WoundReference improves clinical decisions
 Choose the role that best describes you
Kowal S, Kruger E, Bilir P, Holmes JH, Hickerson W, Foster K, Nystrom S, Sparks J, Iyer N, Bush K, Quick A, et al.
Advances in therapy. Date of publication 2019 May 7;volume ():.
1. Adv Ther. 2019 May 7. doi: 10.1007/s12325-019-00961-2. [Epub ahead of print] Cost-Effectiveness of the Use of Autologous Cell Harvesting Device Compared to Standard of Care for Treatment of Severe Burns in the United States. Kowal S(1), Kruger E(2), Bilir P(2), Holmes JH(3), Hickerson W(4), Foster K(5), Nystrom S(6), Sparks J(7), Iyer N(8), Bush K(7), Quick A(7). Author information: (1)IQVIA, 3110 Fairview Park Drive, Falls Church, VA, USA. skowal@us.imshealth.com. (2)IQVIA, 3110 Fairview Park Drive, Falls Church, VA, USA. (3)Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center, Winston-Salem, NC, USA. (4)University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN, USA. (5)Arizona Burn Center, Phoenix, AZ, USA. (6)Office of Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR), US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Washington, USA. (7)AVITA Medical, Valencia, CA, USA. (8)Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), Office of Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR), US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Washington, USA. 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 (< 2% difference) and results in lower LOS compared to SOC across expected patient profiles and scenarios. In aggregate, ASCS treatment saves a burn center 14-17.3% annually. Results are sensitive to, but remain robust across, changing assumptions for relative impact of ASCS use on LOS, procedure time, and number of procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Use of ASCS compared to SOC reduces hospital costs and LOS of severe burns in the USA. FUNDING: AVITA Medical. DOI: 10.1007/s12325-019-00961-2 PMID: 31065995
Appears in following Topics:
Acute Burns - Treatment