Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||The Debrisoft ® monofilament debridement pad for use in acute or chronic wounds: A NICE medical technology guidance|
|Keywords:||National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE);Debrisoft;Debride wounds|
|Publisher:||Springer International Publishing|
|Citation:||Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 13(6): pp. 583–594, (2015)|
|Abstract:||As part of its Medical Technology Evaluation Programme, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited a manufacturer to provide clinical and economic evidence for the evaluation of the Debrisoft ® monofilament debridement pad for use in acute or chronic wounds. The University of Birmingham and Brunel University, acting as a consortium, was commissioned to act as an External Assessment Centre (EAC) for NICE, independently appraising the submission. This article is an overview of the original evidence submitted, the EAC’s findings and the final NICE guidance issued. The sponsor submitted a simple cost analysis to estimate the costs of using Debrisoft® to debride wounds compared with saline and gauze, hydrogel and larvae. Separate analyses were conducted for applications in home and applications in a clinic setting. The analysis took an UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective. It incorporated the costs of the technologies and supplementary technologies (such as dressings) and the costs of their application by a district nurse. The sponsor concluded that Debrisoft® was cost saving relative to the comparators. The EAC made amendments to the sponsor analysis to correct for errors and to reflect alternative assumptions. Debrisoft® remained cost saving in most analyses and savings ranged from £77 to £222 per patient compared with hydrogel, from £97 to £347 compared with saline and gauze, and from £180 to £484 compared with larvae depending on the assumptions included in the analysis and whether debridement took place in a home or clinic setting. All analyses were severely limited by the available data on effectiveness, in particular a lack of comparative studies and that the effectiveness data for the comparators came from studies reporting different clinical endpoints compared with Debrisoft<sup>®</sup>. The Medical Technologies Advisory Committee made a positive recommendation for adoption of Debrisoft<sup>®</sup> and this has been published as a NICE medical technology guidance (MTG17).|
|Appears in Collections:||Health Economics Research Group (HERG)|
Items in BURA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.