Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2025
Cost-effectiveness of ON101 with general wound care for diabetic foot ulcers among patients with type 2 diabetes in Singapore: Analysis of a multi-ethnic country in Asia.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Su Hsuan-Yu, Chew Khong-Yik, Graves Nicholas, Ou Huang-Tz
Аннотация
AIMS: Diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) impose a vast health and economic burden on individuals and healthcare systems globally. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of adding ON101, a novel treatment for accelerating wound healing, to general wound care (GWC) versus GWC alone for DFUs in Singapore, a multi-ethnic country with increasing DFU prevalence in a growing type 2 diabetes population.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Markov model was utilized to estimate the healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over 5 years from a healthcare sector perspective. Model inputs were mainly derived from the Singapore Wound Registry and published literature. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Subgroup analyses stratified by clinically important DFU conditions and scenario analyses were conducted to confirm the study's robustness.
RESULTS: Compared to GWC alone, adding ON101 yielded greater QALY gained (i.e., 0.15) and lower healthcare costs (i.e., -US$16237) for patients with DFUs. Remarkable cost-savings from the use of ON101 with GWC were observed for patients with complex DFUs, namely ICERs of -US$161 963, -US$181 726 and -US$199 130 per QALY gained for cases with HbA1c ≥ 9%, ulcer duration >6 months and ulcer size >5 cm2, respectively. Scenario analysis comparing ON101 with GWC to negative pressure wound therapy with GWC yielded an ICER of -US$677 243 per QALY gained.
CONCLUSIONS: Combining ON101 with GWC versus GWC alone was highly cost-effective for DFUs in Singapore. Also, the economic results for complex DFU cases underscore the value of ON101 in addressing DFU treatment challenges for managing complex cases, offering cost-savings alongside clinical benefits.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Markov model was utilized to estimate the healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over 5 years from a healthcare sector perspective. Model inputs were mainly derived from the Singapore Wound Registry and published literature. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Subgroup analyses stratified by clinically important DFU conditions and scenario analyses were conducted to confirm the study's robustness.
RESULTS: Compared to GWC alone, adding ON101 yielded greater QALY gained (i.e., 0.15) and lower healthcare costs (i.e., -US$16237) for patients with DFUs. Remarkable cost-savings from the use of ON101 with GWC were observed for patients with complex DFUs, namely ICERs of -US$161 963, -US$181 726 and -US$199 130 per QALY gained for cases with HbA1c ≥ 9%, ulcer duration >6 months and ulcer size >5 cm2, respectively. Scenario analysis comparing ON101 with GWC to negative pressure wound therapy with GWC yielded an ICER of -US$677 243 per QALY gained.
CONCLUSIONS: Combining ON101 with GWC versus GWC alone was highly cost-effective for DFUs in Singapore. Also, the economic results for complex DFU cases underscore the value of ON101 in addressing DFU treatment challenges for managing complex cases, offering cost-savings alongside clinical benefits.