Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
Published in: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 6/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Review Article

The Debrisoft® Monofilament Debridement Pad for Use in Acute or Chronic Wounds: A NICE Medical Technology Guidance

Authors: Catherine Meads, Eleonora Lovato, Louise Longworth

Published in: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy | Issue 6/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

As part of its Medical Technology Evaluation Programme, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited a manufacturer to provide clinical and economic evidence for the evaluation of the Debrisoft® monofilament debridement pad for use in acute or chronic wounds. The University of Birmingham and Brunel University, acting as a consortium, was commissioned to act as an External Assessment Centre (EAC) for NICE, independently appraising the submission. This article is an overview of the original evidence submitted, the EAC’s findings and the final NICE guidance issued. The sponsor submitted a simple cost analysis to estimate the costs of using Debrisoft® to debride wounds compared with saline and gauze, hydrogel and larvae. Separate analyses were conducted for applications in home and applications in a clinic setting. The analysis took an UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective. It incorporated the costs of the technologies and supplementary technologies (such as dressings) and the costs of their application by a district nurse. The sponsor concluded that Debrisoft® was cost saving relative to the comparators. The EAC made amendments to the sponsor analysis to correct for errors and to reflect alternative assumptions. Debrisoft® remained cost saving in most analyses and savings ranged from £77 to £222 per patient compared with hydrogel, from £97 to £347 compared with saline and gauze, and from £180 to £484 compared with larvae depending on the assumptions included in the analysis and whether debridement took place in a home or clinic setting. All analyses were severely limited by the available data on effectiveness, in particular a lack of comparative studies and that the effectiveness data for the comparators came from studies reporting different clinical endpoints compared with Debrisoft®. The Medical Technologies Advisory Committee made a positive recommendation for adoption of Debrisoft® and this has been published as a NICE medical technology guidance (MTG17).
Literature
1.
Campbell B, Campbell M. NICE Medical Technologies Guidance: a novel and rigorous methodology to address a new health technology assessment challenge. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2012;10(5):295–7.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
2.
White J, Carolan-Rees G. PleurX peritoneal catheter drainage system for vacuum-assisted drainage of treatment-resistant, recurrent malignant ascites. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2012;10(5):299–308.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Withers K, Carolan-Rees G, Dale M. Pipeline embolization device for the treatment of complex intracranial aneurysms: a NICE Medical Technology Guidance. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013;11(1):5–13.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
4.
Posnett JFP. The burden of chronic wounds in the UK. Nurs Times. 2008;104(3):44–5.PubMed
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Bradley M, Cullum N, Sheldon T. The debridement of chronic wounds: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess. 1999;3(17 Pt 1):iii–iv.PubMed
10.
Doerler M, Reich-Schupke S, Altmeyer P, Stucker M. Impact on wound healing and efficacy of various leg ulcer debridement techniques. J Deutsch Dermatol Ges. 2012;10(9):624–32.
11.
Edwards J, Stapley S. Debridement of diabetic foot ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;1:CD003556.PubMed
12.
Williams D, Enoch S, Miller D, Harris K, Price P, Harding KG. Effect of sharp debridement using curette on recalcitrant nonhealing venous leg ulcers: a concurrently controlled, prospective cohort study. Wound Repair Regen. 2005;13(2):131–7.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Piaggesi A, Schipani E, Campi F, Romanelli M, Baccetti F, Arvia C, et al. Conservative surgical approach versus non-surgical management for diabetic neuropathic foot ulcers: a randomized trial. Diabet Med. 1998;15(5):412–7.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Brunner RG, Fallon WF Jr. A prospective, randomized clinical trial of wound debridement versus conservative wound care in soft-tissue injury from civilian gunshot wounds. Am Surg. 1990;56(2):104–7.PubMed
15.
Wilcox JR, Carter MJ, Covington S. Frequency of debridements and time to heal: a retrospective cohort study of 312744 wounds. JAMA Dermatol. 2013:E1-E9.
16.
Markevich YO, McLeod-Roberts J, Mousley M, Melloy E. Maggot therapy for diabetic neuropathic foot wounds [abstract]. Diabetologia: Proceedings of the 36th annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. 2000;43(Suppl 1):A15.
17.
Jensen JL, Seeley J, Gillin B. Diabetic foot ulcerations. A controlled, randomized comparison of two moist wound healing protocols: Carrasyn Hydrogel Wound dressing and wet-to-moist saline gauze. Adv Wound Care. 1998;11(7 Suppl):1–4.PubMed
