New study: Smith+Nephew PICO System Cost Effective vs. Traditional Negative Pressure in Prevalent Leg and Foot Ulcers

DMCA.com Protection Status
Blog Category: 

By Industry News

June 2, 2020 – Smith+Nephew, the global medical technology business, announced the publication of a health economic study in Wound Management and Prevention, which states that the use of PICO◊ Single Use Negative Pressure Wound Therapy System (sNPWT) is estimated to be highly cost effective when compared with traditional NPWT (tNPWT), and may therefore provide opportunity to reduce the economic burden of venous leg ulcers (VLUs) and diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs).1

Expected cost savings per patient of using PICO sNPWT vs tNPWT were $18,504 for DFUs and $14,113 for VLUs at week 26.1

The study results are being released at the outset of the Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nurses Society annual conference, WOCNext 2020, being held online.

The economic model used data from a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial (RCT) to estimate wound closure rates.*2 The study demonstrated superior clinical outcomes of PICO sNPWT vs. tNPWT in the management of patients with lower extremity ulcers with a longer than four weeks duration over 12 weeks.†2 In an economic model, for both ulcer types combined, switching from tNPWT to PICO sNPWT resulted in an expected cost saving per patient of $15,749 and 5.31 open ulcer weeks per patient over 26 weeks, and a 31% increase in percentage of expected closed ulcers.1

In the United States alone, chronic wounds affect 6 million people, with increasing numbers anticipated in growing elderly and diabetic populations.3 One study showed that DFUs alone are estimated to cost the US health system between $9 to $13 billion.4

“Tools that decrease skyrocketing health care costs and improve patient’s quality of life are always needed for wound care patients. The novel and inventive technology of the PICO system does both,” said Dr. Cyaandi Dove D.P.M., co-author of the 2019 RCT.

PICO sNPWT's evidence base consists of137 published papers of which 26 are published RCTs and health economic evaluations, and 79 are unique clinical studies.5

Disclaimer
For detailed product information including indications for use, contraindications, precautions and warnings please consult the product’s applicable Instructions for Use (IFU) prior to use. In the United States PICO 7 sNPWT is not indicated for use with compression therapy.

References
1. Kirsner RS, Delhougne G, Searle RJ. A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing single-use and traditional negative pressure wound therapy to treat chronic venous and diabetic foot ulcers. Wound Manag Prev. 2020;66(3):30–38.
2. Kirsner R, Dove C, Reyzelman A, Vayser D, Jaimes H. A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial on the Efficacy of a Single‐use Negative Pressure Wound Therapy System, Compared to Traditional Negative Pressure Wound Therapy in the Treatment of Chronic Ulcers of the Lower Extremities. Wound Rep Regen. 2019. 2019;27(5):519-529
3. Powers JG, Higham C, Broussard K, Phillips TJ. Wound healing and treating wounds: Chronic wound care and management. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016;74(4):607-25.
4. Raghav A, Khan ZA, Labala RK, Ahmad J, Noor S, Mishra BK. Financial burden of diabetic foot ulcers to world: a progressive topic to discuss always. Ther Adv Endocrinol Metab. 2018;9(1):29‐31.
5. Smith+Nephew 2020. Evidence Pyramid April 2020. EA/AWM/PICO/030/v1.

Suggested Reading
1. Birke-Sorensen H, Malmsjo M, Rome P, et al. Evidence-based recommendations for negative pressure wound therapy: treatment variables (pressure levels, wound filler and contact layer)--steps towards an international consensus. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2011;64 Suppl:S1-16.
2. Hurd T, Trueman P, Rossington A. Use of a portable, single-use negative pressure wound therapy device in home care patients with low to moderately exuding wounds: a case series. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2014;60(3):30-36.
3. Hurd, T; Evaluating the costs and benefits of innovations in chronic wound care products and practices; Ostomy Wound Management Supplement June 2013.
4. Smith & Nephew October 2017. Project Opal PICO 7 System Stability Testing, Initial Time Point. Internal Report. DS/17/253/R.
5. Brownhill R, Bell A, Hart J, Webster I & Huddleston E. Pre-clinical Assessment of a No-canister, Ultra-portable, Single use Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (sNPWT) System* in a Porcine Model of Wound Healing: Unlocking its Mode of Action. Poster presented at the Advanced Wound Care (SAWC) Conference, 7-11 May 2019, San Antonio, Texas.

About Smith+Nephew
For over 150 years, Smith+Nephew has taken a pioneering approach to product design and services, helping to reduce the human and economic costs of wounds.

The views and opinions expressed in this blog are solely those of the author, and do not represent the views of WoundSource, Kestrel Health Information, Inc., its affiliates, or subsidiary companies.

Related company: 

Recommended for You

  • WoundSource 2019
    August 22nd, 2019

    By Miranda J. Henry, Editorial Director of WoundSource

    This updated edition of WoundSource provides a glimpse of the continuing evolution of the field of wound care. There are several additions this year that reflect the innovation and ingenuity we are seeing in wound...

Important Notice: The contents of the website such as text, graphics, images, and other materials contained on the website ("Content") are for informational purposes only. The Content is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. The content is not intended to substitute manufacturer instructions. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition or product usage. Refer to the Legal Notice for express terms of use.