Cost effectiveness analysis of larval therapy for leg ulcers

Objective: To assess the cost effectiveness of larval therapy compared with hydrogel in the management of leg ulcers. Design: Cost effectiveness and cost utility analyses carried out alongside a pragmatic multicentre, randomised, open trial with equal randomisation. Population: Intention to treat population comprising 267 patients with a venous or mixed venous and arterial ulcers with at least 25% coverage of slough or necrotic tissue. Interventions: Patients were randomly allocated to debridement with bagged larvae, loose larvae, or hydrogel. Main outcome measure: The time horizon was 12 months and costs were estimated from the UK National Health Service perspective. Cost effectiveness outcomes are expressed in terms of incremental costs per ulcer-free day (cost effectiveness analysis) and incremental costs per quality adjusted life years (cost utility analysis). Results: The larvae arms were pooled for the main analysis. Treatment with larval therapy cost, on average, 96.70 pound ((sic)109.61; $140.57) more per participant per year (95% confidence interval -491.9 pound to 685.8) pound than treatment with hydrogel. Participants treated with larval therapy healed, on average, 2.42 days before those in the hydrogel arm (95% confidence interval -0.95 to 31. 91 days) and had a slightly better health related quality of life, as the annual difference in QALYs was 0.011 (95% confidence interval -0.067 to 0.071). However, none of these differences was statistically significant. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio for the base case analysis was estimated at 8826 pound per QALY gained and 40 pound per ulcer-free day. Considerable uncertainty surrounds the outcome estimates. Conclusions: Debridement of sloughy or necrotic leg ulcers with larval therapy is likely to produce similar health benefits and have similar costs to treatment with hydrogel. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN55114812 and National Research Register N0484123692

Larval therapy for leg ulcers (VenUS II) : randomised controlled trial

Objective To compare the clinical effectiveness of larval therapy with a standard debridement technique (hydrogel) for sloughy or necrotic leg ulcers. Design Pragmatic, three armed randomised controlled trial. Setting Community nurse led services, hospital wards, and hospital outpatient leg ulcer clinics in urban and rural settings, United Kingdom. Participants 267 patients with at least one venous or mixed venous and arterial ulcer with at least 25% coverage of slough or necrotic tissue, and an ankle brachial pressure index of 0.6 or more. Interventions Loose larvae, bagged larvae, and hydrogel. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was time to healing of the largest eligible ulcer. Secondary outcomes were time to debridement, health related quality of life (SF-12), bacterial load, presence of meticillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus, adverse events, and ulcer related pain (visual analogue scale, from 0 mm for no pain to 150 mm for worst pain imaginable). Results Time to healing was not significantly different between the loose or bagged larvae group and the hydrogel group (hazard ratio for healing using larvae v hydrogel 1.13, 95% confidence interval 0.76 to 1.68; P=0.54). Larval therapy significantly reduced the time to debridement (2.31, 1.65 to 3.2; P<0.001). Health related quality of life and change in bacterial load over time were not significantly different between the groups. 6.7% of participants had MRSA at baseline. No difference was found between larval therapy and hydrogel in their ability to eradicate MRSA by the end of the debridement phase (75% (9/12) v 50% (3/6); P=0.34), although this comparison was underpowered. Mean ulcer related pain scores were higher in either larvae group compared with hydrogel (mean difference in pain score: loose larvae v hydrogel 46.74 (95% confidence interval 32.44 to 61.04), P<0.001; bagged larvae v hydrogel 38.58 (23.46 to 53.70), P<0.001). Conclusions Larval therapy did not improve the rate of healing of sloughy or necrotic leg ulcers or reduce bacterial load compared with hydrogel but did significantly reduce the time to debridement and increase ulcer pain. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN55114812 and National Research Register N0484123692

Negative pressure wound therapy for treating foot wounds in people with diabetes mellitus (Review)

Diabetes mellitus is a common condition that leads to high blood glucose concentrations, with around 2.8 million people affected in the UK (approximately 4.3% of the population). Some people with diabetes can develop ulcers on their feet. These wounds can take a long time to heal, be painful and become infected. Ulceration of the foot in people with diabetes can also lead to a higher risk of amputation of parts of the foot or leg. Generally, people with diabetes are at a higher risk of lower-limb amputation than people without diabetes. Negative pressure wound therapy is a wound treatment which involves applying suction to a wound; it is used increasingly around the world but it is not clear how effective it is. It also expensive compared with treatments such as dressings. We found five randomised controlled trials that compared negative pressure wound therapy with other treatments. We found some preliminary evidence that negative pressure wound therapy increases the healing of foot wounds on people with diabetes compared with other treatments. However, the findings are not conclusive and more, better quality randomised controlled trials are required

