Cost-effectiveness of TLC-NOSF dressings versus neutral dressings for the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers in France.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
18
05
2020
accepted:
04
01
2021
entrez:
22
1
2021
pubmed:
23
1
2021
medline:
16
6
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of Technology Lipido-Colloid with Nano Oligo Saccharide Factor (TLC-NOSF) wound dressings versus neutral dressings in the management of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) from a French collective perspective. We used a Markov microsimulation cohort model to simulate the DFU monthly progression over the lifetime horizon. Our study employed a mixed method design with model inputs including data from interventional and observational studies, French databases and expert opinion. The demographic characteristics of the simulated population and clinical efficacy were based on the EXPLORER double-blind randomized controlled trial. Health-related quality of life, costs, and resource use inputs were taken from the literature relevant to the French context. The main outcomes included life-years without DFU (LYsw/DFU), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), amputations, and lifetime costs. To assess the robustness of the results, sensitivity and subgroup analyses based on the wound duration at treatment initiation were performed. Treatment with the TLC-NOSF dressing led to total cost savings per patient of EUR 35,489, associated with gains of 0.50 LYw/DFU and 0.16 QALY. TLC-NOSF dressings were established as the dominant strategy in the base case and all sensitivity analyses. Furthermore, the model revealed that, for every 100 patients treated with TLC-NOSF dressings, two amputations could be avoided. According to the subgroup analysis results, the sooner the TLC-NOSF treatment was initiated, the better were the outcomes, with the highest benefits for ulcers with a duration of two months or less (+0.65 LYw/DFU, +0.23 QALY, and cost savings of EUR 55,710). The results from the French perspective are consistent with the ones from the German and British perspectives. TLC-NOSF dressings are cost-saving compared to neutral dressings, leading to an increase in patients' health benefits and a decrease in the associated treatment costs. These results can thus be used to guide healthcare decisionmakers. The potential savings could represent EUR 3,345 per treated patient per year and even reach EUR 4,771 when TLC-NOSF dressings are used as first line treatment. The EXPLORER trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01717183.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33481840
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245652
pii: PONE-D-20-14523
pmc: PMC7822547
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT01717183']
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0245652Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
This cost-effectiveness study was funded by Urgo Medical Company FM, https://www.urgo-group.fr/. The assessed dressings are devices marketed by Urgo Medical. The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors AO, SF, LT, and SB. FM is the CEO of Statesia. A service agreement (commercial contract) was arranged between Urgo Medical and Statesia. Statesia had no other competing interests in the area of this publication relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products. This does not alter our adherence to all the PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.
Références
Ther Adv Endocrinol Metab. 2013 Jun;4(3):83-94
pubmed: 23730502
N Engl J Med. 2017 Jun 15;376(24):2367-2375
pubmed: 28614678
Int Wound J. 2011 Feb;8(1):22-32
pubmed: 20875048
Med Decis Making. 1993 Oct-Dec;13(4):322-38
pubmed: 8246705
Wound Repair Regen. 2012 Jul-Aug;20(4):500-11
pubmed: 22681551
Diabetes. 2016 Apr;65(4):996-1003
pubmed: 26558682
Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2020 Mar;36 Suppl 1:e3283
pubmed: 32176450
Adv Skin Wound Care. 2008 Dec;21(12):568-75
pubmed: 19065083
J Wound Care. 2008 Feb;17(2):71-8
pubmed: 18389832
Value Health. 2013 Mar-Apr;16(2):231-50
pubmed: 23538175
J Wound Care. 2019 Dec 02;28(12):808-816
pubmed: 31825772
J Wound Care. 2020 Oct 02;29(10):543-551
pubmed: 33052796
Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2020 Mar;36 Suppl 1:e3284
pubmed: 32176446
Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2018 Mar;6(3):186-196
pubmed: 29275068
J Wound Care. 2017 Feb;26(Sup2):S4-S15
pubmed: 28182533
J Wound Care. 2019 Jun 02;28(6):358-367
pubmed: 31166858
Int Wound J. 2016 Feb;13(1):82-7
pubmed: 24618370
Clin Infect Dis. 2012 Jun;54(12):e132-73
pubmed: 22619242
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008 Spring;24(2):178-83
pubmed: 18400121
J Wound Care. 2016 May;25(5):277-87
pubmed: 27169343
J Wound Care. 2002 Feb;11(2):70-4
pubmed: 11901743
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Jul 14;(7):CD010471
pubmed: 26171906
Diabetologia. 2007 Jan;50(1):18-25
pubmed: 17093942
Diabet Med. 2016 Nov;33(11):1493-1498
pubmed: 26666583
Int Wound J. 2008 Jun;5(2):172-82
pubmed: 18494623
Diabetes Metab. 2004 Dec;30(6):549-56
pubmed: 15671925
J Wound Care. 2019 Mar 3;28(3):164-175
pubmed: 30840551
J Wound Care. 2020 Feb 2;29(2):102-118
pubmed: 32058850
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2011 Nov 01;5(6):1591-5
pubmed: 22226282
J Wound Care. 2013 Feb;22(2):78-82
pubmed: 23665662
Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2012 Feb;28 Suppl 1:119-41
pubmed: 22271737