OBJECTIVE: A cost-effectiveness analysis compared the potential economic benefit of an autologous, platelet-rich plasma (PRP) gel to alternative therapies in treating nonhealing diabetic foot ulcers. DESIGN: An economic model used peer-reviewed data to simulate clinical and cost outcomes and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with PRP gel and other treatment modalities. PATIENTS: The model varies rates of healing, recurrence, infection, amputation, death, and associated costs for a hypothetical group of 200,000 patients with full-thickness, nonhealing diabetic foot ulcers for 5 years or until death. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The model simulates the clinical, cost, and QALY outcomes associated with PRP gel versus other modalities in treating nonhealing diabetic foot ulcers over a 5-year period. MAIN RESULTS: The average 5-year direct wound care cost per modality and QALYs were PRP gel, $15,159 (2.87); saline gel, $33,214 (2.70); standard of care, $40,073 (2.65); noncontact kilohertz ultrasound therapy, $32,659 (2.73); human fibroblast-derived dermal substitute, $40,569 (2.65); allogenic bilayered culture skin substitute, $24,374 (2.79); bilayered cellular matrix, $37,340 (2.71); negative pressure wound therapy, $20,964 (2.81); and recombinant human platelet-derived growth factor BB, $47,252 (2.69). CONCLUSION: Use of PRP gel resulted in improved quality of life and lower cost of care over a 5-year period than other treatment modalities for nonhealing diabetic foot ulcers. Although actual treatment outcomes may differ from those modeled, PRP gel represents a potentially attractive treatment alternative for insurers and health care providers to address the cost burden and health effects of nonhealing diabetic foot ulcers.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Edward J. Dougherty (2008) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: