University Medical Centre Mannheim between 2005 and 2006. Inpatient therapy caused significantly higher direct medical, indirect and total annual costs than outpatient treatment (13,042 € versus 2,984 €). Its strong influence on cost levels was confirmed by regression analysis, with total costs rising by 104.3% in case of inpatient treatment. Patients receiving BioLogicals produced the overall highest costs, whereas outpatient treatment with classic systemic antipsoriatic medications was less cost-intense than other alternatives

Cost-of-Illness in Psoriasis: Comparing Inpatient and Outpatient Therapy

Treatment modalities of chronic plaque psoriasis have dramatically changed over the past ten years with a still continuing shift from inpatient to outpatient treatment. This development is mainly caused by outpatient availability of highly efficient and relatively well-tolerated systemic treatments, in particular BioLogicals. In addition, inpatient treatment is time-and cost-intense, conflicting with the actual burst of health expenses and with patient preferences. Nevertheless, inpatient treatment with dithranol and UV light still is a major mainstay of psoriasis treatment in Germany. The current study aims at comparing the total costs of inpatient treatment and outpatient follow-up to mere outpatient therapy with different modalities (topical treatment, phototherapy, classic systemic therapy or BioLogicals) over a period of 12 months. To this end, a retrospective cost-of-illness study was conducted on 120 patients treated at the University Medical Centre Mannheim between 2005 and 2006. Inpatient therapy caused significantly higher direct medical, indirect and total annual costs than outpatient treatment (13,042 (sic) versus 2,984 (sic)). Its strong influence on cost levels was confirmed by regression analysis, with total costs rising by 104.3% in case of inpatient treatment. Patients receiving BioLogicals produced the overall highest costs, whereas outpatient treatment with classic systemic antipsoriatic medications was less cost-intense than other alternatives

A convolutional neural network trained with dermoscopic images performed on par with 145 dermatologists in a clinical melanoma image classification task

Background: Recent studies have demonstrated the use of convolutional neural networks (CNNs) to classify images of melanoma with accuracies comparable to those achieved by board-certified dermatologists. However, the performance of a CNN exclusively trained with dermoscopic images in a clinical image classification task in direct competition with a large number of dermatologists has not been measured to date. This study compares the performance of a convolutional neuronal network trained with dermoscopic images exclusively for identifying melanoma in clinical photographs with the manual grading of the same images by dermatologists. Methods: We compared automatic digital melanoma classification with the performance of 145 dermatologists of 12 German university hospitals. We used methods from enhanced deep learning to train a CNN with 12,378 open-source dermoscopic images. We used 100 clinical images to compare the performance of the CNN to that of the dermatologists. Dermatologists were compared with the deep neural network in terms of sensitivity, specificity and receiver operating characteristics. Findings: The mean sensitivity and specificity achieved by the dermatologists with clinical images was 89.4% (range: 55.0%-100%) and 64.4% (range: 22.5%-92.5%). At the same sensitivity, the CNN exhibited a mean specificity of 68.2% (range 47.5%-86.25%). Among the dermatologists, the attendings showed the highest mean sensitivity of 92.8% at a mean specificity of 57.7%. With the same high sensitivity of 92.8%, the CNN had a mean specificity of 61.1%. Interpretation: For the first time, dermatologist-level image classification was achieved on a clinical image classification task without training on clinical images. The CNN had a smaller variance of results indicating a higher robustness of computer vision compared with human assessment for dermatologic image classification tasks. (C) 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Deep learning outperformed 136 of 157 dermatologists in a head-to-head dermoscopic melanoma image classification task

Background: Recent studies have successfully demonstrated the use of deep-learning algorithms for dermatologist-level classification of suspicious lesions by the use of excessive proprietary image databases and limited numbers of dermatologists. For the first time, the performance of a deep-learning algorithm trained by open-source images exclusively is compared to a large number of dermatologists covering all levels within the clinical hierarchy. Methods: We used methods from enhanced deep learning to train a convolutional neural network (CNN) with 12,378 open-source dermoscopic images. We used 100 images to compare the performance of the CNN to that of the 157 dermatologists from 12 university hospitals in Germany. Outperformance of dermatologists by the deep neural network was measured in terms of sensitivity, specificity and receiver operating characteristics. Findings: The mean sensitivity and specificity achieved by the dermatologists with dermoscopic images was 74.1% (range 40.0%-100%) and 60% (range 21.3%-91.3%), respectively. At a mean sensitivity of 74.1%, the CNN exhibited a mean specificity of 86.5% (range 70.8%-91.3%). At a mean specificity of 60%, a mean sensitivity of 87.5% (range 80%-95%) was achieved by our algorithm. Among the dermatologists, the chief physicians showed the highest mean specificity of 69.2% at a mean sensitivity of 73.3%. With the same high specificity of 69.2%, the CNN had a mean sensitivity of 84.5%. Interpretation: A CNN trained by open-source images exclusively outperformed 136 of the 157 dermatologists and all the different levels of experience (from junior to chief physicians) in terms of average specificity and sensitivity. (C) 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd