Difficult-to-heal wounds of mixed arterial/venous and venous etiology: a cost-effectiveness analysis of extracellular matrix

The Use of Acellular Tissue Matrices in Gender-Affirming Surgery: Review of the Literature and Institutional Experience

Wound healing complications are not uncommon after genital gender-affirming surgery and can pose significant challenges for the reconstructive surgeon. Acellular tissue matrices are products that contain extracellular matrix compounds without living cells and are used to expedite and improve wound healing. Some of these products have been described for a variety of different indications in gender-affirming surgery.  In this paper, the authors present a review of the current literature on the use of acellular tissue matrices in gender-affirming surgery as well as the authors' institutional experience in using these products.

Skin Substitutes for Adults With Diabetic Foot Ulcers and Venous Leg Ulcers: A Health Technology Assessment

BACKGROUND

Wounds may be caused in a variety of ways. Some wounds are difficult to heal, such as diabetic foot ulcers and venous leg ulcers. We conducted a health technology assessment of skin substitutes for adults with neuropathic diabetic foot ulcers and venous leg ulcers, which included an evaluation of effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, the budget impact of publicly funding skin substitutes, and patient preferences and values.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence. We assessed the risk of bias of each included study using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized studies (version 2), and the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We performed a systematic economic literature search and conducted a cost-utility analysis with a 26-week time horizon from a public payer perspective. We also analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding skin substitutes in adults with diabetic foot ulcers and venous leg ulcers in Ontario. We explored the underlying values, needs, and priorities of those who have lived experience with diabetic leg ulcers and venous leg ulcers, as well as their preferences for and perceptions of skin substitutes.

RESULTS

We included 40 studies in the clinical evidence review. Adults with difficult-to-heal neuropathic diabetic foot ulcers who used dermal (GRADE: High) or multi-layered (GRADE: Moderate) skin substitutes as an adjunct to standard care were more likely to experience complete wound healing than those whose who used standard care alone. Adults with difficult-to-heal venous leg ulcers who used dermal (GRADE: Moderate) or multi-layered (GRADE: High) skin substitutes as an adjunct to standard care were more likely to experience complete wound healing than those who used standard care alone. The evidence for the effectiveness of epidermal skin substitutes was inconclusive for venous leg ulcers because of the small size of the individual studies (GRADE: Very low). We found no studies on epidermal skin substitutes for diabetic foot ulcers. We could not evaluate the safety of skin substitutes versus standard care, because the number of adverse events was either very low or zero (because sample sizes were too small).In our economic analysis, the use of skin substitutes as an adjunct to standard care was more costly and more effective than standard care alone for the treatment of difficult-to-heal diabetic foot ulcers and venous leg ulcers. For diabetic foot ulcers, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of skin substitutes plus standard care compared with standard care alone was $48,242 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), and the cost per ulcer-free week was $158. For venous leg ulcers, the ICER was $1,868,850 per QALY, and the cost per ulcer-free week was $3,235. At the commonly used willingness-to-pay of $50,000 per QALY, the cost-effectiveness of skin substitutes plus standard care versus standard care alone was uncertain (47% probability of being cost-effective) for diabetic foot ulcers and highly unlikely (0% probability of being cost-effective) for venous leg ulcers. At the commonly used willingness-to-pay of $100,000 per QALY, the cost-effectiveness of skin substitutes plus standard care versus standard care alone was moderately likely (71% probability of cost-effectiveness) for people with diabetic foot ulcers and highly unlikely (0% probability of being cost-effective) for people with venous leg ulcers. The annual budget impact of publicly funding skin substitutes in Ontario over the next 5 years would range from an additional $0.17 million in year 1 to $1.2 million in year 5 for people with diabetic foot ulcers, and from $1 million in year 1 to $7.7 million in year 5 for people with venous leg ulcers.Direct patient engagement consisted of three participants for this assessment and 51 from previous health technology assessments that addressed interventions for diabetic foot ulcers and venous leg ulcers. Participants spoke of the negative impact on their quality of life with regard to mobility, employment, social activities, and emotional and mental health. No participants had direct experience using skin substitutes, but participants were open to this treatment option. Barriers to access included the limited use of skin substitutes across Ontario, lack of knowledge of skin substitutes among people with diabetic foot ulcers and venous leg ulcers, and cost.

