Cost-Effectiveness of the Use of Autologous Cell Harvesting Device Compared to Standard of Care for Treatment of Severe Burns in the United States

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-i...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Advances in therapy 2019-07, Vol.36 (7), p.1715-1729
Main Authors: Kowal, Stacey, Kruger, Eliza, Bilir, Pinar, Holmes, James H., Hickerson, William, Foster, Kevin, Nystrom, Scott, Sparks, Jeremiah, Iyer, Narayan, Bush, Katie, Quick, Andrew
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Administration, Cutaneous
Adult
Burns - economics
Burns - therapy
Cardiology
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Debridement - economics
Debridement - methods
Endocrinology
Female
Health technology assessment
Humans
Internal Medicine
Length of Stay
Male
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Oncology
Original Research
Pharmacology/Toxicology
Rheumatology
Skin Transplantation - economics
Standard of Care - economics
Transplantation, Autologous - economics
United States
Wound Healing
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary: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 (
ISSN:0741-238X
1865-8652
DOI:10.1007/s12325-019-00961-2