Search

Objective: A common and frequent complication of diabetes is diabetic foot ulcers (DFU), which can have high treatment costs and severe adverse events. This study aims to evaluate the effects of wound duration on wound healing and the impact on costs, including treatment with a new sucrose octasulfate dressing compared with a control dressing. Method: Based on the Explorer study (a two-armed randomised double-blind clinical trial), a cost-effectiveness analysis compared four different patient groups distinguished by their wound duration and additionally two DFU treatment options: a sucrose octasulfate dressing and a neutral dressing (as control). Clinical outcomes and total direct costs of wound dressings were evaluated over 20 weeks from the perspective of the Social Health Insurance in Germany. Simulation of long-term outcomes and costs were demonstrated by a five cycle Markov model. Results: The results show total wound healing rates between 71% and 14.8%, and direct treatment costs for DFU in the range of €2482–3278 (sucrose octasulfate dressing) and €2768–3194 (control dressing). Patients with a wound duration of ≤2 months revealed the highest wound healing rates for both the sucrose octasulfate dressing and control dressing (71% and 41%, respectively) and had the lowest direct treatment costs of €2482 and €2768, respectively. The 100-week Markov model amplified the results. Patients with ≤2 months' wound duration achieved wound healing rates of 98% and 88%, respectively and costs of €3450 and €6054, respectively (CE=€3520, €6864). Sensitivity analysis revealed that the dressing changes per week were the most significant uncertainty factor. Conclusion: Based on the findings of this study, early treatment of DFU with a sucrose octasulfate dressing is recommended from a health economic view due to lower treatment costs, greater cost-effectiveness and higher wound healing rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Risk models in endometrial cancer define prognosis and indicate adjuvant therapy. One of the currently used classifications was designed in 2016 in collaboration with the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO), the European Society of Gynecologic Oncology (ESGO), and the European Society of Radiotherapy (ESTRO). A high-intermediate risk group was introduced within the intermediate risk group. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical relevance of this subclassification., Methods: A multicenter retrospective study was carried out at five international tertiary institutions. Patients diagnosed with intermediate risk endometrial cancer on the basis of definitive pathology findings were included. Patients were stratified into intermediate and high-intermediate risk groups. Incidence of nodal metastases, and disease free and overall survival were compared between the two risk groups in univariate and multivariate analysis., Results: 477 patients were included: 325 (68%) patients were identified as intermediate and 152 (32%) as high-intermediate endometrial cancer patients. Nodal metastases were found in 18 patients (11.8%) in the high-intermediate risk endometrial cancer group and 16 patients (4.9%) in the intermediate risk group. Lymphovascular space invasion was found to be a strong predictive factor of lymph node involvement. High-intermediate risk was found to be an independent factor of disease free survival (hazard ratio (HR) 1.76; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 3.08; p=0.050) and overall survival (HR 1.99; 95% CI 1.10 to 3.60; p=0.022) in the multivariate analysis., Conclusions: The study validates the clinical significance of the intermediate risk endometrial cancer subclassification. Prognosis for high-intermediate risk endometrial cancer was significantly poorer. The prevalence of lymph node metastases was higher in this group of patients., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© IGCS and ESGO 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)