Cost-effectiveness of treating deep diabetic foot ulcers with Promogran in four European countries.
暂无分享,去创建一个
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of treating non-superficial diabetic foot ulcers with Promogran plus good wound care (GWC) compared with GWC alone in four European countries (France, Germany, Switzerland and UK).
METHODS
An existing Markov-based health economic model of non-superficial diabetic foot ulcers was adapted to incorporate the relative efficacy of Promogran compared with GWC alone as demonstrated in a randomised controlled trial. Treatment with Promogran was modelled for a maximum of three months. Country-specific treatment costs were used to estimate the incremental cost per ulcer-free day gained over 12 months. Some parameter assumptions were changed to assess the sensitivity of the results.
RESULTS
Within the first three months of treatment, 26% of ulcers in the Promogran cohort healed compared with 20.7% in the GWC cohort. Over the 12 months, the average number of months spent in the healed state was 3.41 (GWC) and 3.75 (Promogran). Promogran treatment was found to be cost-saving in all four countries, using year 2000 Euro values.
CONCLUSION
Promogran with GWC may be cost-effective, perhaps even cost-saving, under a wide variety of assumptions for the treatment of neuropathic foot ulcers.
DECLARATION OF INTEREST
This study was funded by Ethicon Gmbh (Johnson and Johnson), Germany.
[1] J Larsson,et al. Long-Term Costs for Foot Ulcers in Diabetic Patients in a Multidisciplinary Setting , 1995, Foot & ankle international.
[2] U. Persson,et al. Diabetic foot ulcers in a multidisciplinary setting An economic analysis of primary healing and healing with amputation , 1994, Journal of internal medicine.
[3] J R Beck,et al. Markov Models in Medical Decision Making , 1993, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.