An All-Suture-Based Technique for Meniscal Repair Is Cost-Effective in Comparison to Partial Meniscectomy for Horizontal Cleavage Tears.

Purpose: To determine the cost-effectiveness of meniscal repair (MR) using an all-suture-based technique when compared to partial meniscectomy (PM) for horizontal cleavage tears (HCTs) from a payor's perspective in the United States. Methods: A state-transition model and cost-utility analysis were developed from a US payor's perspective to project treatment costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) in a cohort of 35-year-old patients without osteoarthritis at baseline and presenting with either a lateral or medial HCT. Two outpatient costing perspectives were used, namely ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs) and hospitals. The state-transition model had 7 health states with transition probabilities, costs, and utilities obtained from the existing literature. Cost-effectiveness was assessed using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY, and sensitivity analysis considered the effects of parameter uncertainty on model results. MR failure rates were focused on an all-suture-based technique; however, in a separate scenario, this study considered effectiveness data from various MR techniques and devices. Results: MR dominated PM over a lifetime horizon, increasing QALYs by 0.43 per patient and decreasing the cost by $12,227 per patient within a hospital setting (and by $12,570 within an ASC). MR with an all-suture-based technique continued to be the dominant treatment when age at primary treatment was varied between 30 and 60 years. Sensitivity analysis showed that MR was not cost-effective in year 1, was cost-effective from year 2, and was cost-saving from year 6 onward from both ASC and hospital perspectives. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis found that MR was cost-effective over a lifetime horizon in 99% of 10,000 iterations on base-case analysis. Conclusions: Using a lifetime horizon, this study found that from a payor's perspective, MR is a cost-saving intervention when compared with PM in patients with an HCT. Level of Evidence: Level III, economic analysis.

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.

Prediction and monitoring the therapeutic response of chronic dermal wounds.

A significant proportion of chronic wounds fail to heal in response to treatment of underlying pathologies combined with good wound care practice. Current prognostic tests to identify these wounds rely on the use of algorithms based on clinically measurable parameters such as wound dimensions and wound duration. Venous leg ulcers may be stratified into healing/non healing at 24 weeks of compression therapy and diabetic foot ulcer treatment outcome assessed using a 3-parameter algorithm. Accurate and reproducible measurement of wound area is required for these algorithms to have clinical utility. Whilst a number of attempts have been made to develop computerised wound-assessment techniques, wound tracing by clinicians combined with planimetry remains the standard methodology. Once treatment has been initiated, it is important to continuously monitor the wound to assess efficacy of treatment. This can be achieved by measuring wound area change over the first weeks of treatment to identify whether re-assessment of treatment strategy is required. A number of algorithms for assessing rate of wound area change have been evaluated to determine a surrogate endpoint for healing. Retrospective analysis of large patient groups indicates that approximately 75% correct prediction of healing outcome can be achieved.