S'abonner

Cost-effectiveness of diagnostic tests for toenail onychomycosis: A repeated-measure, single-blinded, cross-sectional evaluation of 7 diagnostic tests - 09/08/11

Doi : 10.1016/j.jaad.2006.03.033 
Kia K. Lilly, MD a, Rebecca L. Koshnick, BA a, Joseph P. Grill, MS b, c, Zena M. Khalil, MD d, David B. Nelson, PhD b, c, Erin M. Warshaw, MD, MS a, b, c,
a From the University of Minnesota 
b Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center 
c Center for Chronic Diseases Outcomes Research, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center 
d Department of Pathology, Regions Hospital Minneapolis, Minnesota 

Correspondence to: Erin M. Warshaw, MD, MS, Department 111K–Dermatology, 1 Veterans Dr, Minneapolis, MN 55417.

Minneapolis, Minnesota

Abstract

Objective

Our purpose was to estimate and compare the cost-effectiveness of the most commonly used diagnostic tests for onychomycosis: potassium hydroxide preparation (KOH), interpreted both by a dermatologist (KOH-CLINIC) and a laboratory technician (KOH-LAB); KOH with dimethyl sulfoxide (KOH-DMSO) and with chlorazol black E (KOH-CBE), interpreted by a dermatologist; culture using dermatophyte test medium, culture with Mycobiotic and Inhibitory Mold Agar (Cx); and histopathologic analysis using periodic acid–Schiff stain (PAS).

Methods

This was a repeated-measure, blinded, cross-sectional study conducted at the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Inclusion criteria included: at least one toenail with 25% or more clinical disease, which was defined as subungual debris with onycholysis and/or onychauxis. Exclusion criteria included other nail dystrophies, use of oral antifungal medication for 2 months or longer within the past year, or topical ciclopirox lacquer within 6 weeks of enrollment. The main outcome measure was the cost-effectiveness (Medicare and non-Medicare costs) of 7 diagnostic tests. Sensitivity (at least 3 positive tests) was the unit of effectiveness.

Results

Two hundred four participants were enrolled; their average age was 69.5 years and 95.5% were male. PAS was the most sensitive test (98.8%); it was statistically significantly more sensitive than all other diagnostic tests except KOH-CBE (94.3%). Dermatophye test medium was the least sensitive test (57.3%). KOH-CBE was statistically significantly more cost effective than any other test, with the exception of KOH-CLINIC and KOH-LAB. PAS was the least cost effective.

Limitations

Test specificities were not evaluated.

Conclusion

KOH-CBE should be the test of choice for practitioners confident in interpreting KOH preparations because of its combination of high sensitivity and cost-effectiveness.

Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.

Abbreviations used : cv, Cx, DTM, HSD, KOH, KOH-CBE, KOH-CLINIC, KOH-DMS, KOH-LAB, PAS, ts


Plan


 Supported by a Minnesota Medical Foundation Medical Student Research Grant and the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center and its Center of Excellence on Chronic Disease Outcomes Research.
Disclosure: During this study, Dr Warshaw’s career was supported by a VA Cooperative Studies Career Development Award in Clinical Research.
This study was presented, in part, as a poster at the 62nd Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, February 2004, and at the Council for Nail Disorders, February 2004 (oral presentation).
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Reprints not available from the authors.


© 2006  American Academy of Dermatology, Inc.. Publié par Elsevier Masson SAS. Tous droits réservés.
Ajouter à ma bibliothèque Retirer de ma bibliothèque Imprimer
Export

    Export citations

  • Fichier

  • Contenu

Vol 55 - N° 4

P. 620-626 - octobre 2006 Retour au numéro
Article précédent Article précédent
  • Orbit and eyelid hemangiomas: Is there a relationship between location and ocular problems?
  • Josée Dubois, Jean Milot, Brigitte Ingrid Jaeger, Catherine McCuaig, Elisabeth Rousseau, Julie Powell
| Article suivant Article suivant
  • Registration of clinical trials

Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.

Déjà abonné à cette revue ?

Mon compte


Plateformes Elsevier Masson

Déclaration CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM est déclaré à la CNIL, déclaration n° 1286925.

En application de la loi nº78-17 du 6 janvier 1978 relative à l'informatique, aux fichiers et aux libertés, vous disposez des droits d'opposition (art.26 de la loi), d'accès (art.34 à 38 de la loi), et de rectification (art.36 de la loi) des données vous concernant. Ainsi, vous pouvez exiger que soient rectifiées, complétées, clarifiées, mises à jour ou effacées les informations vous concernant qui sont inexactes, incomplètes, équivoques, périmées ou dont la collecte ou l'utilisation ou la conservation est interdite.
Les informations personnelles concernant les visiteurs de notre site, y compris leur identité, sont confidentielles.
Le responsable du site s'engage sur l'honneur à respecter les conditions légales de confidentialité applicables en France et à ne pas divulguer ces informations à des tiers.


Tout le contenu de ce site: Copyright © 2024 Elsevier, ses concédants de licence et ses contributeurs. Tout les droits sont réservés, y compris ceux relatifs à l'exploration de textes et de données, a la formation en IA et aux technologies similaires. Pour tout contenu en libre accès, les conditions de licence Creative Commons s'appliquent.