Dreyfus Jill, Delhougne Gary, James Roberta, Gayle Julie, Waycaster Curtis
a Premier, Inc. , Charlotte , NC , USA.
b Smith & Nephew , Fort Worth , TX , USA.
J Med Econ. 2018 Apr;21(4):390-397. doi: 10.1080/13696998.2017.1423489. Epub 2018 Jan 15.
To describe the utilization of clostridial collagenase ointment (CCO) and medicinal honey debridement methods in real-world inpatient and outpatient hospital settings among pressure ulcer (PU) patients and compare the frequency of healthcare re-encounters between CCO- and medicinal honey-treated patients.
De-identified hospital discharge records for patients receiving CCO or medicinal honey methods of debridement and having an ICD-9 code for PU were extracted from the US Premier Healthcare Database. Multivariable analysis was used to compare the frequency of inpatient and outpatient revisits up to 6 months after an index encounter for CCO- vs medicinal honey-treated PUs.
The study identified 48,267 inpatients and 2,599 outpatients with PUs treated with CCO or medicinal honeys. Among study inpatients, n = 44,725 (93%) were treated with CCO, and n = 3,542 (7%) with medicinal honeys. CCO and medicinal honeys accounted for 1,826 (70%) and 773 (30%), respectively, of study outpatients. In adjusted models, those treated with CCO had lower odds for inpatient readmissions (OR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.80-0.94) after inpatient index visits, and outpatient re-encounters both after inpatient (OR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.67-0.79) and outpatient (OR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.64-0.95) index visits in 6 months of follow-up.
The study was observational in nature, and did not adjust for reasons why patients were hospitalized initially, or why they returned to the facility. Although the study adjusted for differences in a variety of demographic, clinical, and hospital characteristics between the treatments, we are not able to rule out selection bias.
Patients with CCO-treated PUs returned to inpatient and outpatient hospital settings less often compared with medicinal honey-treated PUs. These results from real-world administrative data help to gain a better understanding of the clinical characteristics of patients with PUs treated with these two debridement methods and the economic implications of debridement choice in the acute care setting.
描述在现实世界中,住院和门诊环境下,压力性溃疡(PU)患者使用梭菌胶原酶软膏(CCO)和药用蜂蜜清创方法的情况,并比较接受CCO治疗和药用蜂蜜治疗的患者再次就医的频率。
从美国Premier医疗数据库中提取接受CCO或药用蜂蜜清创方法且有PU的ICD - 9编码的患者的匿名医院出院记录。多变量分析用于比较接受CCO治疗与药用蜂蜜治疗的PU患者在首次就诊后6个月内住院和门诊复诊的频率。
该研究确定了48267名住院患者和2599名门诊患者接受了CCO或药用蜂蜜治疗。在研究的住院患者中,n = 44725(93%)接受了CCO治疗,n = 3542(7%)接受了药用蜂蜜治疗。在研究的门诊患者中,CCO和药用蜂蜜分别占1826(70%)和773(30%)。在调整模型中,接受CCO治疗的患者在住院首次就诊后住院再入院的几率较低(OR = 0.86,95% CI = 0.80 - 0.94),在住院(OR = 0.73,95% CI = 0.67 - 0.79)和门诊(OR = 0.78,95% CI = 0.64 - 0.95)首次就诊后的6个月随访中门诊再次就医的几率也较低。
该研究本质上是观察性的,未对患者最初住院的原因或返回医疗机构的原因进行调整。尽管该研究对治疗之间各种人口统计学、临床和医院特征的差异进行了调整,但我们无法排除选择偏倚。
与接受药用蜂蜜治疗的PU患者相比,接受CCO治疗的PU患者较少返回住院和门诊环境。这些来自现实世界管理数据的结果有助于更好地了解接受这两种清创方法治疗的PU患者的临床特征以及急性护理环境中清创选择的经济影响。