The Health Economic Impact of Living Cell Tissue Products in the Treatment of Chronic Wounds: A Retrospective Analysis of Medicare Claims Data.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate differences in wound-related costs; product waste; lower-extremity amputations; and number of applications, hospitalizations, and emergency room visits among patients treated with three cellular and/or tissue-based products. METHODS: This retrospective intent-to-treat matched-cohort study analyzed the full Medicare claims dataset from 2011 to 2014. Patients who received either a bilayer cellular construct (BLCC), dermal skin substitute (DSS), or cryopreserved human skin allograft (CHSA) were concurrently matched for Charlson Comorbidity Index, age, sex, and region, resulting in 14,546 study patients. Key variables were reported at 60, 90, and 180 days after the first product application. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in the distribution of Charlson Comorbidity Index, age, sex, and region among cohorts. Wound-related costs and product wastage were lower for CHSA patients relative to both BLCC and DSS patients at all time intervals (P < .05). Patients treated with CHSA received fewer product applications than DSS at 90 and 180 days (P < .05). Amputations were significantly higher among patients treated with DSS than either CHSA or BLCC (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: The data demonstrate that wound-related costs, product waste, amputations, and frequency of applications are lower for CHSA than DSS. Wound-related costs and product waste are lower for CHSA compared with BLCC. Further claims analysis and prospective clinical trials could help develop appropriate quality measures and reimbursement models to ensure smarter spending for the growing population of patients with chronic wounds.

Health economics for treatment of diabetic foot ulcers: a cost-effectiveness analysis of eight skin substitutes.

AIM: Skin substitutes are frequently used to treat chronic diabetic foot ulcers (DFU), and many different options are available. While the clinical efficacy of many products has been evaluated, a comprehensive cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the most popular skin substitutes and using the most recent cost data has been lacking. METHODS: This study compared eight skin substitutes using published efficacy rates combined with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) 2018 cost data. The study criteria resulted in the inclusion of seven studies that described efficacy rates for treatment of DFUs using the skin substitutes. RESULTS: The results revealed wide discrepancies between these skin substitutes for the costs of treatments and healing rates in hospital outpatient departments and physician office settings. Healing rates for 12 and 16 weeks ranged from 28% to 68%, while the average cost for treating one DFU varied from $2001 to $14,507 and $1207 to $8791 in the hospital outpatient department and physician's office setting, respectively. The estimated patient share of costs for treating a single DFU ranged from $400 to $2901 and $241 to $1758 in the hospital outpatient department and physician's office setting, respectively. Most importantly, the estimated number of wounds healed out of 100 DFUs per $1000 expenditure with each patient ranged from 3.9-26.5 DFUs in the hospital outpatient department, and 4.3-36.4 DFUs in the physicians' office setting. CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed that the costs of a skin substitute itself did not necessarily correlate with its healing efficacy. These results provide a comprehensive cost-effectiveness analysis to enable integrated health-care systems, health professionals and reimbursement payers to make informed value decisions when treating DFUs.

Methodologies in creating skin substitutes.

The creation of skin substitutes has significantly decreased morbidity and mortality of skin wounds. Although there are still a number of disadvantages of currently available skin substitutes, there has been a significant decline in research advances over the past several years in improving these skin substitutes. Clinically most skin substitutes used are acellular and do not use growth factors to assist wound healing, key areas of potential in this field of research. This article discusses the five necessary attributes of an ideal skin substitute. It comprehensively discusses the three major basic components of currently available skin substitutes: scaffold materials, growth factors, and cells, comparing and contrasting what has been used so far. It then examines a variety of techniques in how to incorporate these basic components together to act as a guide for further research in the field to create cellular skin substitutes with better clinical results.

A prospective, randomised, controlled, multicentre clinical trial examining healing rates, safety and cost to closure of an acellular reticular allogenic human dermis versus standard of care in the treatment of chronic diabetic foot ulcers.

