Search

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of using standard care (no advanced treatment, NAT) compared with an advanced treatment (AT), dehydrated human amnion/chorion membrane (DHACM), when following parameters for use (FPFU) in treating lower extremity diabetic ulcers (LEDUs)., Method: We analysed a retrospective cohort of Medicare patients (2015-2019) to generate four propensity-matched cohorts of LEDU episodes. Outcomes for DHACM and NAT, such as amputations, and healthcare utilisation were tracked from claims codes, analysed and used to build a hybrid economic model, combining a one-year decision tree and a four-year Markov model. The budget impact was evaluated in the difference in per member per month spending following completion of the decision tree. Likewise, the cost-effectiveness was analysed before and after the Markov model at a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000 per quality adjusted life year (QALY). The analysis was conducted from the healthcare sector perspective., Results: There were 10,900,127 patients with a diagnosis of diabetes, of whom 1,213,614 had an LEDU. Propensity-matched Group 1 was generated from the 19,910 episodes that received AT. Only 9.2% of episodes were FPFU and DHACM was identified as the most widely used AT product among Medicare episodes. Propensity-matched Group 4 was limited by the 590 episodes that used DHACM FPFU. Episodes treated with DHACM FPFU had statistically fewer amputations and healthcare utilisation. In year one, DHACM FPFU provided an additional 0.013 QALYs, while saving $3,670 per patient. At a WTP of $100,000 per QALY, the five-year net monetary benefit was $5003., Conclusion: The findings of this study showed that DHACM FPFU reduced costs and improved clinical benefits compared with NAT for LEDU Medicare patients. DHACM FPFU provided better clinical outcomes than NAT by reducing major amputations, ED visits, inpatient admissions and readmissions. These clinical gains were achieved at a lower cost, in years 1-5, and were likely to be cost-effective at any WTP threshold. Adoption of best practices identified in this retrospective analysis is expected to generate clinically significant decreases in amputations and hospital utilisation while saving money.

Objective: To evaluate large propensity-matched cohorts to assess outcomes in patients receiving advanced treatment (AT) with skin substitutes for lower extremity diabetic ulcers (LEDUs) versus no AT (NAT) for the management of LEDUs., Method: The Medicare Limited Dataset (1 October 2015 through 2 October 2018) were used to retrospectively analyse people receiving care for a LEDU treated with AT or NAT (propensity-matched Group 1). Analysis included major and minor amputations, emergency department (ED) visits and hospital readmissions. In addition, AT following parameters for use (FPFU) was compared with AT not FPFU (propensity-matched Group 2). A paired t-test was used for comparisons of the two groups. For comparisons of three groups, the Kruskal-Wallis test was used. A Bonferroni correction was performed when multiple comparisons were calculated., Results: There were 9,738,760 patients with a diagnosis of diabetes, of whom 909,813 had a LEDU. In propensity-matched Group 1 (12,676 episodes per cohort), AT patients had statistically fewer minor amputations (p=0.0367), major amputations (p<0.0001), ED visits (p<0.0001), and readmissions (p<0.0001) compared with NAT patients. In propensity-matched Group 2 (1131 episodes per cohort), AT FPFU patients had fewer minor amputations (p=0.002) than those in the AT not FPFU group., Conclusion: AT for the management of LEDUs was associated with significant reductions in major and minor amputation, ED use, and hospital readmission compared with LEDUs managed with NAT. Clinics should implement AT in accordance with the highlighted parameters for use to improve outcomes and reduce costs.

Background: Endologix issued important safety updates for the AFX Endovascular AAA System in 2016 and 2018 owing to the risk of type III endoleaks. Outcomes with these devices are limited to small case series with short-term follow-up. We describe the midterm outcomes for a large cohort of patients who received an Endologix AFX or AFX2 device., Study Design: Data from an integrated healthcare system's implant registry, which prospectively monitors all patients after endovascular aortic repair, was used for this descriptive study. Patients undergoing endovascular aortic repair with three AFX System variations (Strata [AFX-S], Duraply [AFX-D], and AFX2 with Duraply [AFX2]) were identified (2011-2017). Crude cumulative event probabilities for endoleak (types I and III), major reintervention, conversion to open, rupture, and mortality (aneurysm related and all cause) were estimated., Results: Among 605 patients, 375 received AFX-S, 197 received AFX-D, and 33 received AFX2. Median follow-up for the cohort was 3.9 (interquartile range, 2.5-5.1) years. The crude 2-year incidence of overall endoleak, any subsequent reintervention or conversion, and mortality was 8.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.3-12.3), 12.0% (95% CI, 9.1-15.9), and 8.8% (95% CI, 6.3-12.2) for AFX-S. Respective estimates for AFX-D were 7.9% (95% CI, 4.8-13.0), 10.6% (95% CI, 6.9-16.1), and 9.7% (95% CI, 6.3-14.7); for AFX2, they were 14.1% (95% CI, 4.7-38.2), 16.2% (95% CI, 6.4-37.7), and 21.2% (95% CI, 10.7-39.4)., Conclusions: The midterm outcomes of a large U.S. patient cohort with an Endologix AFX or AFX2 System demonstrate a concerning rate of adverse postoperative events. Patients with these devices should receive close clinical surveillance to prevent device-related adverse events., (Copyright © 2020 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)