Journal of wound care · 2025
Cost-effectiveness of a nitric oxide-generating medical device in managing hard-to-heal diabetic foot ulcers.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Guest Julian F, Edmonds Michael E
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To explore the potential cost-effectiveness of using a nitric oxide-generating medical device (EDX110, ConvaNiox, Convatec Ltd., UK) in the management of hard-to-heal diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) among patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes, from the perspective of the UK's health services.
METHOD: Markov modelling simulated the management of infected and non-infected hard-to-heal (chronic) DFUs with EDX110 or standard care in the community and secondary care over a 24-week period. The model was constructed using data from a previous randomised controlled trial and was used to estimate the potential cost-effectiveness of EDX110 in terms of the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained at 2021/22 prices.
RESULTS: There was a 63% improvement in healing by 24 weeks in the EDX110 group compared with standard care (49% versus 30%, respectively). This led to a 6% improvement in health-related quality of life and a 20% reduction in the total cost of DFU management. At a purchase price of £40 per EDX110 dressing, it was found to afford a cost-effective treatment in >80% of a cohort. However, the location where the dressing is administered (i.e., the community or secondary care) can potentially influence EDX110's cost-effectiveness.
CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of the study, EDX110 could potentially afford the UK's health services a cost-effective treatment for DFUs; however, this is dependent on the location of the healthcare professionals administering the dressing.
METHOD: Markov modelling simulated the management of infected and non-infected hard-to-heal (chronic) DFUs with EDX110 or standard care in the community and secondary care over a 24-week period. The model was constructed using data from a previous randomised controlled trial and was used to estimate the potential cost-effectiveness of EDX110 in terms of the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained at 2021/22 prices.
RESULTS: There was a 63% improvement in healing by 24 weeks in the EDX110 group compared with standard care (49% versus 30%, respectively). This led to a 6% improvement in health-related quality of life and a 20% reduction in the total cost of DFU management. At a purchase price of £40 per EDX110 dressing, it was found to afford a cost-effective treatment in >80% of a cohort. However, the location where the dressing is administered (i.e., the community or secondary care) can potentially influence EDX110's cost-effectiveness.
CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of the study, EDX110 could potentially afford the UK's health services a cost-effective treatment for DFUs; however, this is dependent on the location of the healthcare professionals administering the dressing.