Acellular dermal matrices can successfully heal wounds. This study's goal was to compare clinical outcomes of a novel, open-structure human reticular acellular dermis matrix (HR-ADM) to facilitate wound closure in non-healing diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) versus DFUs treated with standard of care (SOC). Following a 2-week screening period in which DFUs were treated with offloading and moist wound care, patients were randomised to either SOC alone or HR-ADM plus SOC applied weekly for up to 12 weeks. At 6 weeks, the primary outcome time, 65% of the HR-ADM-treated DFUs healed (13/20) compared with 5% (1/20) of DFUs that received SOC alone. At 12 weeks, the proportions of DFUs healed were 80% and 20%, respectively. Mean time to heal within 12 weeks was 40 days for the HR-ADM group compared with 77 days for the SOC group. There was no incidence of increased adverse or serious adverse events between groups or any adverse events related to the graft. Mean and median graft costs to closure per healed wound in the HR-ADM group were $1475 and $963, respectively. Weekly application of HR-ADM is an effective intervention for promoting closure of non-healing DFUs.

A comparative analysis of skin substitutes used in the management of diabetic foot ulcers.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the relative product cost and clinical outcomes of four skin substitutes used as adjunctive treatments for diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs). METHOD: Medicare claims data from 2011 to 2014 were used to identify beneficiaries with diabetes and foot ulcers. Patients treated with one of four types of skin substitute (Apligraf, Dermagraft, OASIS, and MatriStem) were identified. The skin substitutes were compared on episode length; amputation rate; skin substitute utilisation; and skin substitute costs. RESULTS: There were 13,193 skin substitute treatment episodes: Apligraf (HML) was used in 4926 (37.3%), Dermagraft (HSL) in 5530 (41.9%), OASIS (SIS) in 2458 (18.6%) and MatriStem (UBM) in 279 (2.1%). The percentage of DFUs that healed at 90 days were: UBM 62%; SIS 63%; HML 58%; and HSL 58%. Over the entire time, UBM was non-inferior to SIS (p<0.001), and either was significantly better than HML or HSL (p<0.005 in all four tests). HML was marginally superior to HSL (p=0.025 unadjusted for multiple testing). Medicare reimbursements for skin substitutes per DFU episode for UBM ($1435 in skin substitutes per episode) and SIS ($1901) appeared to be equivalent to each other, although non-inferiority tests were not significant. Both were less than HML ($5364) or HSL ($14,424) (p<0.0005 in all four tests). HML was less costly than HSL (p<0.0005). CONCLUSION: Various types of skin substitutes appear to be able to confer important benefits to both patients with DFUs and payers. Analysis of the four skin-substitute types resulted in a demonstration that UBM and SIS were associated with both shorter DFU episode lengths and lower payer reimbursements than HML and HSL, while HML was less costly than HSL but equivalent in healing. DECLARATION OF INTEREST: MM and NM are health economic consultants who completed and authored this analysis. They have no financial interest in ACell, Inc. Their fees were not contingent on the outcome of this analysis.

Wound closure in patients with DFU: a cost-effectiveness analysis of two cellular/tissue-derived products.

OBJECTIVE: Determine the cost-effectiveness of extracellular matrix (ECM) relative to human fibroblast-derived dermal substitute (HFDS) on diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) wound closure. METHOD: Outcomes data were obtained from a 12-week, randomised, clinical trial of adults aged 18 years or older diagnosed with type 1 or type 2 diabetes with a DFU. Patients were treated with either ECM or HFDS treatment. A two-state Markov model (healed and unhealed) with a 1-week cycle length was developed using wound-closure rates from the trial to estimate the number of closed-wound weeks and the expected DFU cost per patient. Results were recorded over 12 weeks to estimate the number of closed-wound weeks per treatment and the average cost to achieve epithelialisation (primary outcome). The perspective of the analysis was that of the payer, specifically the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. No cost discounting was performed because of the short duration of the study. RESULTS: The study consisted of 26 patients, with 13 in each group. In the ECM group, 10 wounds closed (77%), with an average closure time of 36 days; 11 wounds closed in the HFDS group (85%), with an average closure time of 41 days. There was no significant difference between these results (p=0.73). Over 12 weeks, the expected cost per DFU was $2522 (£1634) for ECM and $3889 (£2524) for HFDS. Patients treated with HFDS incurred total treatment costs that were approximately 54% higher than those treated with ECM. Sensitivity analyses revealed that the total cost of care for two applications of HFDS was more costly than eight applications of ECM by approximately $500 (£325). CONCLUSION: In patients with DFU, ECM yielded similar clinical outcomes to HFDS but at a lower cost. Health-care providers should consider ECM as a cost-saving alternative to HFDS. DECLARATION OF INTEREST: A.M. Gilligan, and C.R. Waycaster, are employees of Smith & Nephew Inc.. This study was funded by Smith & Nephew Inc.. A.L. Landsman, reports no conflicts of interest.

