Why Is Calculating the "True" Cost-to-Heal Wounds So Challenging?

A purified reconstituted bilayer matrix shows improved outcomes in treatment of non-healing diabetic foot ulcers when compared to the standard of care: Final results and analysis of a prospective, randomized, controlled, multi-centre clinical trial

As the incidence of diabetic foot ulcers (DFU) increases, better treatments that improve healing should reduce complications of these ulcers including infections and amputations. We conducted a randomized controlled trial comparing outcomes between a novel purified reconstituted bilayer membrane (PRBM) to the standard of care (SOC) in the treatment of non-healing DFUs. This study included 105 patients who were randomized to either of two treatment groups (n = 54 PRBM; n = 51 SOC) in the intent to treat (ITT) group and 80 who completed the study per protocol (PP) (n = 47 PRBM; n = 33 SOC). The primary endpoint was the percentage of wounds closed after 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included percent area reduction, time to healing, quality of life, and cost to closure. The DFUs that had been treated with PRBM healed at a higher rate than those treated with SOC (ITT: 83% vs. 45%, p = 0.00004, PP: 92% vs. 67%, p = 0.005). Wounds treated with PRBM also healed significantly faster than those treated with SOC with a mean of 42 versus 62 days for SOC (p = 0.00074) and achieved a mean wound area reduction within 12 weeks of 94% versus 51% for SOC (p = 0.0023). There were no adverse events or serious adverse events that were related to either the PRBM or the SOC. In comparison to the SOC, DFUs healed faster when treated with PRBM. Thus, the use of this PRBM is an effective option for the treatment of chronic DFUs.

Retrospective real-world comparative effectiveness of ovine forestomach matrix and collagen/ORC in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers

The retrospective pragmatic real‐world data (RWD) study compared the healing outcomes of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) treated with either ovine forestomach matrix (OFM) (n = 1150) or collagen/oxidised regenerated cellulose (ORC) (n = 1072) in out‐patient wound care centres. Median time to wound closure was significantly (P = .0015) faster in the OFM group (14.6 ± 0.5 weeks) relative to the collagen/ORC group (16.4 ± 0.7). A sub‐group analysis was performed to understand the relative efficacy in DFUs requiring longer periods of treatment and showed that DFUs treated with OFM healed up to 5.3 weeks faster in these challenging wounds. The percentage of wounds closed at 36 weeks was significantly improved in OFM treated DFUs relative to the collagen/ORC. A Cox proportional hazards analysis showed OFM‐treated wounds had a 18% greater probability of healing versus wounds managed with collagen/ORC, and the probability increased to 21% when the analysis was adjusted for multiple variables. This study represents the first large retrospective RWD analysis comparing OFM and collagen/ORC and supports the clinical efficacy of OFM in the treatment of DFUs.

Development and validation of a clinical prediction rule for development of diabetic foot ulceration: an analysis of data from five cohort studies

INTRODUCTION

The aim of the study was to develop and validate a clinical prediction rule (CPR) for foot ulceration in people with diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Development of a CPR using individual participant data from four international cohort studies identified by systematic review, with validation in a fifth study. Development cohorts were from primary and secondary care foot clinics in Europe and the USA (n=8255, adults over 18 years old, with diabetes, ulcer free at recruitment). Using data from monofilament testing, presence/absence of pulses, and participant history of previous ulcer and/or amputation, we developed a simple CPR to predict who will develop a foot ulcer within 2 years of initial assessment and validated it in a fifth study (n=3324). The CPR's performance was assessed with C-statistics, calibration slopes, calibration-in-the-large, and a net benefit analysis.

RESULTS

CPR scores of 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4 had a risk of ulcer within 2 years of 2.4% (95% CI 1.5% to 3.9%), 6.0% (95% CI 3.5% to 9.5%), 14.0% (95% CI 8.5% to 21.3%), 29.2% (95% CI 19.2% to 41.0%), and 51.1% (95% CI 37.9% to 64.1%), respectively. In the validation dataset, calibration-in-the-large was -0.374 (95% CI -0.561 to -0.187) and calibration slope 1.139 (95% CI 0.994 to 1.283). The C-statistic was 0.829 (95% CI 0.790 to 0.868). The net benefit analysis suggested that people with a CPR score of 1 or more (risk of ulceration 6.0% or more) should be referred for treatment.

CONCLUSION

The clinical prediction rule is simple, using routinely obtained data, and could help prevent foot ulcers by redirecting care to patients with scores of 1 or above. It has been validated in a community setting, and requires further validation in secondary care settings.

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

AIMS

The aim of this health economics study was to estimate the cost-utility of an aseptically processed, dehydrated human amnion and chorion allograft (dHACA) plus standard of care (SOC) (group 1) versus SOC alone (group 2) based on a published randomized controlled trial in which patients who had an eligible Wagner 1 diabetic foot ulcer wound were randomized to either of these treatments.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Markov microsimulation was used to project trial results out to a 1-year horizon time with a third-party payer perspective. The starting health state was an unhealed non-infected ulcer with other health states of healed ulcer, infected non-healed ulcer, cellulitis, osteomyelitis, and absorbing states of dead or amputation. All patients started with unhealed non-infected ulcers at cycle 0. Costs were incurred by patients for procedures at hospital outpatient wound care provider-based departments (PBDs) and hospitals (if complications occurred) and were calculated using time-based activity costing methods. Effectiveness units were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) computed from literature utility values. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were also conducted.

RESULTS

After 1 year, the calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for group 1 versus group 2 was -$4,373 with group 1 (dHACA) being dominant over group 2 (SOC). PSA demonstrated that group 1 had 69.2% lower cost values with increased positive incremental effectiveness for 94.9% of values. A willingness to pay (WTP) curve showed that about 92% of interventions were cost effective for group 1 when $50,000 was paid.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study demonstrated that dHACA added to SOC compared to SOC alone was extremely cost-effective in the defined trial population.