Ralf Lobmann1, Matthias Augustin2, Holger Lawall3, Wolfgang Tigges4, Christoph Potempa5, Helena Thiem5, Cornelia Fietz5, Reinhard Pt Rychlik6. 1. Professor; Krankenhaus Bad Cannstatt (kbc) / Klinikum Stuttgart. 2. Professor; Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE). 3. Professor; Gemeinschaftspraxis (joint practice) Prof. Dr. med Curt Diehm/Dr. med Holger Lawall, Ettlingen, Germany. 4. Wundzentrum Hamburg. 5. Institute for Empirical Health Economics, Burscheid, Germany. 6. Professor.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Diabetes is one of the most widespread diseases in Germany. Common complications are diabetic foot ulcers (DFU), which are associated with a cost-intensive treatment and serious adverse events, such as infections, amputations. This cost-effectiveness analysis compares two treatment options for patients with DFU: a TLC-NOSF dressing versus a neutral dressing, assessed through a European double-blind randomised controlled trial (RCT), Explorer. METHODS: The evaluation of the clinical outcomes was associated to direct costs (costs for dressings, nursing time, hospitalisation etc.) of both dressings, from the perspective of the statutory health insurance in Germany. Due to the long mean healing time of a DFU, the observation period was extended from 20 to 100 weeks in a Markov model. RESULTS: After 20 weeks, and with complete closure as a primary endpoint, the model revealed direct treatment costs for DFU of €2,864.21 when treated with a TLC-NOSF dressing compared with €2,958.69 with the neutral control dressing (cost-effectiveness: €6,017.25 versus €9,928.49). In the Markov model (100 weeks) the costs for the TLC-NOSF dressing were €5,882.87 compared with €8,449.39 with the neutral dressing (cost-effectiveness: €6,277.58 versus €10,375.56). The robustness of results was underlined by several sensitivity analyses for varying assumptions. The frequency of weekly dressing changes had the most significant influence in terms of parameter uncertainty. CONCLUSION: Overall, the treatment of DFU with a TLC-NOSF dressing is supported from a health economic perspective, because both the treatment costs and the cost-effectiveness were superior compared with the neutral wound dressing.
OBJECTIVE: Diabetes is one of the most widespread diseases in Germany. Common complications are diabetic foot ulcers (DFU), which are associated with a cost-intensive treatment and serious adverse events, such as infections, amputations. This cost-effectiveness analysis compares two treatment options for patients with DFU: a TLC-NOSF dressing versus a neutral dressing, assessed through a European double-blind randomised controlled trial (RCT), Explorer. METHODS: The evaluation of the clinical outcomes was associated to direct costs (costs for dressings, nursing time, hospitalisation etc.) of both dressings, from the perspective of the statutory health insurance in Germany. Due to the long mean healing time of a DFU, the observation period was extended from 20 to 100 weeks in a Markov model. RESULTS: After 20 weeks, and with complete closure as a primary endpoint, the model revealed direct treatment costs for DFU of €2,864.21 when treated with a TLC-NOSF dressing compared with €2,958.69 with the neutral control dressing (cost-effectiveness: €6,017.25 versus €9,928.49). In the Markov model (100 weeks) the costs for the TLC-NOSF dressing were €5,882.87 compared with €8,449.39 with the neutral dressing (cost-effectiveness: €6,277.58 versus €10,375.56). The robustness of results was underlined by several sensitivity analyses for varying assumptions. The frequency of weekly dressing changes had the most significant influence in terms of parameter uncertainty. CONCLUSION: Overall, the treatment of DFU with a TLC-NOSF dressing is supported from a health economic perspective, because both the treatment costs and the cost-effectiveness were superior compared with the neutral wound dressing.
Entities:
Keywords:
TLC; cost-effectiveness; diabetic foot ulcer; direct costs; sucrose octasulfate; wound care
Authors: Pamela Chen; Keryln Carville; Terry Swanson; Peter A Lazzarini; James Charles; Jane Cheney; Jenny Prentice Journal: J Foot Ankle Res Date: 2022-05-25 Impact factor: 3.050