Cost-effectiveness of three adjunct cellular/tissue-derived products used in the management of chronic venous leg ulcers.

OBJECTIVES: Determine the cost-effectiveness of three topically applied cellular/tissue-derived products (CTPs) used as adjunct therapies to standard care in the management of venous leg ulcers (VLUs). METHODS: A three-state Markov model derived from the medical literature was developed to estimate the comparative cost-effectiveness of three CTPs in relation to VLU standard care. CTPs evaluated in the study included extracellular matrix (ECM), human skin equivalent (HSE), and living skin equivalent (LSE). The three Markov states included unhealed, healed, and death. A 1-year time horizon was used to determine the number of ulcer-free weeks and the expected costs of therapies. The payer perspective was taken in the analysis and only the direct costs of care were considered. Sensitivity analyses were performed to gauge model parameter uncertainty. RESULTS: The expected costs for standard care, ECM, HSE, and LSE VLU therapy were $6,132, $6,732, $10,638, and $11,237, while the expected outcomes were 24, 31, 29, and 27 ulcer-free weeks, respectively. ECM was economically dominant among the three CTPs. In the base case of ECM versus standard care, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for ECM therapy was $86 per ulcer-free week. Sensitivity analysis did not alter ECM dominance. Clinic visits and home health utilization exhibited the greatest influence on cost. CONCLUSIONS: ECM is the most cost-effective CTP when used in the management of VLUs as an adjunct to standard care. These findings suggest that VLU standard care therapy with ECM can yield potential cost savings and produce better outcomes than do other CTPs.

Keratinocytes in the treatment of severe burn injury: an update.

Burns are among the most life-threatening physical injuries, in which fast wound closure is crucial. The surgical burn care has evolved considerably throughout the past decennia resulting in a shift of therapeutic goals. Therapies aiming to provide coverage of the burn have been replaced by treatments that have both functional as aesthetic outcomes. The standard in treating severe burns is still early excision followed by skin grafting. The use of cultured keratinocytes to cover extensive burn wounds appeared very promising at first, but the technique still has several limitations of which the long time to culture, the major costs, the risk of infection and the need for an adequate dermal layer limit clinical application. The introduction of dermal substitutes, composite grafts, tissue engineering based on stem cell application have been advocated. The aim of this review is to assess the use of cultured keratinocytes in terms of technical aspects, clinical application, limitations and future perspectives. Cultured keratinocytes are expected to keep playing a role in wound healing, especially in the field of chronic wounds. In severe burns, despite its limitations, keratinocytes can be beneficial if implemented as one of the elements in a broader wound management.

[Cost-benefit analysis of amniotic membrane transplantation for venous ulcers of the legs that are refractory to conventional treatment]. / Estudio coste-beneficio del trasplante de membrana amniótica para úlceras venosas de extremidades inferiores refractarias a tratamiento convencional.

BACKGROUND: Standard compression therapy for venous ulcers of the legs does not promote healing. Although autografting accelerates tissue repair, it is difficult to use in patients with concomitant diseases or when multiple grafts are required. The amniotic membrane has been used as a covering material and promotes epithelialization, making it a good potential treatment option when autografts are not indicated. OBJECTIVES: To analyze the literature on the safety and efficacy of amniotic membrane grafting and compare the cost of currently available grafts (autografts, amniotic membrane grafts, and biocompatible skin substitutes) to promote tissue repair in venous ulcers. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic review of the literature on the use of amniotic membrane grafts for the treatment of venous ulcers was performed up to 2010. A cost-minimization analysis of direct healthcare costs was then performed (at 3 and 6 months). A sensitivity analysis was performed to confirm the stability of the results. RESULTS: Only 1 study addressing safety and efficacy was identified. The cost-minimization analysis showed that autografts are always the least-expensive option (€ 1053 compared with € 1825 for amniotic membrane grafts and € 5767 for biocompatible skin grafts). At 6 months, however, amniotic membrane grafts would have cost € 6765 less than the use of biocompatible skin substitutes. CONCLUSIONS: Despite having excellent therapeutic potential for the re-epithelialization of venous ulcers that do not respond to conventional treatment, amniotic membrane transplant remains an experimental therapy. Autograft is the most efficient treatment but amniotic membrane graft is less expensive than the use of biocompatible skin substitutes.

