Dehydrated human amnion and chorion allograft versus standard of care alone in treatment of Wagner 1 diabetic foot ulcers: a trial-based health economics study

Cost effectiveness analysis for commonly used human cell and tissue products in the management of diabetic foot ulcers

Background and Aims

This study considers the cost-effectiveness of commonly used cellular, acellular, and matrix‑like products (CAMPs) of human origin also known as human cell and tissue products (HCT/Ps) in the management of diabetic foot ulcers.

Methods

We developed a 1-year economic model assessing six CAMPs [cryopreserved placental membrane with viable cells (vCPM), bioengineered bilayered living cellular construct (BLCC), human fibroblast dermal substitute (hFDS), dehydrated human amnion chorion membrane (dHACM), hypothermically stored amniotic membrane (HSAM) and human amnion membrane allograft (HAMA) which had randomized controlled trial evidence compared with standard of care (SoC). CAMPs were compared indirectly and ranked in order of cost-effectiveness using SoC as the baseline, from a CMS/Medicare's perspective.

Results

The mean cost, healed wounds (hw) and QALYs per patient for vCPM is $10,907 (0.914 hw, 0.783 QALYs), for HAMA $11,470 (0.903 hw, 0.780 QALYs), for dHACM $15,862 (0.828 hw, 0.764 QALYs), for BLCC $18,430 (0.816 hw, 0.763 QALYs), for hFDS $19,498 (0.775 hw, 0.757 QALYs), for SoC $19,862 (0.601 hw, 0.732 QALYs) and $24, 214 (0.829, 0.763 QALYs) for HSAM respectively. Over 1 year, vCPM results in cheaper costs overall and better clinical outcomes compared to other CAMPs. Following probabilistic sensitivity analysis, vCPM has a 60%, HAMA 40% probability of being cost-effective then dHACM, hFDS, BLCC, and lastly HSAM using a $100,000/healed wound or QALY threshold.

Conclusions

All CAMPs were shown to be cost-effective when compared to SoC in managing DFUs. However, vCPM appears to be the most cost-effective CAMP over the modelled 52 weeks followed by HAMA, dHACM, hFDS, BLCC, and HSAM. We urge caution in interpreting the results because we currently lack head-to-head evidence comparing all these CAMPs and therefore suggest that this analysis be updated when more direct evidence of CAMPs becomes available.

The Impact of Underlying Conditions on Quality-of-Life Measurement Among Patients with Chronic Wounds, as Measured by Utility Values: A Review with an Additional Study

Significance: Quality of life (QoL) is important to patients with chronic wounds and is rarely formally evaluated. Understanding what comorbidities most affect the individual versus their wounds could be a key metric. Recent Advances: The last 20 years have seen substantial advances in QoL instruments and conversion of patient data to a single value known as the health utilities index (HUI). We review these advances, along with wound-related QoL, and analyze real-world comorbidities challenging wound care. Critical Issues: To understand the impact of underlying comorbidities in a real-world patient population, we examined a convenience sample of 382 patients seen at a hospital-based outpatient wound center. This quality reporting study falls outside the regulations that govern human subject research. Comorbid conditions were used to calculate HUIs using a variety of literature-reported approaches, while Wound-Quality-of-Life (W-QoL) questionnaire data were collected from patients during their first visit. The mean number of conditions per patient was 8; 229 patients (59.9%) had utility values for comorbidities/conditions, which were worse/lower than their wounds' values. Sixty-three (16.5%) patients had depression and/or anxiety, 64 (16.8%) had morbid obesity, and 204 (53.4%) had gait and mobility disorders, all of which could have affected W-QoL scoring. The mean minimum utility value (0.5) was within 0.05 units of an average of 13 studies reporting health utilities from wound care populations using the EuroQol 5 Dimension instrument. Future Directions: The comorbidity associated with the lowest utility value is what might most influence the QoL of patients with chronic wounds. This finding needs further investigation.

