Skip to main content

Table 4 Overview of economic evaluations included in Ho et al. 2005

From: Systematic review of economic evaluations of human cell-derived wound care products for the treatment of venous leg and diabetic foot ulcers

Wound care product Source: author, country, year Type of ulcers Interventions Perspective Type of economic evaluation Primary outcome measures/source of effectiveness evidence Cost-effectiveness results (base case) Sources of funding Evidence
Skin Substitutes         
Apligraf® Redekop et al., NL, 2003 Diabetic foot (1) GWC alone
(2) GWC plus Apligraf®
Societal CEA Number of ulcer-free months gained and amputations avoided/Veves et al. 2001 Treatment with Apligraf (more effective and less costly) dominated over GWC alone. Novartis Limited
  Schonfeld et al., US, 2000 Venous leg (1) Unna's boot
(2) Apligraf®
Health care payer CEA Number of healed months and total % healed at 12 months/Falanga et al. 1998 Apligraf was the dominant strategy (more effective and less costly). Novartis  
  Sibbald et al., CA, 2001 Venous leg (1) 4-layer bandage system alone
(2) 4-layer bandage system plus Apligraf®
Societal/Health care payer CEA Number of ulcer days averted/Falanga et al. 1998 Over a 3-month time horizon, the incremental cost per ulcer day averted with Apligraf plus 4-layer bandage system over 4-layer bandage system alone was Can $14 (US $12)* from both perspectives. Novartis  
Dermagraft® Allenet et al., FR, 2000 Diabetic foot (1) Standard treatment
(2) Dermagraft®
Societal CEA Number of additional ulcers healed/Naughton et al. 1997 The incremental cost per additional ulcer healed of Dermagraft® over standard treatment was FF38,784 (US $41,260)*. French Ministry of Health Limited
  1. *: US $ converted by purchasing-power parity rates of the publication year; CA: Canada, CEA: cost-effectiveness-analysis; FR: France, GWC: good wound care; NL: Netherlands; US: United States.