Abstract

ObjectivesPatients 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. MethodsWe 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. ResultsIn 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. ConclusionsSOS 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.

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.