ArticleClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2017
Economic analysis and budget impact of clostridial collagenase ointment compared with medicinal honey for treatment of pressure ulcers in the US.
Article in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Impact of Underlying Conditions on Quality-of-Life Measurement Among Patients with Chronic Wounds, as Measured by Utility Values: A Review with an Additional Study.Advances in wound care · 2023Review
- Identifying the Risk Factors Associated with Nursing Home Residents' Pressure Ulcers Using Machine Learning Methods.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesPressure ulcer (PU) treatment poses significant clinical and economic challenges to health-care systems. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of enzymatic debridement with clostridial collagenase ointment (CCO) compared with autolytic debridement with medicinal honey (MH) for PU treatment from a US payer/Medicare perspective in the hospital outpatient department setting.
methodsA cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov model was developed using a 1-week cycle length across a 1-year time horizon. The three health states were inflammation/senescence, granulation/proliferation (ie, patients achieving 100% granulation), and epithelialization. Data sources included the US Wound Registry, Medicare fee schedules, and other published clinical and cost studies about PU treatment.
resultsIn the base case analysis over a 1-year time horizon, CCO was the economically dominant strategy (ie, simultaneously conferring greater benefit at less cost). Patients treated with CCO experienced 22.7 quality-adjusted life weeks (QALWs) at a cost of $6,161 over 1 year, whereas MH patients experienced 21.9 QALWs at a cost of $7,149. Patients treated with CCO achieved 11.5 granulation weeks and 6.0 epithelization weeks compared with 10.6 and 4.4 weeks for MH, respectively. The number of clinic visits was 40.1 for CCO vs 43.4 for MH, and the number of debridements was 12.3 for CCO compared with 17.6 for MH. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses determined CCO dominant in 72% of 10,000 iterations and cost-effective in 91%, assuming a benchmark willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/quality-adjusted life year ($962/QALW). The budget impact analysis showed that for every 1% of patients shifted from MH to CCO, a cost savings of $9,883 over 1 year for a cohort of 1,000 patients was observed by the payer.
conclusionThe results of these economic analyses suggest that CCO is a cost-effective, economically dominant alternative to MH in the treatment of patients with PUs in the hospital outpatient department setting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.