Development of core outcome sets for studies relating to awareness and clinical management of reduced fetal movement

Objective: This study aimed to create core outcome sets (COSs) for use in research studies relating to the awareness and clinical management of reduced fetal movement (RFM). Design: Delphi survey and consensus process. Setting: International. Population: A total of 128 participants (40 parents, 19 researchers and 65 clinicians) from 16 countries. Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify outcomes in studies of interventions relating to the awareness and the clinical management of RFM. Using these outcomes as a preliminary list, stakeholders rated the importance of these outcomes for inclusion in COSs for studies of: (i) awareness of RFM; and (ii) clinical management of RFM. Main outcome measures: Preliminary lists of outcomes were discussed at consensus meetings where two COSs (one for studies of RFM awareness and one for studies of clinical management of RFM). Results: The first round of the Delphi survey was completed by 128 participants, 66% of whom (n = 84) completed all three rounds. Fifty outcomes identified by the systematic review, after multiple definitions were combined, were voted on in round one. Two outcomes were added in round one, and as such 52 outcomes were voted on in two lists in rounds two and three. The COSs for studies of RFM awareness and clinical management are comprised of eight outcomes (four maternal and four neonatal) and 10 outcomes (two maternal and eight neonatal), respectively. Conclusions: These COSs provide researchers with the minimum set of outcomes to be measured and reported in studies relating to the awareness and the clinical management of RFM.</p

Nurses' and surgeons' views and experiences of surgical wounds healing by secondary intention : a qualitative study

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To explore surgeons' and nurses' perspectives of managing surgical wounds healing by secondary intention. BACKGROUND: Every year, more than 10 million surgical operations are performed in the NHS in the UK. Most surgical wounds heal by primary intention, where the edges of the wound are brought together with staples, sutures, adhesive glue or clips. Sometimes wounds are deliberately left open to heal, from the base up, known as 'healing by secondary intention'. These wounds are often slow to heal, prone to infection, and complex to manage. DESIGN: A qualitative, descriptive approach, using semi-structured interviews. METHODS: Interviews with five (general, vascular and plastic) surgeons and 7 nurses (3 tissue viability nurses, 2 district and 1 community nurse, and 1 hospital nurse) working in hospital and community care settings in two locations in the north of England. Data analysis followed the recommended sequential steps of 'Framework' approach. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research guided the study report. RESULTS: Participants reported that the main types of wounds healing by secondary intention that they manage are extensive abdominal cavity wounds; open wounds relating to treatment for pilonidal sinus; large open wounds on the feet of patients with diabetes; and axilla and groin wounds, associated with removal of lymph nodes for cancer. Infection and prolonged time to healing were the main challenges. Negative pressure wound therapy was the most favoured treatment option. CONCLUSIONS: Negative pressure wound therapy was advocated by professionals despite a lack of research evidence indicating clinical or cost-effectiveness. Our findings underscore the need for rigorous evaluation of negative pressure wound therapy, and other wound care treatments, through studies that include economic evaluation. RELEVANCE FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE: Clinical decision making in wound care could be optimised through further robust studies to inform practitioners about the cost-effectiveness of available treatments

Wound healing and hyper-hydration - a counter intuitive model

Winters seminal work in the 1960s relating to providing an optimal level of moisture to aid wound healing (granulation and re-epithelialisation) has been the single most effective advance in wound care over many decades. As such the development of advanced wound dressings that manage the fluidic wound environment have provided significant benefits in terms of healing to both patient and clinician. Although moist wound healing provides the guiding management principle confusion may arise between what is deemed to be an adequate level of tissue hydration and the risk of developing maceration. In addition, the counter-intuitive model ‘hyper-hydration’ of tissue appears to frustrate the moist wound healing approach and advocate a course of intervention whereby tissue is hydrated beyond what is a normally acceptable therapeutic level. This paper discusses tissue hydration, the cause and effect of maceration and distinguishes these from hyper-hydration of tissue. The rationale is to provide the clinician with a knowledge base that allows optimisation of treatment and outcomes and explains the reasoning behind wound healing using hyper-hydration