Cost Analysis of Pure Hypochlorous Acid Preserved Wound Cleanser versus Mafenide for the Irrigation of Burn Wounds.

IF 2.1 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research Pub Date : 2024-10-16 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.2147/CEOR.S476201
Evelyn J Rizzo, Peter J Mallow, Aidan Jeffrey Noble, Kevin Foster
{"title":"Cost Analysis of Pure Hypochlorous Acid Preserved Wound Cleanser versus Mafenide for the Irrigation of Burn Wounds.","authors":"Evelyn J Rizzo, Peter J Mallow, Aidan Jeffrey Noble, Kevin Foster","doi":"10.2147/CEOR.S476201","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Over 40,000 patients in the United States (US) require hospitalization for burns annually. The treatment regimen can cost more than $6,000 a day and requires the use of numerous supplies to ensure the graft takes for successful wound healing. Irrigation of the wound is a critical step for burn treatment, yet little is known about the cost-effectiveness of different irrigation modalities. In a recent study, pure hypochlorous acid preserved wound cleanser (pHA) was shown to be safe and effective compared to mafenide. This study estimated the associated costs of two common wound irrigation modalities, pHA and mafenide solution, for the treatment of patients with burns. In this study, a patient-level Monte Carlo simulation model using data from a randomized control trial (RCT) was used to conduct the cost analysis from the US Hospital perspective. Based upon 100,000 simulated patients, pHA was expected to save $133 ($123 to $144, 10<sup>th</sup> to 90<sup>th</sup> percentile) for the hospital compared to using a mafenide solution over 14 days. Adoption of pHA should be considered a cost-saving strategy when treating patients with burns.</p>","PeriodicalId":47313,"journal":{"name":"ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research","volume":"16 ","pages":"747-752"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11491074/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S476201","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Over 40,000 patients in the United States (US) require hospitalization for burns annually. The treatment regimen can cost more than $6,000 a day and requires the use of numerous supplies to ensure the graft takes for successful wound healing. Irrigation of the wound is a critical step for burn treatment, yet little is known about the cost-effectiveness of different irrigation modalities. In a recent study, pure hypochlorous acid preserved wound cleanser (pHA) was shown to be safe and effective compared to mafenide. This study estimated the associated costs of two common wound irrigation modalities, pHA and mafenide solution, for the treatment of patients with burns. In this study, a patient-level Monte Carlo simulation model using data from a randomized control trial (RCT) was used to conduct the cost analysis from the US Hospital perspective. Based upon 100,000 simulated patients, pHA was expected to save $133 ($123 to $144, 10th to 90th percentile) for the hospital compared to using a mafenide solution over 14 days. Adoption of pHA should be considered a cost-saving strategy when treating patients with burns.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
纯次氯酸保存伤口清洁剂与马非尼用于烧伤伤口冲洗的成本分析。
美国每年有 4 万多名烧伤患者需要住院治疗。每天的治疗费用可能超过 6,000 美元,并且需要使用大量用品来确保移植伤口成功愈合。冲洗伤口是烧伤治疗的关键步骤,但人们对不同冲洗方式的成本效益知之甚少。在最近的一项研究中,纯次氯酸保存伤口清洁剂(pHA)与马非尼相比安全有效。这项研究估算了治疗烧伤患者的两种常见伤口冲洗方式(pHA 和马非尼溶液)的相关成本。在这项研究中,从美国医院的角度出发,利用随机对照试验(RCT)的数据建立了一个患者级别的蒙特卡洛模拟模型来进行成本分析。基于 10 万名模拟患者,与使用马非尼溶液 14 天相比,pHA 预计可为医院节省 133 美元(123 到 144 美元,第 10 到 90 百分位数)。在治疗烧伤患者时,采用 pHA 应被视为一种节约成本的策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
83
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Evaluating Service Satisfaction and Sustainability of the Afya Health Insurance Scheme in Kuwait: An Exploratory Analysis [Response to Letter]. Characteristics of High-Cost Beneficiaries of Prescription Drugs in Kazakhstan: A Cross-Sectional Study of Outpatient Data from 2022. Cost Analysis of Thromboprophylaxis in Patients at High Thromboembolic Risk with Enoxaparin, Dalteparin and Nadroparin in Colombia: A Systematic Literature Review-Based Study. Economic Evaluation of Once-Weekly Insulin Icodec from Italian NHS Perspective. Cost-Utility of Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring versus Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose in People with Insulin-Treated Type 2 Diabetes in Spain.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1