IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i11p3823-d364037.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bayesian Regression Model for a Cost-Utility and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Comparing Punch Grafting Versus Usual Care for the Treatment of Chronic Wounds

Author

Listed:
  • Carmen Selva-Sevilla

    (Department of Applied Economy, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales de Albacete, Universidad de Castilla La Mancha, Plaza de la Universidad 1, 02071 Albacete, Spain)

  • Elena Conde-Montero

    (Department of Dermatology, Hospital Universitario Infanta Leonor, Avenida Gran Vía del Este 80, 28031 Madrid, Spain)

  • Manuel Gerónimo-Pardo

    (Department of Anesthesiology, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Albacete, Calle Hermanos Falcó 37, 02006 Albacete, Spain)

Abstract

Punch grafting is a traditional technique used to promote epithelialization of hard-to-heal wounds. The main purpose of this observational study was to conduct a cost-utility analysis (CUA) and a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) comparing punch grafting ( n = 46) with usual care ( n = 34) for the treatment of chronic wounds in an outpatient specialized wound clinic from a public healthcare system perspective (Spanish National Health system) with a three-month time horizon. CUA outcome was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) calculated from EuroQoL-5D, whereas CEA outcome was wound-free period. One-way sensitivity analyses, extreme scenario analysis, and re-analysis by subgroups were conducted to fight against uncertainty. Bayesian regression models were built to explore whether differences between groups in costs, wound-free period, and QALYs could be explained by other variables different to treatment. As main results, punch grafting was associated with a reduction of 37% in costs compared to usual care, whereas mean incremental utility (0.02 ± 0.03 QALYs) and mean incremental effectiveness (7.18 ± 5.30 days free of wound) were favorable to punch grafting. All sensitivity analyses proved the robustness of our models. To conclude, punch grafting is the dominant alternative over usual care because it is cheaper and its utility and effectiveness are greater.

