Objective: To estimate the cost-utility of bio-electric stimulation therapy (Posifect) compared to standard care in elderly patients with chronic, non-healing wounds of > 6 months duration, from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK.
Methods: Clinical and resource use data from a 16 week clinical evaluation of bio-electric stimulation therapy among patients who had recalcitrant wounds were combined with utility data obtained from a standard gamble analysis to construct a 16 week Markov model. The model considers the decision by a clinician to continue with a patient's previous care plan or treat with bio-electric stimulation therapy. Unit resource costs at 2005/2006 prices were applied to the resource utilisation estimates within the model, enabling the cost-utility of bio-electric stimulation therapy compared to standard care to be estimated. The acquisition cost of Posifect had not been decided at the time of performing this study. Hence, the base case analysis used a cost of 50 pounds per dressing.
Results: 33% of all wounds are expected to heal within 16 weeks after the start of bio-electric stimulation therapy. Consequently, using bio-electric stimulation therapy is expected to lead to a 51% decrease in the number of domiciliary clinician visits, from 4.7 to 2.3 per week. The model also showed that using bio-electric stimulation therapy instead of patients' standard care is expected to reduce the NHS cost of managing them by 16% from 2287 pounds (95% CI: 1838 pounds; 2735 pounds) to 1921 pounds (95% CI: 1609 pounds; 2233 pounds) and result in a health gain of 0.023 QALYs over 16 weeks. Hence, bio-electric stimulation therapy was found to be a dominant treatment. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the cost-utility of using bio-electric stimulation therapy relative to standard care is very sensitive to the acquisition cost of the therapy, the acquisition cost of patients' drugs and the number of clinician visits and less sensitive to utility values and the acquisition cost of other dressings.
Conclusion: Within the limitations of the model, bio-electric stimulation therapy is expected to afford the NHS a cost-effective dressing compared to standard care in the management of chronic non-healing wounds of > 6 months duration. Bio-electric stimulation therapy's acquisition cost is expected to be offset by a reduction in the requirement for domiciliary clinician visits, leading to a release of NHS resources for use elsewhere in the system, thereby generating an increase in NHS efficiency.