Trial reportJournal of food and drug analysis2025
Within-trial cost-effectiveness of novel macrophage-regulating treatment on wound healing in patients with diabetic foot ulcers.
Trial report in Journal of food and drug analysis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An M1/M2 macrophage-regulating treatment, ON101 cream, has shown its superior healing efficacy for diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) versus standard absorbent dressing, according to a phase III trial. Given its high cost, corroborating the economic value of ON101 treatment can facilitate clinical and policy decision-makings. This study sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ON101 versus an absorbent dressing for patients with DFUs from Taiwan's healthcare sector perspective. This economic evaluation utilized effectiveness and cost data (in 2022 USD) from a randomized controlled trial of ON101, published literature, and Taiwan's National Health Insurance program. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) against willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was estimated to determine the cost-effectiveness of treatment. Over a mean follow-up of 12.69 weeks in the full analysis set of patients (n = 236), 6 patients would need to be treated with ON101 versus the absorbent dressing to obtain a case of complete healing, which costed US$21,128 per complete-healing case gained. This ICER value was below WTP threshold of US$32,788. Cost-effective findings were consistent across sensitivity analyses, and more remarkable for patients with Wagner grade 2 ulcers, HbA
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.