Cost-effectiveness analysis of telephone-based support for the management of pressure ulcers in people with spinal cord injury in India and Bangladesh.

OBJECTIVE: To determine from a societal perspective the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of telephone-based support for management of pressure ulcers. STUDY DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of a randomised clinical trial. SETTING: Tertiary centre in India and Bangladesh. METHODS: An economic evaluation was conducted alongside a randomised clinical trial comparing 12 weeks of telephone-based support (intervention group) with usual care (control group). The analyses evaluated costs and health outcomes in terms of cm2 reduction of pressure ulcers size and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. All costs were in Indian Rupees (INR) and then converted to US dollars (USD). RESULTS: The mean (95% confidence interval) between-group difference for the reduction in size of pressure ulcers was 0.53 (-3.12 to 4.32) cm2, favouring the intervention group. The corresponding QALYs were 0.027 (0.004-0.051), favouring the intervention group. The mean total cost per participant in the intervention group was INR 43 781 (USD 2460) compared to INR 42 561 (USD 2391) for the control group. The per participant cost of delivering the intervention was INR 2110 (USD 119). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was INR 2306 (USD 130) per additional cm2 reduction in the size of the pressure ulcer and INR 44 915 (USD 2523) per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: In terms of QALYs, telephone-based support to help people manage pressure ulcers at home provides good value for money and has an 87% probability of being cost-effective, based on 3 times gross domestic product. Sensitivity analyses were performed using the overall cost data with and without productivity costs, and did not alter this conclusion.

Telephone-based management of pressure ulcers in people with spinal cord injury in low- and middle-income countries: a randomised controlled trial.

STUDY DESIGN: A multicentre, prospective, assessor-blinded, parallel randomised controlled trial. OBJECTIVES: The objective of the trial was to determine the effectiveness of telephone-based management of pressure ulcers in people with spinal cord injury (SCI) in low- and middle-income countries. METHODS: One hundred and twenty people with SCI living in the community were recruited through three hospitals in India and Bangladesh between November 2013 and March 2016. Participants had sustained an SCI >3 months prior and had a pressure ulcer. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to a control or intervention group. Participants in the control group received no intervention. Participants in the intervention group received weekly advice by telephone for 12 weeks about the management of their pressure ulcers from a trained health-care professional. Outcomes were measured by a blinded assessor at baseline and 12 weeks. There was one primary outcome, namely, the size of the pressure ulcer and 13 secondary outcomes. RESULTS: The mean between-group difference for the size of the pressure ulcer at 12 weeks was 2.3 cm2 (95% confidence interval -0.3 to 4.9; favouring the intervention group). Eight of the 13 secondary outcomes were statistically significant. CONCLUSION: The results of our primary outcome (that is, size of pressure ulcer) do not provide conclusive evidence that people with SCI can be supported at home to manage their pressure ulcers through regular telephone-based advice. However, the results from the secondary outcomes are sufficiently positive to provide hope that this simple intervention may provide some relief from this insidious problem in the future.