Placental-Derived Biomaterials and Their Application to Wound Healing: A Review

Chronic wounds are associated with considerable patient morbidity and present a significant economic burden to the healthcare system. Often, chronic wounds are in a state of persistent inflammation and unable to progress to the next phase of wound healing. Placental-derived biomaterials are recognized for their biocompatibility, biodegradability, angiogenic, anti-inflammatory, antimicrobial, antifibrotic, immunomodulatory, and immune privileged properties. As such, placental-derived biomaterials have been used in wound management for more than a century. Placental-derived scaffolds are composed of extracellular matrix (ECM) that can mimic the native tissue, creating a reparative environment to promote ECM remodeling, cell migration, proliferation, and differentiation. Reliable evidence exists throughout the literature to support the safety and effectiveness of placental-derived biomaterials in wound healing. However, differences in source (i.e., anatomical regions of the placenta), preservation techniques, decellularization status, design, and clinical application have not been fully evaluated. This review provides an overview of wound healing and placental-derived biomaterials, summarizes the clinical results of placental-derived scaffolds in wound healing, and suggests directions for future work.

Amniotic Membrane Scaffolds Support Organized Muscle Regeneration in A Murine Volumetric Muscle Defect Model

Current treatment for volumetric muscle loss is limited to muscle transfer or acellular collagen scaffold (ACS) therapies that are associated with donor site morbidity and nonfunctional fibrosis, respectively. The aim of this study is to assess the utility of amniotic membrane scaffold (AMS) for volumetric muscle loss treatment.

Methods

Murine quadriceps defects were created and randomized to three groups (n = 5/group): untreated controls, ACS, and AMS. In vivo muscle regeneration volume was quantified by MRI and microcomputed tomography. Muscle explants were analyzed using standard histology and whole-mount immunofluorescence at 8 weeks.

Results

The cross-sectional muscle regeneration ratio was 0.64 ± 0.3 for AMS, 0.48 ± 0.07 for ACS, and 0.4 0 ± 0.03 for controls as assessed by MRI (P = 0.09) and 0.61 ± 0.28 for AMS, 0.50 ± 0.06 for ACS, and 0.43 ± 0.04 for controls as assessed by microcomputed tomography (P = 0.2). Histologically, AMS demonstrated significantly higher cellular density (900 ± 2 70 nuclei/high powered field) than ACS (210 ± 36) and control (130 ± 4) groups (P = 0.05). Immunofluorescence for laminin (AMS 623 ± 11 versus ACS 339 ± 3 versus control 115 ± 7; P < 0.01) and myosin heavy chain (AMS 509 ± 7 versus ACS 288 ± 5 versus control 84 ± 5; P = 0.03) indicated greater organized muscle fiber formation with AMS.

Conclusion

AMS mediated muscle healing was characterized by increased cellular infiltration and organized muscle formation when compared with controls and ACS.

Potential cost-effectiveness of using adjunctive dehydrated human amnion/chorion membrane allograft in the management of non-healing diabetic foot ulcers in the United Kingdom

The aim of this study was to estimate the cost‐effectiveness of using dehydrated human amnion/chorion membrane (dHACM) allografts (Epifix) as an adjunct to standard care, compared with standard care alone, to manage non‐healing diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) in secondary care in the United Kingdom, from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS). A Markov model was constructed to simulate the management of diabetic lower extremity ulcers over a period of 1 year. The model was used to estimate the cost‐effectiveness of using adjunctive dHACM, compared with standard care alone, to treat non‐healing DFUs in the United Kingdom, in terms of the incremental cost per quality‐adjusted life year (QALY) gained at 2019/2020 prices. The study estimated that at 12 months after the start of treatment, use of adjunctive dHACM instead of standard care alone is expected to lead to a 90% increase in the probability of healing, a 34% reduction in the probability of wound infection, a 57% reduction in the probability of wound recurrence, a 6% increase in the probability of avoiding an amputation, and 8% improvement in the number of QALYs. Additionally, if £4062 is spent on dHACM allografts per ulcer, then adjunctive use of dHACM instead of standard care alone is expected to lead to an incremental cost per QALY gain of £20 000. However, if the amount spent on dHACM allografts was ≤£3250 per ulcer, the 12‐month cost of managing an ulcer treated with adjunctive dHACM would break‐even with that of DFUs treated with standard care, and it would have a 0.95 probability of being cost‐effective at the £20 000 per QALY threshold. In conclusion, within the study's limitations, and within a certain price range, adjunctive dHACM allografts afford the NHS a cost‐effective intervention for the treatment of non‐healing DFUs within secondary care among adult patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus in the United Kingdom.