Changes in Silver Diamine Fluoride Use and Dental Care Costs: A Longitudinal Study.

Purpose: This study evaluated the impact of silver diamine fluoride (SDF) by investigating coverage and reimbursement policies. Methods: We performed a population-level retrospective cohort analysis (N equals 117,599) using claims. We evaluated two policy events: (1) dental board approval permitting SDF use by expanded practice dental hygienists (EPDHs); (2) approval of SDF by Medicaid. Coincident with coverage, Advantage Dental Services instituted EPDH practice algorithms. To evaluate changes, we: estimated CDT code 1354 utilization and average quarterly costs; stratified the population into patients who initiated preventive care from an EPHD or dentist; estimated outcome differences with either policy in quarterly trends; and counted SDF use with claims by quarter and calculated utilization per 1,000 patients. Results: Average per-patient quarterly dental costs (June 2017) ranged from $384 to $423. SDF use grew associated with Medicaid policy: rates increased from $0.32 per 1,000 to $156 per 1,000 in six quarters. Care initiated by EPDHs had lower costs, with quarterly savings of $201 (P=0.011) per patient, without differences in SDF utilization. Conclusions: Policy makers can use our results to improve access and reduce costs. Clinical experts should address more clearly when SDF substitutes for or is used in conjunction with restorative treatment.

Cost-effectiveness of silver dressings for paediatric partial thickness burns: An economic evaluation from a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Partial thickness burns of up to 10% total body surface area (TBSA) in children are common injuries primarily treated in the outpatient setting using expensive silver-containing dressings. However, economic evaluations in the paediatric burns population are lacking to assist healthcare providers when choosing which dressing to use. The aim of this study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of three silver dressings for partial thickness burns ≤10% TBSA in children aged 0-15 years using days to full wound re-epithelialization as the health outcome. METHOD: This study was a trial based economic evaluation (incremental cost effectiveness) conducted from a healthcare provider perspective. Ninety-six children participated in the trial investigating Acticoat™, Acticoat™ with Mepitel™ or Mepilex Ag™. Costs directly related to the management of partial thickness burns ≤10% TBSA were collected during the trial from March 2013 to July 2014 and for a one year after re-epithelialization time horizon. Incremental cost effectiveness ratios were estimated and dominance probabilities calculated from bootstrap resampling trial data. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine the potential effect of accounting for infrequent, but high cost, skin grafting surgical procedures. RESULTS: Costs (dressing, labour, analgesics, scar management) were considerably lower in the Mepilex Ag™ group (median AUD$94.45) compared to the Acticoat™ (median $244.90) and Acticoat™ with Mepitel™ (median $196.66) interventions. There was a 99% and 97% probability that Mepilex Ag™ dominated (cheaper and more effective than) Acticoat™ and Acticoat™ with Mepitel™, respectively. This pattern of dominance was consistent across raw cost and effects, after a priori adjustments, and sensitivity analyses. There was an 82% probability that Acticoat™ with Mepitel dominated Acticoat™ in the primary analysis, although this probability was sensitive to the effect of skin graft procedures. CONCLUSION: This economic evaluation has demonstrated that Mepilex Ag™ was the dominant dressing choice over both Acticoat™ and Acticoat™ with Mepitel™ in this trial-based economic evaluation and is recommended for treatment of paediatric partial thickness burns ≤10% TBSA.

Cost-effectiveness comparison between topical silver sulfadiazine and enclosed silver dressing for partial-thickness burn treatment.

The standard treatment of partial-thickness burns includes topical silver products such as silver sulfadiazine (SSD) cream and enclosed dressings including silver-impregnated foam (Mepilex Ag; Molnlycke Health Care, Gothenburg, Sweden) and silver-laden sheets (Aquacel Ag; ConvaTec, Skillman, NJ). The current state of health care is limited by resources, with an emphasis on evidence-based outcomes and cost-effective treatments. This study includes a decision analysis with an incremental cost-utility ratio comparing enclosed silver dressings with SSD in partial-thickness burn patients with TBSA less than 20%. A comprehensive literature review was conducted to identify clinically relevant health states in partial-thickness burn patients. These health states include successful healing, infection, and noninfected delayed healing requiring either surgery or conservative management. The probabilities of these health states were combined with Medicare CPT reimbursement codes (cost) and patient-derived utilities to fit into the decision model. Utilities were obtained using a visual analog scale during patient interviews. Expected cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated using the roll-back method. The incremental cost-utility ratio for enclosed silver dressing relative to SSD was $40,167.99/QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis of complication rates confirmed robustness of the model. Assuming a maximum willingness to pay $50,000/QALY, the complication rate for SSD must be 22% or higher for enclosed silver dressing to be cost effective. By varying complication rates for SSD and enclosed silver dressings, the two-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated the cost effectiveness of using enclosed silver dressing at the majority of complication rates for both treatment modalities. Enclosed silver dressings are a cost-effective means of treating partial thickness burns.

