Relative cost-effectiveness of three compression bandages in treating newly diagnosed venous leg ulcers in the UK

Abstract

Objective: To assess the clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of using a two-layer cohesive compression bandage (TLCCB; Coban 2, 3M, US) compared with a two-layer compression system (TLCS; KTwo, Urgo, France) and a cohesive inelastic bandage system (CIBR; Actico, L&R, Germany) in treating newly diagnosed venous leg ulcers (VLUs) in clinical practice, from the perspective of the UK's National Health Service (NHS). Method: This was a modelling study based on a retrospective cohort analysis of the case records of patients with a newly diagnosed VLU randomly extracted from the The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database who were treated with TLCCB, TLCS or CIBR. No significant differences were detected between the groups. Nevertheless, analysis of covariance was performed to enable differences in patients' outcomes between the groups to be adjusted for any heterogeneity in baseline covariates. Clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of the alternative compression systems were estimated over 12 months after starting treatment. Results: There were 250 patients in each group. Time from wound onset to starting compression was a mean of two months. The healing distribution of the TLCCB-treated patients was significantly different from that of the other two cohorts (p=0.003); the probability of healing at 12 months was 0.62, 0.51 and 0.49 in the TLCCB, TLCS and CIBR groups, respectively. Patients treated with TLCCB experienced better health-related quality of life (HRQoL) over 12 months (0.86 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per patient), compared with those treated with TLCS and CIBR (0.83 and 0.82 QALYs per patient, respectively). The 12-month NHS wound management cost was £3693, £4451 and £4399 per patient in the TLCCB, TLCS and CIBR groups, respectively. Conclusion: Within the model's limitations, treating newly diagnosed VLUs with TLCCB instead of the other two compression systems appears to afford a more cost-effective use of NHS-funded resources in clinical practice, since it is expected to result in increased healing, better HRQoL and a lower wound management cost for the NHS.