OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of treating non-superficial diabetic foot ulcers with Promogran plus good wound care (GWC) compared with GWC alone in four European countries (France, Germany, Switzerland and UK). METHODS: An existing Markov-based health economic model of non-superficial diabetic foot ulcers was adapted to incorporate the relative efficacy of Promogran compared with GWC alone as demonstrated in a randomised controlled trial. Treatment with Promogran was modelled for a maximum of three months. Country-specific treatment costs were used to estimate the incremental cost per ulcer-free day gained over 12 months. Some parameter assumptions were changed to assess the sensitivity of the results. RESULTS: Within the first three months of treatment, 26% of ulcers in the Promogran cohort healed compared with 20.7% in the GWC cohort. Over the 12 months, the average number of months spent in the healed state was 3.41 (GWC) and 3.75 (Promogran). Promogran treatment was found to be cost-saving in all four countries, using year 2000 Euro values. CONCLUSION: Promogran with GWC may be cost-effective, perhaps even cost-saving, under a wide variety of assumptions for the treatment of neuropathic foot ulcers. DECLARATION OF INTEREST: This study was funded by Ethicon Gmbh (Johnson and Johnson), Germany.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of treating non-superficial diabetic foot ulcers with Promogran plus good wound care (GWC) compared with GWC alone in four European countries (France, Germany, Switzerland and UK). METHODS: An existing Markov-based health economic model of non-superficial diabetic foot ulcers was adapted to incorporate the relative efficacy of Promogran compared with GWC alone as demonstrated in a randomised controlled trial. Treatment with Promogran was modelled for a maximum of three months. Country-specific treatment costs were used to estimate the incremental cost per ulcer-free day gained over 12 months. Some parameter assumptions were changed to assess the sensitivity of the results. RESULTS: Within the first three months of treatment, 26% of ulcers in the Promogran cohort healed compared with 20.7% in the GWC cohort. Over the 12 months, the average number of months spent in the healed state was 3.41 (GWC) and 3.75 (Promogran). Promogran treatment was found to be cost-saving in all four countries, using year 2000 Euro values. CONCLUSION:Promogran with GWC may be cost-effective, perhaps even cost-saving, under a wide variety of assumptions for the treatment of neuropathic foot ulcers. DECLARATION OF INTEREST: This study was funded by Ethicon Gmbh (Johnson and Johnson), Germany.
Authors: Fay Crawford; Francesca M Chappell; James Lewsey; Richard Riley; Neil Hawkins; Donald Nicolson; Robert Heggie; Marie Smith; Margaret Horne; Aparna Amanna; Angela Martin; Saket Gupta; Karen Gray; David Weller; Julie Brittenden; Graham Leese Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2020-11 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Oliver Kloeters; Frank Unglaub; Erik de Laat; Marjolijn van Abeelen; Dietmar Ulrich Journal: Int Wound J Date: 2015-05-23 Impact factor: 3.315
Authors: Andrea C Tricco; Elise Cogo; Wanrudee Isaranuwatchai; Paul A Khan; Geetha Sanmugalingham; Jesmin Antony; Jeffrey S Hoch; Sharon E Straus Journal: BMC Med Date: 2015-04-22 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: Werner A Scherbaum; Gordon Goodall; Katrina M Erny-Albrecht; Massimo Massi-Benedetti; Erland Erdmann; William J Valentine Journal: Cost Eff Resour Alloc Date: 2009-05-05