Scientific Online Resource System

Health Economics and Management

Cost-effectiveness analysis of acne treatment with active cosmetic compexes

Stefka Valcheva-Kuzmanova, Neli Markova


Acne vulgaris is one of the most prevalent dermatological diseases. Proper cosmetic treatment can
significantly improve the condition. When choosing an active ingredient for a cosmetic product, it is important to evaluate the cost-effectiveness ratio. The aim of this study was to perform a cost-effective analysis of selected cosmetic complexes for the treatment of acne in order to make the right choice when developing a new cosmetic product. Bulgarian and foreign literature was searched to select active cosmetic complexes. For the analysis, four active complexes (A, B, C and D) were selected for which an in vitro efficacy test was performed - inhibition of 5α-reductase. The results from the cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the active complex B dominated over the remaining complexes in respect of the cost-effectiveness ratio. Complex C was superior to active complexes D and A. Active complex D is dominated byactive complex A. Active complex B, which is an osmotic gel with oleanolic acid from olive leaf and nordihydroguaiaretic acid, could be considered as a cost-effective alternative in the choice of an active ingredient when developing a cosmetic product.


acne vulgaris; active cosmetic complex; cost-effectiveness analysis; cosmetic product;

Full Text


Вълчева-Кузманова С. Основи на фармакологията, лекарствена употреба и фармакоикономика, Медицински университет – Варна, 2012.

Dawson AL, Dellavalle RP. Acne vulgaris. British Medical Journal. 2013; 346(5): f2634.

Rascati KL. Essentials of Pharmacoeconomics. Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams&Wilknis 2009.

Savage L, Layton A. Treating acne vulgaris: systemic, local and combination therapy. Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology. 2010; 13(4):

– 580.

Vos T, Flaxman AD. Years lived with disability (YLDs) for 1160 sequelae of 289 diseases and injuries 1990-2010: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet. 2012; 380(9859): 2163 – 2196.



Font Size