sucrose-octasulfate and Diabetes-Mellitus--Type-2

Diabetes is one of the most widespread diseases in Germany. Common complications are diabetic foot ulcers (DFU), which are associated with a cost-intensive treatment and serious adverse events, such as infections, amputations. This cost-effectiveness analysis compares two treatment options for patients with DFU: a TLC-NOSF dressing versus a neutral dressing, assessed through a European double-blind randomised controlled trial (RCT), Explorer.. The evaluation of the clinical outcomes was associated to direct costs (costs for dressings, nursing time, hospitalisation etc.) of both dressings, from the perspective of the statutory health insurance in Germany. Due to the long mean healing time of a DFU, the observation period was extended from 20 to 100 weeks in a Markov model.. After 20 weeks, and with complete closure as a primary endpoint, the model revealed direct treatment costs for DFU of €2,864.21 when treated with a TLC-NOSF dressing compared with €2,958.69 with the neutral control dressing (cost-effectiveness: €6,017.25 versus €9,928.49). In the Markov model (100 weeks) the costs for the TLC-NOSF dressing were €5,882.87 compared with €8,449.39 with the neutral dressing (cost-effectiveness: €6,277.58 versus €10,375.56). The robustness of results was underlined by several sensitivity analyses for varying assumptions. The frequency of weekly dressing changes had the most significant influence in terms of parameter uncertainty.. Overall, the treatment of DFU with a TLC-NOSF dressing is supported from a health economic perspective, because both the treatment costs and the cost-effectiveness were superior compared with the neutral wound dressing.

Topics: Anti-Ulcer Agents; Bandages, Hydrocolloid; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Diabetic Foot; Double-Blind Method; Europe; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Sucrose; Treatment Outcome

Patients with noninfected neuroischemic diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) treated with sucrose octasulfate (SOS) dressing have been shown to have improved healing compared with patients wearing a similar type of dressing without SOS. In this study, we aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of SOS dressing compared with conventional dressings from a Canadian public payer's perspective.. We built a Markov model in a hypothetical cohort of 1,000 inpatients with type 2 diabetes with DFUs. The time horizon was 5 years, and the cycle length was 3 months. We incorporated effectiveness data from the Explorer trial and cohort studies, cost data (2020 Canadian dollars) from published Canadian studies and administrative databases, and utility parameters from the Alberta's Caring for Diabetes cohort. We used probabilistic analysis to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of SOS dressing compared with conventional dressings.. In the comparison with conventional dressings, use of SOS dressing resulted in an expected increase of 0.16 quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and an expected $5,878 decrease in health-care costs over 5 years. Adding SOS dressing resulted in a cost savings of $37,061 for every QALY gained. The probability that adding SOS dressing is cost-saving and cost-effective compared with conventional dressings was 89% and 86%, respectively, at a $50,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold.. SOS dressing accelerates ulcer healing and helps reduce the spending induced by persistent ulcer management and amputation. Therefore, SOS dressing is likely to be cost-effective and cost-saving, which is consistent with previous health technology assessments in other health-care systems.

Topics: Bandages; Canada; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Diabetic Foot; Humans; Sucrose