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 of a Nonpharmacological Intervention in Pediatric Burn Care.

OBJECTIVE: To report the cost-effectiveness of a tailored handheld computerized procedural preparation and distraction intervention (Ditto) used during pediatric burn wound care in comparison to standard practice. METHODS: An economic evaluation was performed alongside a randomized controlled trial of 75 children aged 4 to 13 years who presented with a burn to the Royal Children's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia. Participants were randomized to either the Ditto intervention (n = 35) or standard practice (n = 40) to measure the effect of the intervention on days taken for burns to re-epithelialize. Direct medical, direct nonmedical, and indirect cost data during burn re-epithelialization were extracted from the randomized controlled trial data and combined with scar management cost data obtained retrospectively from medical charts. Nonparametric bootstrapping was used to estimate statistical uncertainty in cost and effect differences and cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS: On average, the Ditto intervention reduced the time to re-epithelialize by 3 days at AU$194 less cost for each patient compared with standard practice. The incremental cost-effectiveness plane showed that 78% of the simulated results were within the more effective and less costly quadrant and 22% were in the more effective and more costly quadrant, suggesting a 78% probability that the Ditto intervention dominates standard practice (i.e., cost-saving). At a willingness-to-pay threshold of AU$120, there is a 95% probability that the Ditto intervention is cost-effective (or cost-saving) against standard care. CONCLUSIONS: This economic evaluation showed the Ditto intervention to be highly cost-effective against standard practice at a minimal cost for the significant benefits gained, supporting the implementation of the Ditto intervention during burn wound care.

Evaluating cost when selecting performance reference compounds for the environmental deployment of polyethylene passive samplers.

A challenge in environmental passive sampling is determining when equilibrium is achieved between the sampler, target contaminants, and environmental phases. A common approach is the use of performance reference compounds (PRCs) to estimate target contaminant sampling rates and indicate degree of sampler equilibrium. One logistical issue associated with using PRCs is their sometimes exorbitant cost. To address PRC expense, this investigation 1) compared the performance of inexpensive PRCs (deuterated PAHs) and expensive PRCs ((13) C-labeled PCBs) to estimate dissolved PCB concentrations in freshwater and marine deployments, and 2) evaluated the use of smaller quantities of PRC relative to regular amounts used for estimating dissolved PAH and PCB concentrations. Saltwater and freshwater site average differences between total dissolved PCB concentrations calculated using the 2 classes of PRCs was 34 pg/L (20%) and 340 pg/L (51%), respectively, and in some deployments, statistical differences in PCB concentrations generated by the 2 types of PRCs were detected. However, no statistical differences were detected between total dissolved PAH and PCB for the 3 quantities of PRCs. In both investigations, individual dissolved PCB congeners and PAH compounds demonstrated comparable behavior as those expressed as total PCB or PAH dissolved concentrations. This research provides evidence that in some applications passive sampling using inexpensive and smaller quantities of PRCs can yield cost savings of approximately 75%. This approach appears most promising in the marine water column and when focusing on dissolved concentrations of low and medium molecular weight congeners or total PCBs.

A dynamic care pathway to coordinate the use of advanced therapy in diabetic foot ulceration.

The non-coordinated use of advanced therapies is not clinically or cost effective. A care pathway for the sequential use of these interventions on complex wounds provides a more restructured approach, and helped improve patient outcomes.

A retrospective cohort study of Acticoat versus Silvazine in a paediatric population.