18.
D’Hemecourt PA, Smiell JM, Karim MR. Sodium carboxymethyl cellulose aqueous-based gel vs becaplermin gel in patients with nonhealing lower extremity diabetic ulcers. Wounds. 1998;10(3):69–75.
19.
Vandeputte JAJ, Gryson LGM. Diabetic foot infection controlled by immuno-modulating hydrogel containing 65% glycerine. Presentation of a clinical trial [poster]. 6th European Conference on Advances in Wound Management; 1–4 Oct 1996, Amsterdam.
20.
Smith F, Dryburgh N, Donaldson J, Mitchell M. Debridement for surgical wounds. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;9:CD006214.PubMed
21.
Goode AW, Glazer G, Ellis BW. The cost effectiveness of dextranomer and eusol in the treatment of infected surgical wounds. Br J Clin Pract. 1979;33(11–12):325.PubMed
22.
Michiels I, Christiaens MR. Dextranomer (Debrisan) paste in post-operative wounds. A controlled study. Clin Trials J. 1990;27(4):283–90.PubMed
23.
Bahr S, Mustafi N, Hattig P, Piatkowski A, Mosti G, Reimann K, et al. Clinical efficacy of a new monofilament fibre-containing wound debridement product. J Wound Care. 2011;20(5):242–8.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Mustafi N, et al. Clinical efficacy of a monofilament fibre containing wound debridement product evaluated in multicentre real life study [poster]. EWMA Conference; 25–27 May 2011, Brussels.
25.
Gray D, Cooper P, Russell F, Stringfellow S. Assessing the clinical performance of a new selective mechanical debridement product. Wounds UK. 2011;7(3):42–6.
26.
Haemmerle G, Duelli H, Abel M, Strohal R. The wound debrider: a new monofilament fibre technology: results of a pilot study [poster]. EWMA Conference; 25–27 May 2011, Brussels.
27.
Johnson S, Collarte A, Lara L, Alberto A. A multi-centre observational study examining the effects of a mechanical debridement system. J Community Nurs. 2012;26(6):43–7.
28.
Stephen-Haynes J, Callaghan R. A new debridement technique tested on pressure ulcers. Wounds UK. 2012;8(3 suppl):S6–11.
29.
Callaghan R, Stephen-Haynes J. Changing the face of debridement in pressure ulcers [poster]. Wounds UK Conference; Nov 2012, Harrogate.
30.
Collarte A. Evaluation of a new debridement method for sloughy wounds and hyperkaratotic skin for a non-specialist setting [poster]. EWMA Conference; 25–27 May 2011, Brussels.
31.
Pietroletti R, Capriotti I, Di Nardo R, Mascioli P, Gonzales M, Ermolli R. Economical comparison between three different types of debridement (autolytic and enzymatic vs mechanical debridement with polyester fibres) [poster]. Wounds UK Conference; Nov 2012, Harrogate.
32.
Wiser M. A monofilament debridement product—is it a new support debridement? [poster]. EWMA Conference; May 2012, Vienna.
33.
Dumville JC, Worthy G, Soares MO, Bland JM, Cullum N, Dowson C, et al. VenUS II: a randomised controlled trial of larval therapy in the management of leg ulcers. Health Technol Assess. 2009;13(55):1–182.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Raynor P, Dumville J, Cullum N. A new clinical trial of the effect of larval therapy. J Tissue Viability. 2004;14(3):104–5.CrossRefPubMed
35.
British National Formulary. London: BMA/Royal Pharmaceutical Society; 2012.
36.
Soares MO, Iglesias CP, Bland JM, Cullum N, Dumville JC, Nelson EA, et al. Cost effectiveness analysis of larval therapy for leg ulcers. BMJ. 2009;338:b825.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
37.
38.
NICE. Pressure ulcers clinical guideline (CG179). London/Manchester: NICE; 2014.
39.
NICE. Diabetic foot problems clinical guideline (CG119). London/Manchester: NICE; 2011.
40.
Dumville JC, Worthy G, Bland JM, Cullum N, Dowson C, Iglesias C, et al. Larval therapy for leg ulcers (VenUS II): randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2009;338:b773.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
41.
42.
43.
Strohal R, Apelqvist J, Dissemond J, O’Brien JJ, Piaggeri A, Rimdeika R, et al. EWMA document: debridement. J Wound Care. 2013;1:S1–52.
44.
Callaghan R, Haynes SJ. Changing the face of debridement in pressure ulcers [poster]. EPUAP Conference; Sep 2012, Cardiff.
Metadata
Title
The Debrisoft® Monofilament Debridement Pad for Use in Acute or Chronic Wounds: A NICE Medical Technology Guidance
Authors
Catherine Meads
Eleonora Lovato
Louise Longworth
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy / Issue 6/2015
Print ISSN: 1175-5652
Electronic ISSN: 1179-1896
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-015-0195-0

Other articles of this Issue 6/2015

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 6/2015 Go to the issue

Original Research Article

Cost-Effectiveness of Glycopyrronium Bromide Compared with Tiotropium in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Sweden

Systematic Review

The Role of Information Provision in Economic Evaluations of Newborn Bloodspot Screening: A Systematic Review

Original Research Article

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of High-Efficiency Hemodiafiltration Versus Low-Flux Hemodialysis Based on the Canadian Arm of the CONTRAST Study

Original Research Article

Hospital Utilization and Universal Health Insurance Coverage: Evidence from the Massachusetts Health Care Reform Act

Acknowledegment to Referees

Acknowledgement to Referees

Systematic Review

A Systematic Review of the State of Economic Evaluation for Health Care in India