@article{SteinkePeitschLudwigetal.2013,
  author    = {Steinke, Sabine I. B. and Peitsch, Wiebke K. and Ludwig, Alexander and Goebeler, Matthias},
  title     = {Cost-of-Illness in Psoriasis: Comparing Inpatient and Outpatient Therapy},
  series = {PLOS ONE},
  volume    = {8},
  journal   = {PLOS ONE},
  number    = {10},
  issn      = {1932-6203},
  doi       = {10.1371/journal.pone.0078152},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-128235},
  pages     = {e78152},
  year      = {2013},
  abstract  = {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.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{BuderGesierichGelbrichetal.2013,
  author    = {Buder, Kristina and Gesierich, Anja and Gelbrich, G{\"o}tz and Goebeler, Matthias},
  title     = {Systemic treatment of metastatic uveal melanoma: review of literature and future perspectives},
  series = {Cancer Medicine},
  volume    = {2},
  journal   = {Cancer Medicine},
  number    = {5},
  doi       = {10.1002/cam4.133},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-97175},
  pages     = {674-686},
  year      = {2013},
  abstract  = {Up to 50\% of patients with uveal melanoma develop metastatic disease with poor prognosis. Regional, mainly liver-directed, therapies may induce limited tumor responses but do not improve overall survival. Response rates of metastatic uveal melanoma (MUM) to systemic chemotherapy are poor. Insights into the molecular biology of MUM recently led to investigation of new drugs. In this study, to compare response rates of systemic treatment for MUM we searched Pubmed/Web of Knowledge databases and ASCO website (1980-2013) for "metastatic/uveal/melanoma" and "melanoma/eye." Forty studies (one case series, three phase I, five pilot, 22 nonrandomized, and two randomized phase II, one randomized phase III study, data of three expanded access programs, three retrospective studies) with 841 evaluable patients were included in the numeric outcome analysis. Complete or partial remissions were observed in 39/841 patients (overall response rate [ORR] 4.6\%; 95\% confidence intervals [CI] 3.3-6.3\%), no responses were observed in 22/40 studies. Progression-free survival ranged from 1.8 to 7.2, median overall survival from 5.2 to 19.0 months as reported in 21/40 and 26/40 studies, respectively. Best responses were seen for chemoimmunotherapy (ORR 10.3\%; 95\% CI 4.8-18.7\%) though mainly in first-line patients. Immunotherapy with ipilimumab, antiangiogenetic approaches, and kinase inhibitors have not yet proven to be superior to chemotherapy. MEK inhibitors are currently investigated in a phase II trial with promising preliminary data. Despite new insights into genetic and molecular background of MUM, satisfying systemic treatment approaches are currently lacking. Study results of innovative treatment strategies are urgently awaited.},
  language  = {en}
}