Aquacel(®) Ag dressing versus Acticoat™ dressing in partial thickness burns: a prospective, randomized, controlled study in 100 patients. Part 1: burn wound healing.

INTRODUCTION: Studies comparing contemporary silver dressings in burns are scarce. METHODS: In a prospective, randomized, controlled study, counting 50 patients/research group, we compared two frequently used silver dressings, Acticoat™ and Aquacel(®) Ag, in the management of partial thickness burns with a predicted healing time between 7 and 21 days as assessed by laser Doppler imaging between 48 and 72h after burn. Variables investigated were related to baseline research group characteristics, wound healing, bacteriology, economics, nurse, and patient experience. RESULTS: Both research groups were comparably composed taking into account gender, age and burn characteristics. Similar results were obtained as to healing time and bacterial control with both silver dressings. A statistically significant difference in favor of the Aquacel(®) Ag dressing was found for average ease of use (p<0.001), average ease of application (p=0.001), patient pain (p<0.001), patient comfort with the dressing (p=0.017), silver staining (p<0.001), and cost effectiveness (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Both silver dressings resulted in comparable healing times and bacterial control but the Aquacel(®) Ag dressing significantly increased comfort for patients as well as nurses and was significantly more cost-effective than the Acticoat™ dressing for the given indication.

Wound healing and cost-saving benefits of combining negative-pressure wound therapy with silver.

A 20-patient case series is presented, demonstrating the incorporation of a silver antimicrobial negative-pressure dressing and a negative-pressure wound therapy device for improved healing outcomes, decreased nursing time expenditure, and decreased cost expenditure.

An open, parallel, randomized, comparative, multicenter study to evaluate the cost-effectiveness, performance, tolerance, and safety of a silver-containing soft silicone foam dressing (intervention) vs silver sulfadiazine cream.

An open, parallel, randomized, comparative, multicenter study was implemented to evaluate the cost-effectiveness, performance, tolerance, and safety of a silver-containing soft silicone foam dressing (Mepilex Ag) vs silver sulfadiazine cream (control) in the treatment of partial-thickness thermal burns. Individuals aged 5 years and older with partial-thickness thermal burns (2.5-20% BSA) were randomized into two groups and treated with the trial products for 21 days or until healed, whichever occurred first. Data were obtained and analyzed on cost (direct and indirect), healing rates, pain, comfort, ease of product use, and adverse events. A total of 101 subjects were recruited. There were no significant differences in burn area profiles within the groups. The cost of dressing-related analgesia was lower in the intervention group (P = .03) as was the cost of background analgesia (P = .07). The mean total cost of treatment was $309 vs $513 in the control (P < .001). The average cost-effectiveness per treatment regime was $381 lower in the intervention product, producing an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $1688 in favor of the soft silicone foam dressing. Mean healing rates were 71.7 vs 60.8% at final visit, and the number of dressing changes were 2.2 vs 12.4 in the treatment and control groups, respectively. Subjects reported significantly less pain at application (P = .02) and during wear (P = .048) of the Mepilex Ag dressing in the acute stages of wound healing. Clinicians reported the intervention dressing was significantly easier to use (P = .03) and flexible (P = .04). Both treatments were well tolerated; however, the total incidence of adverse events was higher in the control group. The silver-containing soft silicone foam dressing was as effective in the treatment of patients as the standard care (silver sulfadiazine). In addition, the group of patients treated with the soft silicone foam dressing demonstrated decreased pain and lower costs associated with treatment.

