Cost-effectiveness of negative pressure wound therapy in patients with many comorbidities and severe wounds of various etiology

Abstract

This study analyzed a cross-section of patients with severe chronic wounds and multiple comorbidities at an outpatient wound clinic, with regard to the cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit of negative pressure wound therapy (intervention) vs. no negative pressure wound therapy (control) at 1 and 2 years. Medicare reimbursement charges for wound care were used to calculate costs. Amputation charges were assessed using diagnosis-related groups. Cost-benefit analysis was based on ulcer-free months and cost-effectiveness on quality-adjusted life-years. Undiscounted costs, benefits, quality-adjusted life-years, undiscounted and discounted incremental net health benefits, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated for unmatched and matched cohorts. There were 150 subjects in the intervention group and 154 controls before matching and 103 subjects in each of the matched cohorts. Time to heal for the intervention cohort was significantly shorter compared to the controls (270 vs. 635 days, p = 1.0 × 10^-7 , matched cohorts). The intervention cohort had higher benefits and quality-adjusted life-year gains compared to the control cohort at years 1 and 2; by year 2, the gains were 68-73% higher. In the unmatched cohorts, the incremental net health benefit was $9,933 per ulcer-free month at year 2 for the intervention; the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was -825,271 per quality-adjusted life-year gained (undiscounted costs and benefits). For the matched cohorts, the incremental net health benefits was only $1,371 per ulcer-free month for the intervention, but the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $366,683 per quality-adjusted life-year gained for year 2 (discounted costs and benefits). In a patient population with severe chronic wounds and serious comorbidities, negative pressure wound therapy resulted in faster healing wounds and was more cost-effective with greater cost-benefits than not using negative pressure wound therapy. Regarding overall cost-effectiveness, the intervention was still expensive, but that is the reality amidst limited treatment options for such serious cases of chronic wounds.