Keywords

bilayer cellular construct, cellular and/or tissue-based products, chronic wounds, cryopreserved human skin allograft, dermal skin substitute, health economics, skin substitutes, Medicare, wound care

 

Authors

  1. Barbul, Adrian MD
  2. Gelly, Helen MD
  3. Masturzo, Arti MD

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To investigate differences in wound-related costs; product waste; lower-extremity amputations; and number of applications, hospitalizations, and emergency room visits among patients treated with three cellular and/or tissue-based products.

 

METHODS: This retrospective intent-to-treat matched-cohort study analyzed the full Medicare claims dataset from 2011 to 2014. Patients who received either a bilayer cellular construct (BLCC), dermal skin substitute (DSS), or cryopreserved human skin allograft (CHSA) were concurrently matched for Charlson Comorbidity Index, age, sex, and region, resulting in 14,546 study patients. Key variables were reported at 60, 90, and 180 days after the first product application.

 

RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in the distribution of Charlson Comorbidity Index, age, sex, and region among cohorts. Wound-related costs and product wastage were lower for CHSA patients relative to both BLCC and DSS patients at all time intervals (P < .05). Patients treated with CHSA received fewer product applications than DSS at 90 and 180 days (P < .05). Amputations were significantly higher among patients treated with DSS than either CHSA or BLCC (P < .0001).

 

CONCLUSIONS: The data demonstrate that wound-related costs, product waste, amputations, and frequency of applications are lower for CHSA than DSS. Wound-related costs and product waste are lower for CHSA compared with BLCC. Further claims analysis and prospective clinical trials could help develop appropriate quality measures and reimbursement models to ensure smarter spending for the growing population of patients with chronic wounds.