Evaluating antimicrobial efficacy and cost of 3 dressings containing silver versus a novel antimicrobial hydrogel impregnated gauze dressing containing Oakin, an oak extract.

PURPOSE: Antimicrobial wound dressings are becoming more popular and are routinely used in the treatment of chronic and problematic wounds. Despite the ever-growing number and types of these antimicrobial products, many practitioners often do not report significant clinical differences between various common antimicrobial wound dressings despite wide variations in cost. Although these dressings use different active ingredients or different presentations of a particular active ingredient, all attempt to protect the wound from bacterial colonization and promote wound repair. With so many topical antimicrobial dressings to choose from in the clinical setting (many having already fallen into disfavor due to their cytotoxic characteristics) it was of prime interest to determine if there was a substantial difference between some of the more commonly used antimicrobial dressings, with silver versus an antimicrobial wound dressing using Oakin (oak extract [Amerx Health Care Corporation, Clearwater, Florida]) as the active ingredient. METHODS: This article compares the antimicrobial efficacy of 4 commonly used wound dressings in vitro, utilizing a corrected zone of inhibition test followed by a cost analysis. RESULTS: In vitro testing demonstrated that there were no substantial differences in the corrected zone of inhibition measurements between the silver wound dressings and the less expensive Oakin-impregnated gauze dressing. CONCLUSION: Despite obvious limitations of this study, these results suggest that the biggest differences between many antimicrobial dressings on the market may be more in cost than in antimicrobial efficacy. The differences in cost are due to variances in cost per application and frequency of applications per week.

Randomized controlled trial and cost-effectiveness analysis of silver-donating antimicrobial dressings for venous leg ulcers (VULCAN trial).

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial silver dressings are used beneath graduated compression in the treatment of venous ulceration. There is little information on whether their use is effective. This was a prospective randomized trial and cost-effectiveness analysis of silver-donating versus non-silver low-adherence dressings in the treatment of venous leg ulcers. METHODS: Patients were randomized between the two types of dressing. The primary outcome measure was complete ulcer healing at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included time to healing, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: A total of 213 patients were recruited. There was no difference between the dressings in the proportion of ulcers healed at 12 weeks (59.6 per cent for silver and 56.7 per cent for control dressings). Mean utility scores for the EuroQol 5D and Short Form 6D were similar in both groups at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months. Compared with the control group the antimicrobial group had an incremental cost of pounds sterling 97.85 and an incremental quality-adjusted life year gain of 0.0002, giving an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of pounds sterling 489 250 for the antimicrobial dressings. CONCLUSION: No significant differences were found in either primary or secondary endpoints. There was no evidence to support the routine use of silver-donating dressings beneath compression for venous ulceration. REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN 72485131 (http://www.controlled-trials.com).

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a silver-coated endotracheal tube to reduce the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of the economic outcomes of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) prevention associated with silver-coated endotracheal tubes versus uncoated endotracheal tubes. DESIGN: We used a simple decision model based on a hypothetical 1,000-patient cohort intubated with silver-coated or uncoated endotracheal tubes. The primary end point was marginal hospital savings per case of VAP prevented (savings from using silver-coated endotracheal tubes minus acquisition cost divided by number of VAP cases prevented). METHODS: We followed each branch of the decision model to VAP or no VAP and conducted Monte Carlo simulations and sensitivity analyses. Inputs for VAP incidence, relative risk reduction, and hospital costs were derived from publicly available sources. Relative risk reduction was derived from the pivotal study of the silver-coated endotracheal tube. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, we reduced the pivotal study relative risk in incidence of microbiologically confirmed VAP in patients intubated 24 hours from 35.9% to 24%. Thus, 23 of 97 expected cases of VAP could be prevented with silver-coated endotracheal tubes. The savings per case of VAP prevented was $12,840 in the base case, with assumed marginal VAP cost of $16,620 and costs of $90.00 for coated and $2.00 for uncoated endotracheal tubes. Estimates were most sensitive to assumptions regarding VAP cost and relative risk reduction with silver-coated endotracheal tubes. Nonetheless, in multivariate sensitivity analyses, the silver-coated endotracheal tubes yielded persistent savings (95% confidence interval, $9,630-$16,356) per case of VAP prevented. With other base-case inputs held constant, break-even cost for silver-coated endotracheal tubes was $388. CONCLUSIONS: The silver-coated endotracheal tube represents a strategy for preventing VAP that may yield hospital savings.

