Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2014
Cost-effectiveness of three adjunct cellular/tissue-derived products used in the management of chronic venous leg ulcers.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Carter Marissa J, Waycaster Curtis, Schaum Kathleen, Gilligan Adrienne M
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Determine the cost-effectiveness of three topically applied cellular/tissue-derived products (CTPs) used as adjunct therapies to standard care in the management of venous leg ulcers (VLUs).
METHODS: A three-state Markov model derived from the medical literature was developed to estimate the comparative cost-effectiveness of three CTPs in relation to VLU standard care. CTPs evaluated in the study included extracellular matrix (ECM), human skin equivalent (HSE), and living skin equivalent (LSE). The three Markov states included unhealed, healed, and death. A 1-year time horizon was used to determine the number of ulcer-free weeks and the expected costs of therapies. The payer perspective was taken in the analysis and only the direct costs of care were considered. Sensitivity analyses were performed to gauge model parameter uncertainty.
RESULTS: The expected costs for standard care, ECM, HSE, and LSE VLU therapy were $6,132, $6,732, $10,638, and $11,237, while the expected outcomes were 24, 31, 29, and 27 ulcer-free weeks, respectively. ECM was economically dominant among the three CTPs. In the base case of ECM versus standard care, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for ECM therapy was $86 per ulcer-free week. Sensitivity analysis did not alter ECM dominance. Clinic visits and home health utilization exhibited the greatest influence on cost.
CONCLUSIONS: ECM is the most cost-effective CTP when used in the management of VLUs as an adjunct to standard care. These findings suggest that VLU standard care therapy with ECM can yield potential cost savings and produce better outcomes than do other CTPs.
METHODS: A three-state Markov model derived from the medical literature was developed to estimate the comparative cost-effectiveness of three CTPs in relation to VLU standard care. CTPs evaluated in the study included extracellular matrix (ECM), human skin equivalent (HSE), and living skin equivalent (LSE). The three Markov states included unhealed, healed, and death. A 1-year time horizon was used to determine the number of ulcer-free weeks and the expected costs of therapies. The payer perspective was taken in the analysis and only the direct costs of care were considered. Sensitivity analyses were performed to gauge model parameter uncertainty.
RESULTS: The expected costs for standard care, ECM, HSE, and LSE VLU therapy were $6,132, $6,732, $10,638, and $11,237, while the expected outcomes were 24, 31, 29, and 27 ulcer-free weeks, respectively. ECM was economically dominant among the three CTPs. In the base case of ECM versus standard care, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for ECM therapy was $86 per ulcer-free week. Sensitivity analysis did not alter ECM dominance. Clinic visits and home health utilization exhibited the greatest influence on cost.
CONCLUSIONS: ECM is the most cost-effective CTP when used in the management of VLUs as an adjunct to standard care. These findings suggest that VLU standard care therapy with ECM can yield potential cost savings and produce better outcomes than do other CTPs.