sucrose-octasulfate and Diabetic-Foot

FSS recibió pagos personales de Laboratorios UrgoMedical por ponencias y actividades. RCG es empleada de Laboratorios UrgoMedical. APP declara no tener conflicto de interés.

Topics: Bandages; Colloids; Diabetic Foot; Humans; Prevalence; Sucrose; Technology; Treatment Outcome; Wound Healing

A common and frequent complication of diabetes is diabetic foot ulcers (DFU), which can have high treatment costs and severe adverse events. This study aims to evaluate the effects of wound duration on wound healing and the impact on costs, including treatment with a new sucrose octasulfate dressing compared with a control dressing.. Based on the Explorer study (a two-armed randomised double-blind clinical trial), a cost-effectiveness analysis compared four different patient groups distinguished by their wound duration and additionally two DFU treatment options: a sucrose octasulfate dressing and a neutral dressing (as control). Clinical outcomes and total direct costs of wound dressings were evaluated over 20 weeks from the perspective of the Social Health Insurance in Germany. Simulation of long-term outcomes and costs were demonstrated by a five cycle Markov model.. The results show total wound healing rates between 71% and 14.8%, and direct treatment costs for DFU in the range of €2482-3278 (sucrose octasulfate dressing) and €2768-3194 (control dressing). Patients with a wound duration of ≤2 months revealed the highest wound healing rates for both the sucrose octasulfate dressing and control dressing (71% and 41%, respectively) and had the lowest direct treatment costs of €2482 and €2768, respectively. The 100-week Markov model amplified the results. Patients with ≤2 months' wound duration achieved wound healing rates of 98% and 88%, respectively and costs of €3450 and €6054, respectively (CE=€3520, €6864). Sensitivity analysis revealed that the dressing changes per week were the most significant uncertainty factor.. Based on the findings of this study, early treatment of DFU with a sucrose octasulfate dressing is recommended from a health economic view due to lower treatment costs, greater cost-effectiveness and higher wound healing rates.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Anti-Ulcer Agents; Bandages; Diabetes Complications; Diabetes Mellitus; Diabetic Foot; Double-Blind Method; Female; Germany; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Sucrose; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome; Wound Healing

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

In March 2018, the Explorer study, an international, double-blind, randomised controlled trial (RCT), established that adding a TLC-NOSF (UrgoStart Contact, Laboratoires Urgo, France) dressing to good local standard of care (SoC) significantly and substantially increases wound closure and reduces the healing time of neuroischaemic diabetic foot ulcers (DFU). Besides the TLC-NOSF treatment, the wound duration was the only other covariate that had an influence on the wound closure rate in the regression model used in the original study. The purpose of this work was to further document the impact of wound duration on the healing outcomes of the DFUs included in the Explorer study and to discuss complementary pragmatic observations on the TLC-NOSF effect.. In this post-hoc analysis of the Explorer data, the wound closure rates by week 20 are reported for the global cohort (n=240, Intention-to-treat population) and for the treated (n=126) and control groups (n=114) according to DFU duration and location.. For the combined group, wound closure rates decreased with the increase of wound duration at baseline (from 57% in wounds ≤2 months to 19% in wounds >11 months). Whatever the wound duration subgroups analysed, higher closure rates were reported in the TLC-NOSF group than in the control group. However, the maximal difference between the two treatments was reported in wounds with a duration of ≤2 months (71% versus 41%, 30 percentage points difference, Relative Risk 1.7, 95% Confidence Interval 1.1 to 2.8). Regarding wound location subgroup analyses, the outcomes were always in favour of the TLC-NOSF treatment, with closure rates ranging between 43% and 61% within the TLC-NOSF group, and between 25% and 40% within the control group.. This clinical evidence supports that treating DFUs with TLC-NOSF dressing and good SoC results in higher wound closure rates than with a neutral dressing and the same good standard of care, whatever the duration and the location of the treated wounds. However, the earlier the TLC-NOSF dressing is initiated in DFU treatment, the greater the benefits.

Topics: Aged; Bandages; Colloids; Diabetic Foot; Double-Blind Method; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Sucrose; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome; Wound Healing

Diabetic foot ulcers are serious and challenging wounds associated with high risk of infection and lower-limb amputation. Ulcers are deemed neuroischaemic if peripheral neuropathy and peripheral artery disease are both present. No satisfactory treatment for neuroischaemic ulcers currently exists, and no evidence supports one particular dressing. We aimed to assess the effect of a sucrose octasulfate dressing versus a control dressing on wound closure in patients with neuroischaemic diabetic foot ulcers.. We did a randomised, double-blind clinical trial (Explorer) in 43 hospitals with specialised diabetic foot clinics in France, Spain, Italy, Germany, and the UK. Eligible participants were inpatients or outpatients aged 18 years or older with diabetes and a non-infected neuroischaemic diabetic foot ulcer greater than 1 cm. Between March 21, 2013, and March 31, 2016, we randomly assigned 240 individuals to treatment: 126 to the sucrose octasulfate dressing and 114 to the control dressing. After 20 weeks, wound closure occurred in 60 patients (48%) in the sucrose octasulfate dressing group and 34 patients (30%) in the control dressing group (18 percentage points difference, 95% CI 5-30; adjusted odds ratio 2·60, 95% CI 1·43-4·73; p=0·002). In both groups, the most frequent adverse events were infections of the target wound: 33 wound infections in 25 (20%) patients of 126 in the sucrose octasulfate dressing group and 36 in 32 (28%) patients of 114 in the control dressing group. Minor amputations not affecting the wound site were also reported in one (1%) patient in the sucrose octasulfate dressing group and two (2%) patients in the control dressing group. Three (2%) patients assigned to the sucrose octasulfate dressing and four (4%) assigned to the control dressing died, but none of the deaths were related to treatment, procedure, wound progression, or subsequent to amputation.. A sucrose octasulfate dressing significantly improved wound closure of neuroischaemic diabetic foot ulcers without affecting safety after 20 weeks of treatment along with standard care. These findings support the use of sucrose octasulfate dressing as a local treatment for neuroischaemic diabetic foot ulcers.. Laboratoires Urgo Medical.

Topics: Aged; Anti-Ulcer Agents; Bandages; Diabetic Foot; Diabetic Neuropathies; Double-Blind Method; Female; Humans; International Agencies; Ischemia; Male; Prognosis; Sucrose

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

Regarding the positive clinical outcomes of sucrose octasulfate impregnated dressing documented in neuroischemic diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs), we aimed to evaluate the microcirculatory status in patients with neuroischemic DFU through the use of sucrose octasulfate dressing. Eleven patients with neuroischemic DFU were included in a prospective pilot study between July 2019 and March 2020. We evaluated the effect in transcutaneous oxygen pressure (TcPO

Topics: Bandages; Diabetes Mellitus; Diabetic Foot; Humans; Microcirculation; Oxygen; Pilot Projects; Prospective Studies