Clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of three different compression systems in newly-diagnosed venous leg ulcers in the UK.

OBJECTIVE

To assess clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of using a two-layer cohesive compression bandage (TLCCB; Coban 2) compared with a two-layer compression system (TLCS; KTwo) and a four-layer compression system (FLCS; Profore) in treating newly-diagnosed venous leg ulcers (VLUs) in clinical practice in the UK, from the perspective of the NHS.

METHOD

This was a retrospective cohort analysis of the case records of patients with newly-diagnosed VLUs randomly extracted from The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database (a nationally representative database of clinical practice among patients registered with general practitioners in the UK) who were treated with either TLCCB (n=200), TLCS (n=200) or FLCS (n=200). The clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of the alternative compression systems were estimated over six months after starting treatment.

RESULTS

Patients' mean age was 72 years and 58% were female. Time from wound onset to the start of compression was a mean of two months, and when starting compression the wound size was a mean of 45 cm. The distribution of healing was significantly different between the three groups; 76% of wounds in the TLCCB group healed by six months compared with 70% and 64% in the TLCS and FLCS groups, respectively (p=0.006). Time to healing was significantly less in the TLCCB group compared with the two other groups (p=0.003). Patients in the TLCCB group experienced better health-related quality of life over six months (0.413 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per patient), compared with the TLCS and FLCS groups (0.404 and 0.396 QALYs per patient, respectively). The mean six-month NHS management cost was £3045, £3842 and £4480 per patient in the TLCCB, TLCS and FLCS groups, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Real-world evidence demonstrates that treating newly-diagnosed VLUs with TLCCB, compared with the other two compression systems, affords a more cost-effective use of NHS-funded resources in clinical practice since it resulted in an increased healing rate, better health-related quality of life and a reduction in NHS management cost.