A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Comparing Single-use and Traditional Negative Pressure Wound Therapy to Treat Chronic Venous and Diabetic Foot Ulcers.

Lower extremity ulcers such as venous leg ulcers (VLUs) and diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) have a major clinical and economic impact on patients and providers. PURPOSE: The purpose of this economic evaluation was to determine the cost-effectiveness of single-use negative pressure wound therapy (sNPWT) compared with traditional NPWT (tNPWT) for the treatment of VLUs and DFUs in the United States. METHODS: A Markov decision-analytic model was used to compare the incremental cost and ulcer weeks avoided for a time horizon of 12 and 26 weeks using lower extremity ulcer closure rates from a published randomized controlled trial (N = 161) that compared sNPWT with tNPWT. Treatment costs were extracted from a retrospective cost-minimization study of sNPWT and tNPWT from the payer perspective using US national 2016 Medicare claims data inflated to 2018 costs and multiplied by 7 to estimate the weekly costs of treatment for sNPWT and tNPWT. Two (2) arms of the model, tNPWT and sNPWT, were calculated separately for a combination of both VLU and DFU ulcer types. In this model, a hypothetical cohort of patients began in the open ulcer health state, and at the end of each weekly cycle a proportion of the cohort moved into the closed ulcer health state according to a constant transition probability. The costs over the defined timescale were summed to give a total cost of treatment for each arm of the model, and then the difference between the arms was calculated. Effectiveness was calculated by noting the incidence of healing at 12 and 26 weeks and the total number of open ulcer weeks; the incremental effectiveness was calculated as sNPWT effectiveness minus tNPWT effectiveness. Data were extracted to Excel spreadsheets and subjected to one-way sensitivity, scenario (where patients with unhealed ulcers were changed to standard care at 4 or 12 weeks), probabilistic, and threshold analyses. RESULTS: sNPWT was found to provide an expected cost saving of $7756 per patient and an expected reduction of 1.67 open ulcer weeks per patient over 12 weeks and a cost reduction of $15 749 and 5.31 open ulcer weeks over 26 weeks. Probabilistic analysis at 26 weeks showed 99.8% of the simulations resulted in sNPWT dominating tNPWT. Scenario analyses showed that sNPWT remained dominant over tNPWT (cost reductions over 26 weeks of $2536 and $7976 per patient, respectively). CONCLUSION: Using sNPWT for VLUs and DFUs is likely to be more cost-effective than tNPWT from the US payer perspective and may provide an opportunity for policymakers to reduce the economic burden of lower extremity ulcers.

A Retrospective, Cost-minimization Analysis of Disposable and Traditional Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Medicare Paid Claims

Traditional negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) systems are considered durable. The pump is designed for use by numerous patients over a period of several years. Recently developed smaller, disposable devices are designed for single-patient use. A retrospective analysis of 2012-2014 national Medicare claims data was used to examine payments associated with the use of traditional and disposable NPWT systems. Data extracted included NPWT episodes from the Limited Data Set Standard Analytic Files including the 5% sample for traditional NPWT and 100% sample for disposable NPWT. NPWT episodes were identified using claim service dates and billing codes. Mean costs per episode were compared and analyzed using chi-squared tests for comparisons between patients who received traditional and those who used disposable NPWT. For continuous variables, statistical significance was assessed using Mann-Whitney U tests. The data included traditional (n = 2938; mean age 66.6 years) and disposable (n = 3522; mean age 67.6 years) episodes for the 2 NPWT groups. Wound types differed for NPWT groups (P <.0001) and included surgical (1134 [39%] versus 764 [22%]), generic open (850 [29%] versus 342 [10%]), skin ulcers (561 [19%] versus 1301 [37%]), diabetic ulcers (240 [8%] versus 342 [10%]), and circulatory system wounds (105 [4%] versus 563 [16%]). Average payment amounts were $4650 ± $2782 for traditional and $1532 ± $1767 per disposable NPWT episode (P <.0001). Payment differences were not affected by wound or comorbidity characteristics. Using the 2016 rates, average payments were $3501 for traditional and $1564 for disposable NPWT. Considering the rate of NPWT use in the United States and the results of this study suggesting substantial potential cost savings, additional analyses and cost-effectiveness studies are warranted.

Clostridial collagenase ointment and medicinal honey utilization for pressure ulcers in US hospitals.

AIMS: To describe the utilization of clostridial collagenase ointment (CCO) and medicinal honey debridement methods in real-world inpatient and outpatient hospital settings among pressure ulcer (PU) patients and compare the frequency of healthcare re-encounters between CCO- and medicinal honey-treated patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: De-identified hospital discharge records for patients receiving CCO or medicinal honey methods of debridement and having an ICD-9 code for PU were extracted from the US Premier Healthcare Database. Multivariable analysis was used to compare the frequency of inpatient and outpatient revisits up to 6 months after an index encounter for CCO- vs medicinal honey-treated PUs. RESULTS: The study identified 48,267 inpatients and 2,599 outpatients with PUs treated with CCO or medicinal honeys. Among study inpatients, n = 44,725 (93%) were treated with CCO, and n = 3,542 (7%) with medicinal honeys. CCO and medicinal honeys accounted for 1,826 (70%) and 773 (30%), respectively, of study outpatients. In adjusted models, those treated with CCO had lower odds for inpatient readmissions (OR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.80-0.94) after inpatient index visits, and outpatient re-encounters both after inpatient (OR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.67-0.79) and outpatient (OR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.64-0.95) index visits in 6 months of follow-up. LIMITATIONS: The study was observational in nature, and did not adjust for reasons why patients were hospitalized initially, or why they returned to the facility. Although the study adjusted for differences in a variety of demographic, clinical, and hospital characteristics between the treatments, we are not able to rule out selection bias. CONCLUSION: Patients with CCO-treated PUs returned to inpatient and outpatient hospital settings less often compared with medicinal honey-treated PUs. These results from real-world administrative data help to gain a better understanding of the clinical characteristics of patients with PUs treated with these two debridement methods and the economic implications of debridement choice in the acute care setting.