Search

Objective: Hospital-acquired pressure injuries harm over 2.5 million patients at a U.S. cost of $26.8 billion. Sub-epidermal moisture scanning technology supports clinicians to anatomically identify locations at-risk of developing hospital-acquired pressure injuries. Our objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adopting sub-epidermal moisture scanners in comparison to existing hospital-acquired pressure injury prevention guidelines structured around subjective risk assessments. Methods: A Markov cohort model was developed to analyze the cost-effectiveness of sub-epidermal moisture scanners in comparison to existing prevention guidelines, based on current clinical trial data from the U.S. health care sector perspective in the acute, acute rehabilitation and skilled nursing facility settings. A hypothetical cohort was simulated over a time horizon of one year. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was measured using U.S. dollars per quality-adjusted life year at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/quality-adjusted life year, and uncertainty was tested using probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Results: Integration of sub-epidermal moisture scanners yielded cost-savings of $4054 and 0.35 quality-adjusted life years gained per acute care admission, suggesting that sub-epidermal moisture scanners are a dominant strategy compared to standard care and producing a net monetary benefit of $39,335. For every 1000 admissions in high-risk acute care, sub-epidermal moisture scanners could avert around seven hospital-acquired pressure injury-related deaths and decrease hospital-acquired pressure injury-related re-hospitalization by approximately 206 bed-days. Conclusions: Acute care, acute rehabilitation and skilled nursing settings that adopt sub-epidermal moisture technology could achieve a return on investment in less than one year. Providers may want to consider these types of technology that aid clinical judgment with objective measures of risk in quality improvement bundles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The objective of this study was to identify the most cost-effective statin or combination of statins, from the perspective of a managed care payer. Methods: A decision-analytic model compared the cost-effectiveness of titration to goal with atorvastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, rosuvastatin, and simvastatin in patients with elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). Effectiveness measures included the percentage change from baseline LDL-C and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), and the percentage of patients achieving National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Second Adult Treatment Panel (ATP II) LDL-C goals. Direct medical costs were calculated based on drug, physician, and laboratory resource use, multiplied by wholesale acquisition costs for drugs and the 2005 Medicare reimbursement rates for services. A Monte Carlo simulation tested the sensitivity of results to model efficacy inputs. Results: In the base-case analysis, rosuvastatin dominated atorvastatin, pravastatin, and simvastatin. Generic lovastatin dominated fluvastatin. The incremental (absolute) reduction in LDL-C, increase in HDL-C, and increase in patients to goal with rosuvastatin compared with lovastatin were 16%, 3%, and 27%, respectively. Incremental costs per additional 1% reduction in LDL-C, 1% increase in HDL-C, and patient to goal with rosuvastatin versus lovastatin were $8, $41, and $436, respectively. A wide variety of assumptions were assessed and Monte Carlo sensitivity analyses were conducted. Findings were most sensitive to the cost of lovastatin. Conclusion: Rosuvastatin dominates atorvastatin, pravastatin, and simvastatin because it is more effective and less costly, and it may be considered cost-effective compared with generic lovastatin. The most cost-effective two-statin formulary contained lovastatin and rosuvastatin. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]