Suggested Citation

  • Carmen Selva-Sevilla & Elena Conde-Montero & Manuel Gerónimo-Pardo, 2020. "Bayesian Regression Model for a Cost-Utility and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Comparing Punch Grafting Versus Usual Care for the Treatment of Chronic Wounds," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-21, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:11:p:3823-:d:364037
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/11/3823/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/11/3823/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hua Zhang & Mingdong Huo & Jianqian Chao & Pei Liu, 2016. "Application of Bayesian Approach to Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Antiviral Treatments in Chronic Hepatitis B," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(8), pages 1-9, August.
    2. Noémi Kreif & Richard Grieve & M. Zia Sadique, 2013. "Statistical Methods For Cost‐Effectiveness Analyses That Use Observational Data: A Critical Appraisal Tool And Review Of Current Practice," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(4), pages 486-500, April.
    3. Don Husereau & Michael Drummond & Stavros Petrou & Chris Carswell & David Moher & Dan Greenberg & Federico Augustovski & Andrew Briggs & Josephine Mauskopf & Elizabeth Loder, 2013. "Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(3), pages 367-372, June.
    4. Marissa Carter, 2014. "Economic Evaluations of Guideline-Based or Strategic Interventions for the Prevention or Treatment of Chronic Wounds," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 373-389, August.
    5. Andrew R. Willan & Andrew H. Briggs & Jeffrey S. Hoch, 2004. "Regression methods for covariate adjustment and subgroup analysis for non‐censored cost‐effectiveness data," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(5), pages 461-475, May.
    6. Jeffrey S. Hoch & Andrew H. Briggs & Andrew R. Willan, 2002. "Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue: a framework for the marriage of health econometrics and cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(5), pages 415-430, July.
    7. Anthony O'Hagan & John W. Stevens, 2001. "A framework for cost‐effectiveness analysis from clinical trial data," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(4), pages 303-315, June.
    8. Gerald Richardson & Andrea Manca, 2004. "Calculation of quality adjusted life years in the published literature: a review of methodology and transparency," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(12), pages 1203-1210, December.
    9. Briggs, Andrew & Sculpher, Mark & Claxton, Karl, 2006. "Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198526629.
    10. Miguel A. Negrín & Francisco J. Vázquez-Polo & María Martel & Elías Moreno & Francisco J. Girón, 2010. "Bayesian Variable Selection in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-20, April.
    11. Qinglu Cheng & Nicholas Graves & Rosana E. Pacella, 2018. "Economic Evaluations of Guideline-Based Care for Chronic Wounds: a Systematic Review," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 16(5), pages 633-651, October.
    12. Richard M. Nixon & Simon G. Thompson, 2005. "Methods for incorporating covariate adjustment, subgroup analysis and between‐centre differences into cost‐effectiveness evaluations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(12), pages 1217-1229, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Carmen Selva-Sevilla & F Dámaso Fernández-Ginés & Manuel Cortiñas-Sáenz & Manuel Gerónimo-Pardo, 2021. "Cost-effectiveness analysis of domiciliary topical sevoflurane for painful leg ulcers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(9), pages 1-18, September.
    2. Qi Cao & Erik Buskens & Hans L. Hillege & Tiny Jaarsma & Maarten Postma & Douwe Postmus, 2019. "Stratified treatment recommendation or one-size-fits-all? A health economic insight based on graphical exploration," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 475-482, April.
    3. Negri­n, Miguel A. & Vázquez-Polo, Francisco-José, 2008. "Incorporating model uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis: A Bayesian model averaging approach," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 1250-1259, September.
    4. Deidda, Manuela & Geue, Claudia & Kreif, Noemi & Dundas, Ruth & McIntosh, Emma, 2019. "A framework for conducting economic evaluations alongside natural experiments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 220(C), pages 353-361.
    5. Jasjeet Singh Sekhon & Richard D. Grieve, 2012. "A matching method for improving covariate balance in cost‐effectiveness analyses," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 695-714, June.
    6. Andrea Manca & Neil Hawkins & Mark J. Sculpher, 2005. "Estimating mean QALYs in trial‐based cost‐effectiveness analysis: the importance of controlling for baseline utility," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(5), pages 487-496, May.
    7. Richard M. Nixon & David Wonderling & Richard D. Grieve, 2010. "Non‐parametric methods for cost‐effectiveness analysis: the central limit theorem and the bootstrap compared," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(3), pages 316-333, March.
    8. Matthew Franklin & James Lomas & Simon Walker & Tracey Young, 2019. "An Educational Review About Using Cost Data for the Purpose of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(5), pages 631-643, May.
    9. Francisco-José Polo & Miguel Negrín & Xavier Badía & Montse Roset, 2005. "Bayesian regression models for cost-effectiveness analysis," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 6(1), pages 45-52, March.
    10. Manuel Gomes & Richard Grieve & Richard Nixon & W. J. Edmunds, 2012. "Statistical Methods for Cost-Effectiveness Analyses That Use Data from Cluster Randomized Trials," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(1), pages 209-220, January.
    11. Moreno, E. & Girón, F.J. & Martínez, M.L. & Vázquez-Polo, F.J. & Negrín, M.A., 2013. "Optimal treatments in cost-effectiveness analysis in the presence of covariates: Improving patient subgroup definition," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 226(1), pages 173-182.
    12. Theodoros Mantopoulos & Paul M. Mitchell & Nicky J. Welton & Richard McManus & Lazaros Andronis, 2016. "Choice of statistical model for cost-effectiveness analysis and covariate adjustment: empirical application of prominent models and assessment of their results," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 17(8), pages 927-938, November.
    13. Noemi Kreif & Richard Grieve & Rosalba Radice & Zia Sadique & Roland Ramsahai & Jasjeet S. Sekhon, 2012. "Methods for Estimating Subgroup Effects in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses That Use Observational Data," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(6), pages 750-763, November.
    14. Gemma E. Shields & Mark Wilberforce & Paul Clarkson & Tracey Farragher & Arpana Verma & Linda M. Davies, 2022. "Factors Limiting Subgroup Analysis in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis and a Call for Transparency," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 149-156, February.
    15. Gomes, M & Grieve, R, 2011. "Estimating the Effects of Friendship Networks on Health Behaviors of Adolescents," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 11/14, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    16. Richard M. Nixon & Simon G. Thompson, 2005. "Methods for incorporating covariate adjustment, subgroup analysis and between‐centre differences into cost‐effectiveness evaluations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(12), pages 1217-1229, December.
    17. Daisuke Goto & Ya-Chen Tina Shih & Pascal Lecomte & Melvin Olson & Chukwukadibia Udeze & Yujin Park & C. Daniel Mullins, 2017. "Regression-Based Approaches to Patient-Centered Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(7), pages 685-695, July.
    18. Mohamed El Alili & Johanna M. van Dongen & Jonas L. Esser & Martijn W. Heymans & Maurits W. van Tulder & Judith E. Bosmans, 2022. "A scoping review of statistical methods for trial‐based economic evaluations: The current state of play," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(12), pages 2680-2699, December.
    19. Miguel A. Negrín & Francisco J. Vázquez-Polo & María Martel & Elías Moreno & Francisco J. Girón, 2010. "Bayesian Variable Selection in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-20, April.
    20. Abualbishr Alshreef & Allan J. Wailoo & Steven R. Brown & James P. Tiernan & Angus J. M. Watson & Katie Biggs & Mike Bradburn & Daniel Hind, 2017. "Cost-Effectiveness of Haemorrhoidal Artery Ligation versus Rubber Band Ligation for the Treatment of Grade II–III Haemorrhoids: Analysis Using Evidence from the HubBLe Trial," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 1(3), pages 175-184, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:11:p:3823-:d:364037. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.