Open AccessCost‐effective faster wound healing with a sustained silver‐releasing foam dressing in delayed healing leg ulcers – a health‐economic analysis
Author(s) -
Scanlon Elizabeth,
Karlsmark Tonny,
Leaper David J,
Carter Kate,
Poulsen Peter B,
HartHansen Kristian,
Hahn Tina W
Publication year - 2005
Publication title -
international wound journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.867
H-Index - 63
eISSN - 1742-481X
pISSN - 1742-4801
DOI - 10.1111/j.1742-4801.2005.00083.x
Subject(s) - medicine , protocol (science) , wound care , cost analysis , cost effectiveness analysis , wound healing , surgery , venous leg ulcer , cost effectiveness , risk analysis (engineering) , operations research , pathology , alternative medicine , engineering
The aim of this analysis was to examine the cost‐effectiveness of Contreet Foam (A) in comparison with three other commonly used venous leg ulcer treatment protocols: Aquacel Ag (B), Actisorb Silver (C) and Iodoflex (D). A health‐economic analysis reflecting the UK treatment practice and cost structure was performed. The analysis was set up to assess the cost of relative wound area reduction over a 4‐week treatment period. The model was validated by a UK expert panel consisting of four wound care specialists. To assure that the 4‐week model had a realistic link to cost‐effectiveness of complete wound healing, a Markov analysis was also performed. Sensitivity analyses were carried out to ensure validity. Protocol A and C proved to be the most effective treatments. The mean relative reduction in wound area after 4 weeks of treatment was 50·2% (protocol A), 23·9% (protocol B), 44·6% (protocol C) and 36·0% (protocol D). Cost‐effectiveness ratios showed that protocol A proved to be the most cost‐effective treatment, and protocol B the least. The cost per percentage reduction in wound area was £9·50 for protocol A, compared to £16·50–17·60 for the other treatment options. The cost‐effectiveness of complete healing (Markov analysis) and sensitivity analyses confirmed these results. Using Contreet Foam instead of the other dressing alternatives may imply savings of £2·2–4·4 million per year to the National Health Service.