TY - JOUR
T1 - Health technology assessment of the negative pressure wound therapy for the treatment of acute and chronic wounds
T2 - Efficacy, safety, cost effectiveness, organizational and ethical impact
AU - Rossi, Paolo Giorgi
AU - Camilloni, Laura
AU - Todini, Anna Rita
AU - Fortino, Antonio
AU - Di Bernardo, Livia
AU - Frigerio, Leonardo
AU - Furnari, Giacomo
AU - Borgia, Piero
AU - Guasticchi, Gabriella
PY - 2012
Y1 - 2012
N2 - Background: the aim of the study was to assess the safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness of Negative Pressure wound therapy (NPT) for people with chronic and acute wounds. Methods: the scope and the final draft of the report have been submitted to the stakeholders (producers, payers and patients). Safety issues were addressed through a systematic review of the meta-literature. Efficacy was addressed through a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing NPT and other standard therapies in patients with chronic or acute lesions. Cost-consequence was analyzed through a systematic review of the existing studies. Results: we retrieved 19 studies, 13 of which were included in the meta-analysis. Many studies had biases that may have resulted in a better performance for NPT. NPT showed: a slightly shorter healing time (-10.4 days, p=0.001), with no heterogeneity, apart from one small study with very positive results, and 40% more patients healed (p=0.002, no heterogeneity). We identified 15 original research papers on NPT costs and cost per outcome. The costs-per-patienttreated varied from +29% to -60%, with several studies reporting savings for NPT. Conclusions: despite serious methodological flaws, the body of evidence available was sufficient to prove some clinical benefit of NPT in severe chronic and acute wound treatment. There is a need for independent and contextualized cost analyses.
AB - Background: the aim of the study was to assess the safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness of Negative Pressure wound therapy (NPT) for people with chronic and acute wounds. Methods: the scope and the final draft of the report have been submitted to the stakeholders (producers, payers and patients). Safety issues were addressed through a systematic review of the meta-literature. Efficacy was addressed through a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing NPT and other standard therapies in patients with chronic or acute lesions. Cost-consequence was analyzed through a systematic review of the existing studies. Results: we retrieved 19 studies, 13 of which were included in the meta-analysis. Many studies had biases that may have resulted in a better performance for NPT. NPT showed: a slightly shorter healing time (-10.4 days, p=0.001), with no heterogeneity, apart from one small study with very positive results, and 40% more patients healed (p=0.002, no heterogeneity). We identified 15 original research papers on NPT costs and cost per outcome. The costs-per-patienttreated varied from +29% to -60%, with several studies reporting savings for NPT. Conclusions: despite serious methodological flaws, the body of evidence available was sufficient to prove some clinical benefit of NPT in severe chronic and acute wound treatment. There is a need for independent and contextualized cost analyses.
KW - Acute wound
KW - Chronic wound
KW - Health technology assessment
KW - Negative pressure therapy
KW - Systematic review
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84863496829&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84863496829&partnerID=8YFLogxK
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84863496829
VL - 9
SP - 46
EP - 66
JO - Italian Journal of Public Health
JF - Italian Journal of Public Health
SN - 1723-7807
IS - 2
ER -