Objective: This study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of treating non-superficial diabetic foot ulcers with Promogran plus good wound care (GWC) compared with GWC alone in four European countries (France, Germany, Switzerland and UK).
Methods: An existing Markov-based health economic model of non-superficial diabetic foot ulcers was adapted to incorporate the relative efficacy of Promogran compared with GWC alone as demonstrated in a randomised controlled trial. Treatment with Promogran was modelled for a maximum of three months. Country-specific treatment costs were used to estimate the incremental cost per ulcer-free day gained over 12 months. Some parameter assumptions were changed to assess the sensitivity of the results.
Results: Within the first three months of treatment, 26% of ulcers in the Promogran cohort healed compared with 20.7% in the GWC cohort. Over the 12 months, the average number of months spent in the healed state was 3.41 (GWC) and 3.75 (Promogran). Promogran treatment was found to be cost-saving in all four countries, using year 2000 Euro values.
Conclusion: Promogran with GWC may be cost-effective, perhaps even cost-saving, under a wide variety of assumptions for the treatment of neuropathic foot ulcers.
Declaration of interest: This study was funded by Ethicon Gmbh (Johnson and Johnson), Germany.