Cost-Effectiveness of the Use of Autologous Cell Harvesting Device Compared to Standard of Care for Treatment of Severe Burns in the United States
| Autor: | S. Kowal, Andrew Quick, James H. Holmes, Narayan Iyer, Kevin N Foster, Eliza Kruger, Jeremiah Sparks, Pinar Bilir, Katie A. Bush, William L. Hickerson, Scott V. Nystrom |
|---|---|
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Rok vydání: | 2019 |
| Předmět: |
Skin graft
Adult Male 030213 general clinical medicine medicine.medical_specialty Autologous cell Standard of care Split-thickness Cost effectiveness Cost-Benefit Analysis Dermatology Administration Cutaneous Transplantation Autologous 03 medical and health sciences 0302 clinical medicine medicine Burn care Humans Pharmacology (medical) Severe burn Original Research Wound Healing business.industry Burn center Standard of Care General Medicine Budget impact Skin Transplantation Length of Stay United States Clinical trial Debridement 030220 oncology & carcinogenesis Emergency medicine Resource use Cost-effectiveness Female business Burns Autologous cell harvesting device |
| Zdroj: | Advances in Therapy |
| ISSN: | 1865-8652 0741-238X |
| Popis: | Introduction When introducing a new intervention into burn care, it is important to consider both clinical and economic impacts, as the financial burden of burns in the USA is significant. This study utilizes a health economic modeling approach to estimate cost-effectiveness and burn center budget-impact for the use of the RECELL® Autologous Cell Harvesting Device to prepare autologous skin cell suspension (ASCS) compared to standard of care (SOC) split-thickness skin graft (STSG) for the treatment of severe burn injuries requiring surgical intervention for definitive closure. Methods A hospital-perspective model using sequential decision trees depicts the acute burn care pathway (wound assessment, debridement/excision, temporary coverage, definitive closure) and predicts the relative differences between use of ASCS compared to SOC. Clinical inputs and ASCS impact on length of stay (LOS) were derived from clinical trials and real-world use data, American Burn Association National Burn Repository database analyses, and burn surgeon interviews. Hospital resource use and unit costs were derived from three US burn centers. A budget impact calculation leverages Monte Carlo simulation to estimate the overall impact to a burn center. Results ASCS treatment is cost-saving or cost-neutral ( |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
Full text from SpringerLink