Ultra-simple wearable local sweat volume monitoring patch based on swellable hydrogels.

Quantifiably monitoring sweat rate and volume is important to assess the stress level of individuals and/or prevent dehydration, but despite intense research, a convenient, continuous, and low-cost method to monitor sweat rate and total sweat volume loss remains an un-met need. We present here an ultra-simple wearable sensor capable of measuring sweat rate and volume accurately. The device continuously monitors sweat rate by wicking the produced sweat into hydrogels that measurably swell in their physical geometry. The device has been designed as a simple to fabricate, low-cost, disposable patch. This patch exhibits stable and predictable operation over the maximum variable chemistry expected for sweat (pH 4-9 and salinity 0-100 mM NaCl). Preliminary in vivo testing of the patch has been achieved during aerobic exercise, and the sweat rates measured via the patch accurately follow actual sweat rates.

Cost-effectiveness of hydrogel plugs in CT-guided lung biopsies. / Estudio de coste-efectividad sobre la utilización de un tapón de hidrogel en las biopsias pulmonares guiadas por tomografía computarizada.

OBJECTIVE: Using a hydrogel plug decreases the number of cases of pneumothorax and reduces the need for pleural drainage tubes in CT-guided lung biopsies. We aimed to analyze the cost-effectiveness of using hydrogel plugs. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We analyzed 171 lung biopsies divided into three groups: Group 1 (n=22): fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) without hydrogel plugs; Group 2 (n=89): FNAC with hydrogel plugs; and Group 3 (n=60): FNAC plus core-needle biopsy (CNB) with hydrogel plugs. We calculated the total costs (direct and indirect) in the three groups. We analyzed the percentage of correct diagnoses, the average and incremental rations, and the most cost-effective option. RESULTS: Total costs: Group 1 = 1,261.28 + 52.65 = € 1,313.93; Group 2 = 1,201.36 + 67.25 = € 1,268.61; Group 3 = 1,220.22 + 47.20 = € 1,267.42. Percentage of correct diagnoses: Group 1 = 77.3%, Group 2 = 85.4%, and Group 3 = 95% (p = 0.04). Average cost-effectiveness ratio: Group 1 = 16.99; Group 2 = 14.85; and Group 3 = 13.34. CONCLUSIONS: Group 3 was the best option, with the lowest average cost-effectiveness ratio; therefore, the most cost-effective approach is to do FNAC and CNB using a dehydrated hydrogel plug at the end of the procedure.

Evaluating the Cost-Effectiveness of Hydrogel Rectal Spacer in Prostate Cancer Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE: A hydrogel rectal spacer (HRS) is a medical device that is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to increase the separation between the prostate and rectum. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of HRS use for reduction in radiation therapy (RT) toxicities in patients with prostate cancer (PC) undergoing external beam RT (EBRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: A multistate Markov model was constructed from the U.S. payer perspective to examine the cost-effectiveness of HRS in men with localized PC receiving EBRT (EBRT alone vs EBRT + HRS). The subgroups analyzed included site of HRS placement (hospital outpatient, physician office, ambulatory surgery center) and proportion of patients with good baseline erectile function (EF). Data on EF, gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicities incidence, and potential risks associated with HRS implantation were obtained from a recently published randomized clinical trial. Health utilities and costs were derived from the literature and the 2018 Physician Fee Schedule and were discounted 3% annually. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs were modeled for a 5-year period from receipt of RT. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and value-based threshold analyses were conducted. RESULTS: The per-patient 5-year incremental cost for spacers administered in a hospital outpatient setting was $3578, and the incremental effectiveness was 0.0371 QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $96,440/QALY for patients with PC undergoing HRS insertion in a hospital and $39,286/QALY for patients undergoing HRS insertion in an ambulatory facility. For men with good baseline EF, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $35,548/QALY and $9627/QALY in hospital outpatient and ambulatory facility settings, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the current Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, HRS is cost-effective at a willingness to pay threshold of $100,000. These results contain substantial uncertainty, suggesting more evidence is needed to refine future decision-making.

Decision analysis model evaluating the cost of a temporary hydrogel rectal spacer before prostate radiation therapy to reduce the incidence of rectal complications.

PURPOSE: We conducted a decision analysis to evaluate the cost effectiveness of a newly Food and Drug Administration approved rectal spacer gel (SpaceOAR, Augmenix) for the reduction of rectal toxicity of prostate radiation therapy (RT). METHODS: A decision tree model (TreeAge Pro) was used to compare the strategy of pretherapy placement of a spacing hydrogel before RT to RT alone. The model compared costs associated with rectal complications because of rectal toxicity over a 10-year period across 3 different RT modalities. Rectal toxicity rates were estimated from studies on conformal RT dose escalation, high-dose stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and low-dose SBRT. Rectal toxicity reduction rates (baseline reduction 70%) were estimated from recently published 15 month data using a rectal spacer. Direct and indirect cost estimates for established grades of rectal toxicity were based on national and institutional costs. Reduction in short-term complications were assumed to carry forward to a reduction in long-term toxicity. One-way and two-way sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The overall standard management cost for conformal RT was $3,428 vs. $3,946 with rectal spacer for an incremental cost of $518 over 10 years. A 1-way sensitivity analyses showed the breakeven cost of spacer at $2,332 or a breakeven overall risk reduction of 86% at a cost of $2,850. For high-dose SBRT, spacer was immediately cost effective with a savings of $2,640 and breakeven risk reduction at 36%. However, 2-way spacer cost to risk reduction sensitivity analyses were performed. CONCLUSION: The use of a rectal spacer for conformal RT results in a marginal cost increase with a significant reduction in rectal toxicity assuming recently published 15 month rectal toxicity reduction is maintained over 10 years. For high-dose SBRT it was cost effective. Further studies would be necessary to validate the long-term benefits of rectal spacers.

Investigating the use of Aquaform Hydrogel in wound management.

This article explores the role of hydrogels in wound management. Methods of debriding necrotic/sloughy wounds are considered and the benefits of using a hydrogel are discussed. The article focuses upon Aquaform Hydrogel, investigating the evidence of its efficacy, and concluding with an evaluation of the product which resulted in a change of practice.