CONCLUSIONS

Dermal and multi-layered skin substitutes, when used as an adjunct to standard care, were more effective than standard care alone in completely healing difficult-to-heal neuropathic diabetic foot ulcers and venous leg ulcers in adults. Using skin substitutes as an adjunct to standard care was more costly and more effective than standard care alone for the treatment of difficult-to-heal neuropathic diabetic foot ulcers and venous leg ulcers. For adults with diabetic foot ulcers, the likelihood of skin substitutes being cost-effective compared with standard care depends on the willingness to pay. The likelihood of skin substitutes being cost-effective compared with standard care is uncertain at $50,000 per QALY and moderately likely at $100,000 per QALY. For adults with venous leg ulcers, skin substitutes were highly unlikely to be cost-effective compared with standard care. We estimated that publicly funding skin substitutes in Ontario would result in additional costs of $3 million and $20 million over the next 5 years for people with diabetic foot ulcers and venous leg ulcers, respectively. The people with diabetic foot ulcers and venous leg ulcers we spoke with were open to using skin substitutes as a treatment option.

Dressings and topical agents for arterial leg ulcers

BACKGROUND

It is estimated that up to 1% of people in high-income countries suffer from a leg ulcer at some time in their life. The majority of leg ulcers are associated with circulation problems; poor blood return in the veins causes venous ulcers (around 70% of ulcers) and poor blood supply to the legs causes arterial ulcers (around 22% of ulcers). Treatment of arterial leg ulcers is directed towards correcting poor arterial blood supply, for example by correcting arterial blockages (either surgically or pharmaceutically). If the blood supply has been restored, these arterial ulcers can heal following principles of good wound-care. Dressings and topical agents make up a part of good wound-care for arterial ulcers, but there are many products available, and it is unclear what impact these have on ulcer healing. This is the third update of a review first published in 2003.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether topical agents and wound dressings affect healing in arterial ulcers. To compare healing rates and patient-centred outcomes between wound dressings and topical agents.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and Allied and Complementary Medicine databases, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials register to 28 January 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) evaluating dressings and topical agents in the treatment of arterial leg ulcers were eligible for inclusion. We included participants with arterial leg ulcers irrespective of method of diagnosis. Trials that included participants with mixed arterio-venous disease and diabetes were eligible for inclusion if they presented results separately for the different groups. All wound dressings and topical agents were eligible for inclusion in this review. We excluded trials which did not report on at least one of the primary outcomes (time to healing, proportion completely healed, or change in ulcer area).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted information on the participants' characteristics, the interventions, and outcomes using a standardised data extraction form. Review authors resolved any disagreements through discussion. We presented the data narratively due to differences in the included trials. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Two trials met the inclusion criteria. One compared 2% ketanserin ointment in polyethylene glycol (PEG) with PEG alone, used twice a day by 40 participants with arterial leg ulcers, for eight weeks or until healing, whichever was sooner. One compared topical application of blood-derived concentrated growth factor (CGF) with standard dressing (polyurethane film or foam); both applied weekly for six weeks by 61 participants with non-healing ulcers (venous, diabetic arterial, neuropathic, traumatic, or vasculitic). Both trials were small, reported results inadequately, and were of low methodological quality. Short follow-up times (six and eight weeks) meant it would be difficult to capture sufficient healing events to allow us to make comparisons between treatments. One trial demonstrated accelerated wound healing in the ketanserin group compared with the control group. In the trial that compared CGF with standard dressings, the number of participants with diabetic arterial ulcers were only reported in the CGF group (9/31), and the number of participants with diabetic arterial ulcers and their data were not reported separately for the standard dressing group. In the CGF group, 66.6% (6/9) of diabetic arterial ulcers showed more than a 50% decrease in ulcer size compared to 6.7% (2/30) of non-healing ulcers treated with standard dressing. We assessed this as very-low certainty evidence due to the small number of studies and arterial ulcer participants, inadequate reporting of methodology and data, and short follow-up period. Only one trial reported side effects (complications), stating that no participant experienced these during follow-up (six weeks, low-certainty evidence). It should also be noted that ketanserin is not licensed in all countries for use in humans. Neither study reported time to ulcer healing, patient satisfaction or quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to determine whether the choice of topical agent or dressing affects the healing of arterial leg ulcers.

Estimating the economic value of emerging technologies in chronic wound therapy

Estimating the economic value of emerging technologies in clinical medicine presents a number of problems. New technologies may have a limited clinical history, few supportive peer‐reviewed publications, and only anecdotal evidence as they enter the market and seek clinician approval and reimbursement from payers. Although clinical efficacy/effectiveness research is a minimal starting point for making the case for adoption of a product, establishing a competitive cost‐effectiveness position against other products and establishing the case for economic value must be made as well when presenting to health plans or other payers. Economic valuation methods have been well developed in the business community. Reviewed here are the components of a well‐crafted case for the economic value of a product in general and in the wound industry specifically, in a multidomain approach to demonstrate values using demographic, clinical, financial, operational, and intangible assessments.