Cargando…
The Debrisoft(®) Monofilament Debridement Pad for Use in Acute or Chronic Wounds: A NICE Medical Technology Guidance
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...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4661219/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26315567 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40258-015-0195-0 |
_version_ | 1782402942205165568 |
---|---|
author | Meads, Catherine Lovato, Eleonora Longworth, Louise |
author_facet | Meads, Catherine Lovato, Eleonora Longworth, Louise |
author_sort | Meads, Catherine |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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(®). The Medical Technologies Advisory Committee made a positive recommendation for adoption of Debrisoft(®) and this has been published as a NICE medical technology guidance (MTG17). |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4661219 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | Springer International Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-46612192015-12-04 The Debrisoft(®) Monofilament Debridement Pad for Use in Acute or Chronic Wounds: A NICE Medical Technology Guidance Meads, Catherine Lovato, Eleonora Longworth, Louise Appl Health Econ Health Policy Review Article 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(®). The Medical Technologies Advisory Committee made a positive recommendation for adoption of Debrisoft(®) and this has been published as a NICE medical technology guidance (MTG17). Springer International Publishing 2015-08-28 2015 /pmc/articles/PMC4661219/ /pubmed/26315567 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40258-015-0195-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2015 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. |
spellingShingle | Review Article Meads, Catherine Lovato, Eleonora Longworth, Louise The Debrisoft(®) Monofilament Debridement Pad for Use in Acute or Chronic Wounds: A NICE Medical Technology Guidance |
title | The Debrisoft(®) Monofilament Debridement Pad for Use in Acute or Chronic Wounds: A NICE Medical Technology Guidance |
title_full | The Debrisoft(®) Monofilament Debridement Pad for Use in Acute or Chronic Wounds: A NICE Medical Technology Guidance |
title_fullStr | The Debrisoft(®) Monofilament Debridement Pad for Use in Acute or Chronic Wounds: A NICE Medical Technology Guidance |
title_full_unstemmed | The Debrisoft(®) Monofilament Debridement Pad for Use in Acute or Chronic Wounds: A NICE Medical Technology Guidance |
title_short | The Debrisoft(®) Monofilament Debridement Pad for Use in Acute or Chronic Wounds: A NICE Medical Technology Guidance |
title_sort | debrisoft(®) monofilament debridement pad for use in acute or chronic wounds: a nice medical technology guidance |
topic | Review Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4661219/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26315567 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40258-015-0195-0 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT meadscatherine thedebrisoftmonofilamentdebridementpadforuseinacuteorchronicwoundsanicemedicaltechnologyguidance AT lovatoeleonora thedebrisoftmonofilamentdebridementpadforuseinacuteorchronicwoundsanicemedicaltechnologyguidance AT longworthlouise thedebrisoftmonofilamentdebridementpadforuseinacuteorchronicwoundsanicemedicaltechnologyguidance AT meadscatherine debrisoftmonofilamentdebridementpadforuseinacuteorchronicwoundsanicemedicaltechnologyguidance AT lovatoeleonora debrisoftmonofilamentdebridementpadforuseinacuteorchronicwoundsanicemedicaltechnologyguidance AT longworthlouise debrisoftmonofilamentdebridementpadforuseinacuteorchronicwoundsanicemedicaltechnologyguidance |