Analysis of treatment costs for complex scalp wounds.

BACKGROUND: Two stage reconstructions of deep scalp wounds with exposed calvarial bone require a vital granulation tissue. By evaluating different surgical approaches functional and cosmetic results as well as economic aspects have to be taken into account. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 52 patients undergoing three different surgical procedures for soft tissue reconstruction of complex scalp wounds with exposed bone were included into a retrospective study. All patients underwent a two stage procedure with 3D histologic control, soft tissue reconstruction and final split thickness skin grafting. Soft tissue reconstruction was carried out using allogenic fascia lata, an artificial skin substitute or a negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT). The costs for all used materials as well as personnel and infrastructure were calculated. RESULTS: Comparing the costs for the different treatments, the fascia lata group was least costly (4,475 €) followed by the artificial skin substitute group (4,557 €). The highest expenses occurred in the NPWT group (7,.521 €). The artificial skin substitute group had the fewest dressing changes and the shortest treatment time. CONCLUSIONS: Although dermal regeneration templates are expensive, their use may be economic. NPWT causes high treatment costs due to high daily rental rates and frequent and time-consuming dressing changes.

Systematic review of economic evaluations of human cell-derived wound care products for the treatment of venous leg and diabetic foot ulcers.

BACKGROUND: Tissue engineering is an emerging field. Novel bioengineered skin substitutes and genetically derived growth factors offer innovative approaches to reduce the burden of diabetic foot and venous leg ulcers for both patients and health care systems. However, they frequently are very costly. Based on a systematic review of the literature, this study assesses the cost-effectiveness of these growth factors and tissue-engineered artificial skin for treating chronic wounds. METHODS: On the basis of an extensive explorative search, an appropriate algorithm for a systematic database search was developed. The following databases were searched: BIOSIS Previews, CRD databases, Cochrane Library, EconLit, Embase, Medline, and Web of Science. Only completed and published trial- or model-based studies which contained a full economic evaluation of growth factors and bioengineered skin substitutes for the treatment of chronic wounds were included. Two reviewers independently undertook the assessment of study quality. The relevant studies were assessed by a modified version of the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list and a published checklist for evaluating model-based economic evaluations. RESULTS: Eleven health economic evaluations were included. Three biotechnology products were identified for which topical growth factors or bioengineered skin substitutes for the treatment of chronic leg ulceration were economically assessed: (1) Apligraf, a bilayered living human skin equivalent indicated for the treatment of diabetic foot and venous leg ulcers (five studies); (2) Dermagraft, a human fibroblast-derived dermal substitute, which is indicated only for use in the treatment of full-thickness diabetic foot ulcers (one study); (3) REGRANEX Gel, a human platelet-derived growth factor for the treatment of deep neuropathic diabetic foot ulcers (five studies). The studies considered in this review were of varying and partly low methodological quality. They calculated that due to shorter treatment periods, fewer complications and fewer inpatient episodes the initial cost of the novel biotechnology products may be offset, making the treatment cost-effective or even cost-saving. The results of most studies were sensitive to initial costs of the products and the evidence of effectiveness. CONCLUSION: The study results suggest that some growth factors and tissue-engineered artificial skin products feature favourable cost-effectiveness ratios in selected patient groups with chronic wounds. Despite the limitations of the studies considered, it is evident that health care providers and coverage decision makers should take not only the high cost of the biotechnology product but the total cost of care into account when deciding about the appropriate allocation of their financial resources. However, not only the cost-effectiveness but first of all the effectiveness of these novel biotechnology products deserve further research.

