Cost-effective faster wound healing with a sustained silver-releasing foam dressing in delayed healing leg ulcers - a health-economic analysis

Download

PDF - Publishers print Restricted to RAE restricted Download (1257Kb)

Description/Abstract

The aim of this analysis was to examine the cost-effectiveness of Contreet Foam (A) in comparison with three other commonly used venous leg ulcer treatment protocols: Aquacel Ag (B), Actisorb Silver (C) and Iodoflex (D). A health-economic analysis reflecting the UK treatment practice and cost structure was performed. The analysis was set up to assess the cost of relative wound area reduction over a 4-week treatment period. The model was validated by a UK expert panel consisting of four wound care specialists. To assure that the 4-week model had a realistic link to cost-effectiveness of complete wound healing, a Markov analysis was also performed. Sensitivity analyses were carried out to ensure validity. Protocol A and C proved to be the most effective treatments. The mean relative reduction in wound area after 4 weeks of treatment was 50·2% (protocol A), 23·9% (protocol B), 44·6% (protocol C) and 36·0% (protocol D). Cost-effectiveness ratios showed that protocol A proved to be the most cost-effective treatment, and protocol B the least. The cost per percentage reduction in wound area was £9·50 for protocol A, compared to £16·50–17·60 for the other treatment options. The cost-effectiveness of complete healing (Markov analysis) and sensitivity analyses confirmed these results. Using Contreet Foam instead of the other dressing alternatives may imply savings of £2·2–4·4 million per year to the National Health Service.