Journal of wound care · 2021
Cost-effectiveness of using intermittent pneumatic compression to manage hard-to-heal venous leg ulcers in the UK.
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.
Guest Julian F, Staines Karen, Murphy Nina
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To estimate whether thigh-administered intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) could potentially afford the UK's National Health Service (NHS) a cost-effective intervention for the management of hard-to-heal venous leg ulcers (VLUs).
METHOD: A Markov model was constructed depicting the management of hard-to-heal VLUs with IPC plus standard care or standard care alone over a period of 24 weeks. The model estimated the cost-effectiveness of the two interventions in terms of the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained at 2019/20 prices.
RESULTS: Treatment of hard-to-heal VLUs with IPC plus standard care instead of standard care alone is expected to increase the probability of healing by 58% (from 0.24 to 0.38) at 24 weeks and increase health-related quality of life over 24 weeks from 0.32 to 0.34 QALYs per patient. Additionally, the cost of treating with IPC plus standard care (£3,020 per patient) instead of standard care alone (£3,037 per patient) has the potential to be cost-neutral if use of this device is stopped after 6 weeks in non-improving wounds. Sensitivity analysis showed that the relative cost-effectiveness of IPC plus standard care remains <£20,000 per QALY with plausible variations in costs and effectiveness.
CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, the addition of IPC to standard care potentially affords a cost-effective treatment to the NHS for managing hard-to-heal VLUs. However, a controlled study is required to validate the outcomes of this analysis.
METHOD: A Markov model was constructed depicting the management of hard-to-heal VLUs with IPC plus standard care or standard care alone over a period of 24 weeks. The model estimated the cost-effectiveness of the two interventions in terms of the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained at 2019/20 prices.
RESULTS: Treatment of hard-to-heal VLUs with IPC plus standard care instead of standard care alone is expected to increase the probability of healing by 58% (from 0.24 to 0.38) at 24 weeks and increase health-related quality of life over 24 weeks from 0.32 to 0.34 QALYs per patient. Additionally, the cost of treating with IPC plus standard care (£3,020 per patient) instead of standard care alone (£3,037 per patient) has the potential to be cost-neutral if use of this device is stopped after 6 weeks in non-improving wounds. Sensitivity analysis showed that the relative cost-effectiveness of IPC plus standard care remains <£20,000 per QALY with plausible variations in costs and effectiveness.
CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, the addition of IPC to standard care potentially affords a cost-effective treatment to the NHS for managing hard-to-heal VLUs. However, a controlled study is required to validate the outcomes of this analysis.