Salvatore Russo1, Stefano Landi2, Stephane Courric3. 1. Department of Management, University of Venice, Venezia, Italy. 2. Department of Business Administration and Management, University of Verona, Verona, Italy. 3. Hays Pharma, Paris, France.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Diabetic chronic foot ulcers (DFU) lead to pain, reduced quality of life and represent a severe economic burden for patients and health systems. The clinical results of PRP effectiveness in the treatment of DFU are promising; on the other hand, the costs associated with treating DFUs with PRP are higher than those using standard therapy. Therefore, this study aims to determine the cost-effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) therapy compared to standard therapy from the French healthcare system perspective. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was performed using a decision Markov model with a cohort of patients with chronic DFU (duration of >3 weeks) with high orthopaedic risk and with ulcers graded 3A according to University of Texas classification. The effectiveness outcomes are reported in terms of quality adjusted life year (QALY). The costs are reported in euro (€) currency evaluated in 2019. A micro-costing approach alongside a clinical study was used to assess resource use. Deterministic sensibility analyses are reported to evaluate the robustness of the results. The analyses were carried out in the French setting. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of PRP treatment is -€613/ QALY, which, being lower than zero, indicates the dominance of the PRP therapy. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis underlines the main parameter affecting CE results. Lowest number of standard of care weekly medications (from 5 to 3) leads to a €622/QALY while increasing PRP weekly medication (from 1 to 4) has an ICER of €732/QALY. DISCUSSION: PRP is a cost-effective or even a cost-saving alternative in the French setting. PRP has higher cost for the complete medication, but, in the absence of wound complications, has the potential to involve lower consumption of resources in the form of routine medication over a 1-year time horizon.
INTRODUCTION: Diabetic chronic foot ulcers (DFU) lead to pain, reduced quality of life and represent a severe economic burden for patients and health systems. The clinical results of PRP effectiveness in the treatment of DFU are promising; on the other hand, the costs associated with treating DFUs with PRP are higher than those using standard therapy. Therefore, this study aims to determine the cost-effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) therapy compared to standard therapy from the French healthcare system perspective. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was performed using a decision Markov model with a cohort of patients with chronic DFU (duration of >3 weeks) with high orthopaedic risk and with ulcers graded 3A according to University of Texas classification. The effectiveness outcomes are reported in terms of quality adjusted life year (QALY). The costs are reported in euro (€) currency evaluated in 2019. A micro-costing approach alongside a clinical study was used to assess resource use. Deterministic sensibility analyses are reported to evaluate the robustness of the results. The analyses were carried out in the French setting. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of PRP treatment is -€613/ QALY, which, being lower than zero, indicates the dominance of the PRP therapy. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis underlines the main parameter affecting CE results. Lowest number of standard of care weekly medications (from 5 to 3) leads to a €622/QALY while increasing PRP weekly medication (from 1 to 4) has an ICER of €732/QALY. DISCUSSION: PRP is a cost-effective or even a cost-saving alternative in the French setting. PRP has higher cost for the complete medication, but, in the absence of wound complications, has the potential to involve lower consumption of resources in the form of routine medication over a 1-year time horizon.
Authors: Michal Dubský; Alexandra Jirkovská; Robert Bem; Vladimira Fejfarová; Jelena Skibová; Nicolaas C Schaper; Benjamin A Lipsky Journal: Int Wound J Date: 2012-06-19 Impact factor: 3.315
Authors: C A Abbott; A L Carrington; H Ashe; S Bath; L C Every; J Griffiths; A W Hann; A Hussein; N Jackson; K E Johnson; C H Ryder; R Torkington; E R E Van Ross; A M Whalley; P Widdows; S Williamson; A J M Boulton Journal: Diabet Med Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 4.359
Authors: Maria José Martinez-Zapata; Arturo J Martí-Carvajal; Ivan Solà; José Angel Expósito; Ignasi Bolíbar; Luciano Rodríguez; Joan Garcia Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2012-10-17