We wished to determine whether changing our centre's practice of using Acticoat instead of Silvazine as our first-line burns dressing provided a better standard of care in terms of efficacy, cost and ease of use. A retrospective cohort study was performed examining 328 Silvazine treated patients from January 2000 to June 2001 and 241 Acticoat treated patients from July 2002 to July 2003. During those periods the respective dressings were used exclusively. There was no significant difference in age, %BSA and mechanism of burn between the groups. In the Silvazine group, 25.6% of children required grafting compared to 15.4% in the Acticoat group (p=0.001). When patients requiring grafting were excluded, the time taken for re-epithelialisation in the Acticoat group (14.9 days) was significantly less than that for the Silvazine group (18.3 days), p=0.047. There were more wounds requiring long term scar management in the Silvazine group (32.6%) compared to the Acticoat group (29.5%), however this was not significant. There was only one positive blood culture in each group, indicating that both Silvazine and Acticoat are potent antimicrobial agents. The use of Acticoat as our primary burns dressing has dramatically changed our clinical practice. Inpatients are now only 18% of the total admissions, with the vast majority of patients treated on an outpatient basis. In terms of cost, Acticoat was demonstrated to be less expensive over the treatment period than Silvazine . We have concluded that Acticoat is a safe, cost-effective, efficacious dressing that reduces the time for re-epithelialisation and the requirement for grafting and long term scar management, compared to Silvazine.

Health and economic consequences of sevelamer use for hyperphosphatemia in patients on hemodialysis.

OBJECTIVES: The safety and efficacy of sevelamer hydrochloride in binding phosphate in patients with end-stage renal disease and its ability to attenuate the progression of cardiac calcification have been well documented but not the longer-term health and economic implications. Thus, a model of the predicted long-term consequences of sevelamer compared with calcium-based binders (acetate and carbonate) was developed. METHODS: Long-term cardiovascular implications of 1 year of treatment with phosphate binders in patients on hemodialysis are estimated based on the patient's demographics, comorbidities, and physiologic and renal parameters. The initial calcification score and expected changes over 1 year are derived using regression equations developed from the Treat-to-Goal study and translated to cardiovascular disease risk based on equations developed from a long-term cohort study. In this article, the implications of cardiovascular disease for life expectancy and medical costs are accounted for from a US payer perspective. RESULTS: The cardioprotective effect of sevelamer over 1 year is estimated to result in a 12% reduction in cardiovascular events compared with calcium acetate. In a population of 100 patients, the savings of 205,600 dollars accrued due to avoiding nine cardiovascular events with sevelamer, largely offset the increased binder costs, leading to a favorable cost-effectiveness ratio of about 2200 dollars per (discounted) life-year gained. CONCLUSIONS: Although both binders provide equivalent phosphate binding capacity, the results indicate that the advantage of 1 year of treatment with sevelamer in attenuating the progression of calcification has important clinical and economic consequences, suggesting that this provides good value for money.

A silver coated dressing reduces the incidence of early burn wound cellulitis and associated costs of inpatient treatment: comparative patient care audits.

In 2000 and 2002, the Royal Perth Hospital (RPH) Burn Unit, Western Australia, conducted two 'before and after' patient care audits comparing the effectiveness and cost of Silvazine (silver sulphadiazine and chlorhexidine digluconate cream) and Acticoat, a new dressing product for in-patient treatment of early burn wounds. The main outcome variables were: burn wound cellulitis, antibiotic use and cost of treatment. Two patient care audits and a comparative sample were used. The two regimes audited were, 'standard treatment' of twice daily showers or washes with 4% chlorhexidine soap and Silvazine cream as a topical dressing (2000, n=51), compared with the 'new treatment' of daily showers of the burn wound with 4% chlorhexidine soap and the application of an Acticoat dressing (2002, n=19). In 2002, costs were also examined using a sample of matched pairs (n=8) of current and previous patients. The main findings were: when using Acticoat the incidence of infection and antibiotic use fell from 55% (28/51) and 57% (29/51) in 2000 to 10.5% (2/19) and 5.2% (1/19) in 2002. The total costs (excluding antibiotics, staffing and surgery) for those treated with Silvazine were US$ 109,357 and those treated with Acticoat were US$ 78,907, demonstrating a saving of US$ 30,450 with the new treatment. The average length of stay (LOS) in hospital was 17.25 days for the Silvazine group and 12.5 days for the Acticoat group-a difference of 4.75 days. These audits demonstrate that Acticoat results in a reduced incidence of burn wound cellulitis, antibiotic use and overall cost compared to Silvazine in the treatment of early burn wounds.

