Research ExplorerPublicationsCost-effectiveness of TLC-sucrose octasulfate versus control...

Cost-effectiveness of TLC-sucrose octasulfate versus control dressings in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers

Standard

Cost-effectiveness of TLC-sucrose octasulfate versus control dressings in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers. / Lobmann, Ralf; Augustin, Matthias; Lawall, Holger; Tigges, Wolfgang; Potempa, Christoph; Thiem, Helena; Fietz, Cornelia; Rychlik, Reinhard Pt.

In: J WOUND CARE, Vol. 28, No. 12, 02.12.2019, p. 808-816.

Research output: SCORING: Contribution to journal › SCORING: Journal article › Research › peer-review

Harvard

Lobmann, R, Augustin, M, Lawall, H, Tigges, W, Potempa, C, Thiem, H, Fietz, C & Rychlik, RP 2019, 'Cost-effectiveness of TLC-sucrose octasulfate versus control dressings in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers', J WOUND CARE, vol. 28, no. 12, pp. 808-816. https://doi.org/10.12968/jowc.2019.28.12.808

APA

Lobmann, R., Augustin, M., Lawall, H., Tigges, W., Potempa, C., Thiem, H., Fietz, C., & Rychlik, R. P. (2019). Cost-effectiveness of TLC-sucrose octasulfate versus control dressings in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers. J WOUND CARE, 28(12), 808-816. https://doi.org/10.12968/jowc.2019.28.12.808

Vancouver

Lobmann R, Augustin M, Lawall H, Tigges W, Potempa C, Thiem H et al. Cost-effectiveness of TLC-sucrose octasulfate versus control dressings in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers. J WOUND CARE. 2019 Dec 2;28(12):808-816. https://doi.org/10.12968/jowc.2019.28.12.808

Bibtex

@article{0d2aaa2451e54ba99b124dc38d824ec9,
title = "Cost-effectiveness of TLC-sucrose octasulfate versus control dressings in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE: 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.METHODS: 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.RESULTS: 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.CONCLUSION: 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.",
author = "Ralf Lobmann and Matthias Augustin and Holger Lawall and Wolfgang Tigges and Christoph Potempa and Helena Thiem and Cornelia Fietz and Rychlik, {Reinhard Pt}",
year = "2019",
month = dec,
day = "2",
doi = "10.12968/jowc.2019.28.12.808",
language = "English",
volume = "28",
pages = "808--816",
journal = "J WOUND CARE",
issn = "0969-0700",
publisher = "MA Healthcare Ltd",
number = "12",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cost-effectiveness of TLC-sucrose octasulfate versus control dressings in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers

AU - Lobmann, Ralf

AU - Augustin, Matthias

AU - Lawall, Holger

AU - Tigges, Wolfgang

AU - Potempa, Christoph

AU - Thiem, Helena

AU - Fietz, Cornelia

AU - Rychlik, Reinhard Pt

PY - 2019/12/2

Y1 - 2019/12/2

N2 - OBJECTIVE: 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.METHODS: 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.RESULTS: 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.CONCLUSION: 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.

AB - OBJECTIVE: 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.METHODS: 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.RESULTS: 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.CONCLUSION: 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.

U2 - 10.12968/jowc.2019.28.12.808

DO - 10.12968/jowc.2019.28.12.808

M3 - SCORING: Journal article

C2 - 31825772

VL - 28

SP - 808

EP - 816

JO - J WOUND CARE

JF - J WOUND CARE

SN - 0969-0700

IS - 12

ER -