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