Cost-effectiveness of dehydrated human amnion/chorion membrane allografts in lower extremity diabetic ulcer treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of using standard care (no advanced treatment, NAT) compared with an advanced treatment (AT), dehydrated human amnion/chorion membrane (DHACM), when following parameters for use (FPFU) in treating lower extremity diabetic ulcers (LEDUs). METHOD: We analysed a retrospective cohort of Medicare patients (2015-2019) to generate four propensity-matched cohorts of LEDU episodes. Outcomes for DHACM and NAT, such as amputations, and healthcare utilisation were tracked from claims codes, analysed and used to build a hybrid economic model, combining a one-year decision tree and a four-year Markov model. The budget impact was evaluated in the difference in per member per month spending following completion of the decision tree. Likewise, the cost-effectiveness was analysed before and after the Markov model at a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000 per quality adjusted life year (QALY). The analysis was conducted from the healthcare sector perspective. RESULTS: There were 10,900,127 patients with a diagnosis of diabetes, of whom 1,213,614 had an LEDU. Propensity-matched Group 1 was generated from the 19,910 episodes that received AT. Only 9.2% of episodes were FPFU and DHACM was identified as the most widely used AT product among Medicare episodes. Propensity-matched Group 4 was limited by the 590 episodes that used DHACM FPFU. Episodes treated with DHACM FPFU had statistically fewer amputations and healthcare utilisation. In year one, DHACM FPFU provided an additional 0.013 QALYs, while saving $3,670 per patient. At a WTP of $100,000 per QALY, the five-year net monetary benefit was $5003. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study showed that DHACM FPFU reduced costs and improved clinical benefits compared with NAT for LEDU Medicare patients. DHACM FPFU provided better clinical outcomes than NAT by reducing major amputations, ED visits, inpatient admissions and readmissions. These clinical gains were achieved at a lower cost, in years 1-5, and were likely to be cost-effective at any WTP threshold. Adoption of best practices identified in this retrospective analysis is expected to generate clinically significant decreases in amputations and hospital utilisation while saving money.

Observed impact of skin substitutes in lower extremity diabetic ulcers: lessons from the Medicare Database (2015-2018).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate large propensity-matched cohorts to assess outcomes in patients receiving advanced treatment (AT) with skin substitutes for lower extremity diabetic ulcers (LEDUs) versus no AT (NAT) for the management of LEDUs. METHOD: The Medicare Limited Dataset (1 October 2015 through 2 October 2018) were used to retrospectively analyse people receiving care for a LEDU treated with AT or NAT (propensity-matched Group 1). Analysis included major and minor amputations, emergency department (ED) visits and hospital readmissions. In addition, AT following parameters for use (FPFU) was compared with AT not FPFU (propensity-matched Group 2). A paired t-test was used for comparisons of the two groups. For comparisons of three groups, the Kruskal-Wallis test was used. A Bonferroni correction was performed when multiple comparisons were calculated. RESULTS: There were 9,738,760 patients with a diagnosis of diabetes, of whom 909,813 had a LEDU. In propensity-matched Group 1 (12,676 episodes per cohort), AT patients had statistically fewer minor amputations (p=0.0367), major amputations (p<0.0001), ED visits (p<0.0001), and readmissions (p<0.0001) compared with NAT patients. In propensity-matched Group 2 (1131 episodes per cohort), AT FPFU patients had fewer minor amputations (p=0.002) than those in the AT not FPFU group. CONCLUSION: AT for the management of LEDUs was associated with significant reductions in major and minor amputation, ED use, and hospital readmission compared with LEDUs managed with NAT. Clinics should implement AT in accordance with the highlighted parameters for use to improve outcomes and reduce costs.