Presentation Title

Advanced Wound Care Modalities and Their Impact on Cost and Quality of Chronic Non-Healing Wounds

Speaker Credentials

DPM

Format

Presentation

Start Date

6-11-2020 2:15 PM

End Date

6-11-2020 2:30 PM

Abstract

Advanced Wound Care Modalities and their impact on Cost & Quality of Chronic Non-Healing Wounds J. Karim Ead DPM, Robert Snyder DPM MSc, MBA, Len Ross CFO Objective: The purpose of this integrated economic analysis was to generate a cost-effectiveness when comparing wound healing rates of 5 advanced skin substitutes/ Cell/Tissue based Products (CTPs) Background: Skin substitutes are frequently used to treat chronic wounds. Recent studies have demonstrated that less than 50 percent after 4 weeks of treatment predicts diabetic foot ulceration failure to heal by 12 weeks. Therefore, reevaluation of the wound and its treatment is recommended. These studies are actively being used by regulatory bodies, healthcare institutions and reimbursement agencies to generate usage decisions. Methods: three data points were central to the analysis: # of applications over a 12-week course of treatment; complete healing efficacy over a 12-week course of treatment; product cost per application; the number of applications and complete healing efficacy were obtained from seven established published clinical studies. The study selection for the skin substitutes used inclusion/exclusion criteria defined by Samsell et. al.. Results: ActiGraft has a product cost advantage ranging from $1,245 to $4,959 over 12 weeks. ActiGraft has a product cost advantage ranging from $1,245 to $4,959 over 4 weeks. ActiGraft has a cost advantage ranging from $3,544 to $5,724. ActiGraft has a cost advantage ranging from $81 to $5,760 in the hospital outpatient setting and from $1,250 to $4,959 in the physician office setting. ActiGraft offered the lowest cost per cm2 while delivering the highest healing efficacy. Conclusion: This head-to-head comparison showed that ActiGraft was more cost efficient as an advanced therapy for DFU’s when compared to the 4 other advanced products analyzed in this study. Grants: N/A

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS
 
Nov 6th, 2:15 PM Nov 6th, 2:30 PM

Advanced Wound Care Modalities and Their Impact on Cost and Quality of Chronic Non-Healing Wounds

Advanced Wound Care Modalities and their impact on Cost & Quality of Chronic Non-Healing Wounds J. Karim Ead DPM, Robert Snyder DPM MSc, MBA, Len Ross CFO Objective: The purpose of this integrated economic analysis was to generate a cost-effectiveness when comparing wound healing rates of 5 advanced skin substitutes/ Cell/Tissue based Products (CTPs) Background: Skin substitutes are frequently used to treat chronic wounds. Recent studies have demonstrated that less than 50 percent after 4 weeks of treatment predicts diabetic foot ulceration failure to heal by 12 weeks. Therefore, reevaluation of the wound and its treatment is recommended. These studies are actively being used by regulatory bodies, healthcare institutions and reimbursement agencies to generate usage decisions. Methods: three data points were central to the analysis: # of applications over a 12-week course of treatment; complete healing efficacy over a 12-week course of treatment; product cost per application; the number of applications and complete healing efficacy were obtained from seven established published clinical studies. The study selection for the skin substitutes used inclusion/exclusion criteria defined by Samsell et. al.. Results: ActiGraft has a product cost advantage ranging from $1,245 to $4,959 over 12 weeks. ActiGraft has a product cost advantage ranging from $1,245 to $4,959 over 4 weeks. ActiGraft has a cost advantage ranging from $3,544 to $5,724. ActiGraft has a cost advantage ranging from $81 to $5,760 in the hospital outpatient setting and from $1,250 to $4,959 in the physician office setting. ActiGraft offered the lowest cost per cm2 while delivering the highest healing efficacy. Conclusion: This head-to-head comparison showed that ActiGraft was more cost efficient as an advanced therapy for DFU’s when compared to the 4 other advanced products analyzed in this study. Grants: N/A