Cost Effectiveness of Becaplermin Gel on Wound Closure for the Treatment of Pressure Injuries.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to determine the cost effectiveness of becaplermin gel on wound healing for the treatment of stage 3 and stage 4 pressure injuries (PIs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A 2-stage Markov model was used to predict expected costs and outcomes of wound healing for becaplermin gel once daily plus good wound care (BGWC) compared with a placebo gel plus good wound care (control) over 1 year; good wound care consisted of debridement, infection management, and moisture balance. Patients in both arms received dressing changes and gel applications twice daily. Outcome data used in the analysis were derived from a 16-week randomized clinical trial. The primary outcome of interest was PI-free weeks. Transition probabilities for the Markov states were estimated from the clinical trial. Pressure injury recurrence rates were derived from PI literature. Utilization for becaplermin was calculated using the manufacturer's recommended dosing algorithm. Costs were derived from standard cost references and medical supply wholesalers; economic perspective taken was that of the long-term care facility.

RESULTS

A total of 62 patients completed the study: 31 for BGWC and 31 for control. Over 1 year, patients treated with BGWC had substantially higher PI-free weeks compared with control patients (11.6 vs. 3.1, respectively). Patients treated with BGWC incurred higher total costs than those receiving the control treatment. Expected annual direct costs for PI were $3827 for BGWC and $1279 for the control. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $298 (about $43/day), indicating that patients would have to pay an extra $298 to gain 1 additional PI-free week.

CONCLUSIONS

Becaplermin gel plus good wound care was cost effective over standard of care, yielding better outcomes at a slightly higher cost and should be considered for management of PIs.