A systematic review of sevelamer in ESRD and an analysis of its potential economic impact in Canada and the United States.

BACKGROUND: The Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiatives (K/DOQI) guidelines on bone metabolism and disease in chronic kidney disease were recently published. Despite limited evidence of clinical effectiveness and without detailed consideration of cost, these guidelines recommend the use of a nonmineral-containing phosphate binder (i.e., sevelamer) in several common clinical situations. The objective of this study is to use the example of sevelamer to outline the information that is needed to assist health care payers with the decision to fund a new and expensive therapy. METHODS: We assessed the clinical benefit of sevelamer by performing a systematic review of all randomized trials evaluating its use. To estimate the direct budget impact associated with implementation of the K/DOQI bone disease guidelines, we used laboratory and medication data available from two cohorts of dialysis patients (one treated in Canada and one in the United States) to determine the proportion of patients who meet the criteria for the use of sevelamer as described in the K/DOQI bone disease guidelines. RESULTS: No randomized trials document the impact of sevelamer on survival, hospitalization, or quality of life. However, at least 51% and 64% of dialysis patients in the Canadian and American cohorts, respectively, would meet K/DOQI criteria for use of sevelamer. Extrapolating to the United States dialysis population, adoption of the K/DOQI bone guidelines would result in expenditures of approximately 781 million dollars annually on sevelamer alone. CONCLUSION: Given their potential budgetary impact, future nephrology clinical practice guidelines should consider resource use, in addition to clinical data.

[Critical appraisal of sevelamer for the treatment of hyperphosphatemia in patients with chronic renal failure]. / Avaliação crítica do sevelamer no tratamento da hiperfosfatemia em pacientes com insuficiência renal crônica.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate in patients with chronic renal failure (CRF) the effectiveness and the costs of sevelamer, a cationic polymer calcium- and aluminum-free, that is a new gastrointestinal phosphate binder. METHODS: Literature review and critical appraisal of six clinical trials about the effectiveness and two economic studies of sevelamer in CRF patients. RESULTS: Sevelamer is an effective phosphate binder (used in a mean daily dose of 3.5 g three times per day with meals) and with similar effect as that obtained with calcium salts, without the adverse manifestations of the latter (elevation of calcium x phosphorus product, hypercalcemia, vascular and cardiac calcifications, etc.). Moreover, sevelamer reduced serum LDL cholesterol in around 30%. Despite the greater direct costs of sevelamer compared with calcium salts, the total costs may be lower due to the reduction of costs with clinical complications and hospitalizations. CONCLUSIONS: Sevelamer has important therapeutic value in CRF patients with hyperphosphatemia. Economic analyses should be performed in our setting to define the cost-effectiveness relationship of sevelamer.

Cost-effectiveness of sevelamer versus calcium carbonate plus atorvastatin to reduce LDL in patients with chronic renal insufficiency with dyslipidemia and hyperphosphatemia.

We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis to compare costs and clinical outcomes of sevelamer versus calcium carbonate plus atorvastatin for treatment of dyslipidemia in patients with chronic renal insufficiency. The model was from the third-party payer perspective. Efficacy and adverse event rates for each regimen were obtained from published clinical trials. Drug costs were based on average wholesale prices; monitoring costs were based on Medicare reimbursement rates. Our model suggests that the combination of calcium carbonate plus atorvastatin is substantially more cost-effective than sevelamer in reducing low-density lipoprotein (LDL) in these patients. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed to assess if 25% and 50% price reductions in sevelamer affected overall cost-effectiveness results. A 50% sevelamer price reduction was less expensive than combination therapy but remained less cost-effective. A two-way sensitivity analysis on the probability that a patient achieves the goal of a 35% LDL reduction resulted in calcium carbonate plus atorvastatin remaining more cost-effective. Further cost-effectiveness studies are necessary to corroborate our data.