Spray on skin for diabetic foot ulcers: an open label randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: One Australian loses a limb every 3 h as a result of infected diabetic foot ulcers (DFU). This common condition accounts for substantial morbidity and mortality for affected individuals and heavy economic costs for the health sector and the community. There is an urgent need to test interventions that improve wound healing time, prevent amputations and recurrent ulceration in patients presenting with DFU whilst improving quality of life and reducing health care costs. METHODS: One hundred and fifty eligible participants will be randomised to receive an autologous skin cell suspension, also termed 'spray-on' skin (ReCell®) or standard care interventions for their DFU. The primary outcome is complete wound healing at 6 months, but participants will be followed up for a total of 12 months to enable secondary outcomes including total overall costs, ulcer free days at 12 months and quality of life to be assessed. DISCUSSION: Outpatient costs for dressings, home nursing visits and outpatient appointments are key cost drivers for DFU. If spray-on skin is effective, large cost savings to WA Health will be realised immediately through a shortened time to healing, and through a higher proportion of patients achieving complete healing. Shortened healing times may enable participants to return to work earlier. Any economic benefits are likely to be amplified across Australia and other similar demographic settings where aging populations with increased diabetes rates are considered major future challenges. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12618000511235. Registered on 9 April 2018.

Evaluation of electrospun PCL/gelatin nanofibrous scaffold for wound healing and layered dermal reconstitution.

The current design requirement for a tissue engineering skin substitute is that of a biodegradable scaffold through which fibroblasts can migrate and populate. This artificial "dermal layer" needs to adhere to and integrate with the wound, which is not always successful for the current artificial dermal analogues available. The high cost of these artificial dermal analogues also makes their application prohibitive both to surgeons and patients. We propose a cost-effective composite consisting of a nanofibrous scaffold directly electrospun onto a polyurethane dressing (Tegaderm, 3M Medical) - which we call the Tegaderm-nanofiber (TG-NF) construct - for dermal wound healing. Cell culture is performed on both sides of the nanofibrous scaffold and tested for fibroblast adhesion and proliferation. It is hoped that these studies will result in a fibroblast-populated three-dimensional dermal analogue that is feasible for layered applications to build up thickness of dermis prior to re-epithelialization. Results obtained in this study suggest that both the TG-NF construct and dual-sided fibroblast-populated nanofiber construct achieved significant cell adhesion, growth and proliferation. This is a successful first step for the nanofiber construct in establishing itself as a suitable three-dimensional scaffold for autogenous fibroblast populations, and providing great potential in the treatment of dermal wounds through layered application.

Suprathel, a new skin substitute, in the management of donor sites of split-thickness skin grafts: results of a clinical study.

OBJECTIVE: A prospective, randomized, two center clinical study was conducted to evaluate the impact on wound healing of Suprathel in donor sites of split-thickness skin grafts. Suprathel represents an absorbable, synthetic wound dressing with properties of natural epithelium. METHODS: 22 burn patients who were treated with split-thickness skin grafts, and with a mean age of 39.6 years were included in the study. Donor sites of skin grafts were randomly selected; partly treated with Jelonet and partly treated with Suprathel. First gauze change was carried out the fifth day postoperatively followed by regular wound inspection until complete re-epithelization. The study focused on patient pain score, healing time, analysis of wound bed, ease of care, and treatment costs. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the two materials tested regarding healing time and re-epithelization. There was a significantly lower pain score for patients treated with Suprathel (p=0.0002). Suprathel became transparent when applied and allowed close monitoring of wound healing. In contrast to Jelonet, Suprathel showed excellent plasticity with better attachment and adherence to wound surfaces. Throughout the healing process it detached from wounds without damaging the new epithelial surface. In addition, wound areas treated with Suprathel required less frequent dressing changes. It also demonstrated excellent ease of care. This, altogether with the significant pain reduction, presented a positive feedback by patients and healthcare professionals who both rated Suprathel as their treatment preference. Though Jelonet is more cost effective as dressing material, the study revealed an overall reduction in total treatment costs achieved with Suprathel. CONCLUSION: Suprathel represents a solid, reliable epidermal skin substitute with impact on wound healing, patient comfort and ease of care. The material effectiveness contributes to the reduction of overall treatment costs.