Cost-effectiveness of adjunct haemoglobin spray in the treatment of hard-to-heal wounds in a UK NHS primary care setting. (2nd December 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Elg, Fredrik; Bothma, Gerhard
• Is Part Of: Journal of wound care. Volume 28:Number 12(2019)
• Page Start: 844
• Page End: 849
• Publication Date: 2019-12-02
• Subjects: chronic wounds -- cost-effectiveness -- haemoglobin spray -- hard-to-heal -- wound healing; Wounds and injuries -- Treatment -- Periodicals; Wound healing -- Periodicals; 617.1
• DOI: 10.12968/jowc.2019.28.12.844
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0969-0700

Abstract

Abstract : Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of topical haemoglobin spray as adjunct therapy in the treatment of hard-to-heal wounds within a UK National Health Service (NHS) community setting. Method: In a previously published comparative clinical evaluation, 50 consecutive patients treated with topical haemoglobin spray, as adjunct to standard care and followed up over 26 weeks, were compared with 50 consecutive retrospective controls from the same clinic treated with the same standard care protocol in the year prior to the introduction of adjunct topical haemoglobin spray. A de novo cost-effectiveness and break-even analysis were performed, using data from the previously published clinical evaluation, for all patients (intent-to-treat) and for patients with complete follow-up using a micro-costing approach and considering only wound care dressing costs. Results: At 26 weeks, the total cost of dressings for all patients in the intervention group was £6953 with 874 cumulative weeks healed, compared with £9547 with 278 cumulative weeks healed for all patients in the control group. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), the incremental cost per additional week healed with adjunct topical haemoglobin spray, is therefore negative (dominant). Total treatment costs per week were lower from week six onwards, with break-even estimated to be at week 10.2. When considering only patients with complete follow-up, the results were similarly dominant, with a mean 10.9 more weeks healed, a mean dressing cost saving per patient of £81.83 by week 26 (–37%). Cost savings were realised from week five, and a break-even was estimated to occur at week 8.0. Conclusion: Topical haemoglobin spray has the potential to restore the healing process, reduce healing times and reduce dressing costs in a NHS community setting, within a few weeks of adoption.