Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33481840›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2021

Cost-effectiveness of TLC-NOSF dressings versus neutral dressings for the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers in France.

Franck Maunoury, Anaïs Oury, Sophie Fortin, Laetitia Thomassin, Serge Bohbot, Explorer Study

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01717183 (Assessment of the Efficacy and Safety of a New Wound Dressing in the Local Treatment of Diabetic Foot Ulcers), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT01717183 naunknown statusnot on this map

Assessment of the Efficacy and Safety of a New Wound Dressing in the Local Treatment of Diabetic Foot Ulcers: a Prospective, Randomised, Controlled, Double-blind, European Multicentre Clinical Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorLaboratoires URGORan2013ConditionsDiabetic Foot Ulcer(s)ArmsUrgo 310 3113, Placebo URGO 310 3113 dressing
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Franck MaunouryHealth Economics, Statesia, Le Mans, France.ORCID 0000-0003-1045-4666
Anaïs OuryGlobal Regulatory Affairs & Market Access, URGO Medical, Chenôve, France.
Sophie FortinGlobal Regulatory Affairs & Market Access, URGO Medical, Chenôve, France.
Laetitia ThomassinGlobal Medical Affairs, URGO Medical, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0002-2354-9085
Serge BohbotGlobal Medical Affairs, URGO Medical, Paris, France.
Explorer Study
Urgo Laboratories (France) · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

Diabetic FootModels, EconomicAgedBandagesCost-Benefit AnalysisDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID33481840
PMCPMC7822547
OpenAlexW3124673583

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.