Enhancing patient outcomes--reducing the bottom line: the use of antimicrobial soft silicone foam dressing in home health.

According to the Tabor's Medical Dictionary (2005), bioburden is the number of contaminating microorganisms present on an object, such as a wound. Bioburden is a serious concern for wound care clinicians as it has been well-documented that bioburden may delay wound healing, increase pain and result in increased cost of treatment. Symptoms of bioburden include a delay in wound healing, increase in exudate and odor, a red bright wound bed with exuberant granulation tissue that bleeds readily (Sibbald et al., 2006), and persistence or development of necrotic tissue. Silver dressings are increasingly used in wound care to reduce bioburden. Silver provides potent broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity. When placed in contact with organic molecules, such as wound fluid or tissue that contain proteins or a broad spectrum of microorganisms, silver ions react with the microorganisms (Bolton, 2006).

The safety and efficacy of dressings with silver - addressing clinical concerns.

With the increasing use of silver as a topical application in wound care, concerns focussing on its role are bound to arise. These concerns, which centre on issues such as resistance and toxicity, clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness, need to be addressed and openly discussed so that they are viewed from a rational perspective. While clinical efficacy and safety, along with cost-benefit, are of obvious interest, the origin of some of these concerns is a matter of debate. The silver-containing dressing segment of the medical device market is of huge commercial importance, and, consequently, marketing and promotional issues occasionally obscure the evidence that clinicians need to have in order that they may provide appropriate treatment for their patients. The impact of silver application on the wound bioburden needs to be examined carefully to heighten our awareness of any deleterious effects on the healing process, without inducing any unfounded anxieties.

A silver-impregnated antimicrobial dressing reduces hospital costs for pediatric burn patients.

PURPOSE: Since using a novel silver-impregnated antimicrobial dressing (Aquacel Ag, ConvaTec, Princeton, NJ) in our pediatric patients with partial-thickness burns, hospital LOS has been significantly reduced. Here we investigated whether there was concomitant cost-effectiveness of this approach. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed Burn Registry Data from a large Children's Hospital Burn Unit from January 2005 through August 2005 for inpatients with partial-thickness burns treated with Aquacel Ag. A comparison group was composed of patients from the same period the previous year treated with silver sulfadiazine cream (SSD, Par Pharmaceuticals, Woodcliff, NJ) and matched for age and %TBSA burned. Patients with inhalation injury or full-thickness burns were excluded. Intent-to-treat analysis was limited to patients with less than 22% TBSA burn. Direct costs and total charges were compared statistically after log transformation due to the skewedness of the data. RESULTS: Total charges and direct costs were significantly lower for Aquacel Ag-treated patients (n = 38) than for SSD-treated patients (n = 39) (P = .004 and P < .001, respectively). In addition, Aquacel Ag-treated patients had a shorter LOS than SSD-treated patients. DISCUSSION: These data strongly support our findings that the application of Aquacel Ag reduces hospital LOS which results in a significant cost savings in the care of pediatric patients with partial-thickness burns.

Effect of a sustained silver-releasing dressing on ulcers with delayed healing: the CONTOP study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of the sustained silver-releasing foam dressing Contreet Foam (ColoplastA/S) with local best practice (LBP) on delayed healing ulcers using a real-life setting. METHOD: A total of 619 patients with ulcers of varying aetiologies were treated for four weeks with either the silver foam dressing or LBP. RESULTS: Wound area was reduced by 50% with the silver foam and 34% with LBP Less slough and maceration, a faster reduction in exudate level and more positive wound progress was achieved with the silver foam. In addition, exudate handling, ease of use, odour and pain improved. Less time was spent on dressing changes, and mean wear time was longer for the silver foam (3.1 days) than for LBP (2.1 days). All differences were statistically significant (p < 0.05). The silver foam dressing outperformed all of the other dressing categories including moist wound healing products and other silver dressings. CONCLUSION: This large-scale comparative real-life study shows that the silver foam dressing supports faster healing of delayed healing wounds.