Dataset Information

Health service costs of treating venous leg ulcers in the UK: evidence from a cross-sectional survey based in the north west of England.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To estimate and examine the direct healthcare costs of treating people with open venous leg ulcers in the UK.

Design

Cost-of-illness study.

Setting

A cross-sectional survey of nine National Health Service community locales over 2-week periods in 2015/2016.

Methods

We examined the resource use and prevalence of venous leg ulcer treatment in the community. Examination of variation in these obtained costs was performed by ordinary least squares regression. We used additional resource use information from a randomised control trial and extrapolated costs to the UK for an annual period.

Results

The average 2-week per person cost of treating patients where a venous leg ulceration was the primary (most severe) wound was estimated at £166.39 (95% CI £157.78 to £175.00) with community staff time making up over half of this amount. Costs were higher where antimicrobial dressings were used and where wound care was delivered in the home. Among those with any recorded venous leg ulcer (primary and non-primary), we derived a point prevalence of 3.2 per 10 000 population and estimated that the annual prevalence could be no greater than 82.4 per 10 000 population. We estimated that the national cost of treating a venous leg ulcer was £102 million with a per person annual cost at £4787.70.

Conclusion

Our point prevalence figures are in line with the literature. However, our annual prevalence estimations and costs are far lower than those reported in recent literature which suggests that the costs of treating venous leg ulcers are lower than previously thought. Movement towards routinely collected and useable community care activity would help provide a transparent and deeper understanding of the scale and cost of wound care in the UK.

SUBMITTER: Urwin S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8739075 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionLow-frequency, low-intensity ultrasound has been previously shown to promote healing of chronic wounds in humans, but mechanisms behind these effects are poorly understood. The purpose of this study was to evaluate gene expression differences in debrided human venous ulcer tissue from patients treated with low-frequency (20 kHz), low-intensity (100 mW/cm2) ultrasound compared to a sham treatment in an effort to better understand the potential biological mechanisms.MethodsDebrided venous ulcer tissue was collected from 32 subjects one week after sham treatment or low-frequency, low-intensity ultrasound treatment. Of these samples, 7 samples (3 ultrasound treated and 4 sham treated) yielded sufficient quality total RNA for analysis by ultra-high multiplexed PCR (Ampliseq) and expression of more than 24,000 genes was analyzed. 477 genes were found to be significantly differentially expressed between the ultrasound and sham groups using cut-off values of p < 0.05 and fold change of 2.Results and discussionThe top differentially expressed genes included those involved in regulation of cell metabolism, proliferation, and immune cell signaling. Gene set enrichment analysis identified 20 significantly enriched gene sets from upregulated genes and 4 significantly enriched gene sets from downregulated genes. Most of the enriched gene sets from upregulated genes were related to cell-cell signaling pathways. The most significantly enriched gene set from downregulated genes was the inflammatory response gene set. These findings show that therapeutic ultrasound influences cellular behavior in chronic wounds as early as 1 week after application. Considering the well-known role of chronic inflammation in impairing wound healing in chronic wounds, these results suggest that a downregulation of inflammatory genes is a possible biological mechanism of ultrasound-mediated venous chronic wound healing. Such increased understanding may ultimately lead to the enhancement of ultrasound devices to accelerate chronic wound healing and increase patient quality of life.

Project description:ObjectiveTo review the evidence of effectiveness of dressings applied to venous leg ulcers.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesHand searches of journals and searches of electronic databases, conference proceedings, and bibliographies up to April 2006; contacts with dressing manufacturers for unpublished studies.Studies reviewedAll randomised controlled trials that evaluated dressings applied to venous leg ulcers were eligible for inclusion. Data from eligible studies were extracted and summarised independently by two reviewers using a data extraction sheet. Methodological quality was assessed independently by two reviewers.ResultsThe search strategy identified 254 studies; 42 of these fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Hydrocolloids were no more effective than simple low adherent dressings used beneath compression (eight trials; relative risk for healing with hydrocolloid 1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.83 to 1.28). For other comparisons, insufficient evidence was available to allow firm conclusions to be drawn. None of the dressing comparisons showed evidence that a particular class of dressing healed more ulcers. Some differences existed between dressings in terms of subjective outcome measures and ulcer healing rates. The results were not affected by the size or quality of trials or the unit of randomisation. Insufficient data were available to allow conclusions to be drawn about the relative cost effectiveness of different dressings.ConclusionsThe type of dressing applied beneath compression was not shown to affect ulcer healing. The results of the meta-analysis showed that applying hydrocolloid dressings beneath compression produced no benefit in terms of ulcer healing compared with applying simple low adherent dressings. No conclusive recommendations can be made as to which type of dressing is most cost effective. Decisions on which dressing to apply should be based on the local costs of dressings and the preferences of the practitioner or patient.

Project description:ImportanceExercise is recommended as an adjuvant treatment for venous leg ulceration (VLU) to improve calf muscle pump function. However, the association of exercise with VLU healing has not been properly aggregated, and the effectiveness of different exercise interventions has not been characterized.ObjectiveTo summarize the association of different exercise interventions with VLU healing when used as an adjuvant to any form of compression.Data sourcesThe Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and SCOPUS databases were searched through October 9, 2017.Study selectionRandomized clinical trials (RCTs) of any exercise compared with no exercise in participants with VLU were included, where compression was used as standard therapy and a healing outcome was reported. Independent title screening and full text review by 2 authors (A.J., J.S.) with appeal to a third author (J.P.) if disagreement was unresolved. Of the 519 articles screened, a total of 6 (1.2%) studies met the inclusion criteria for systematic review, including 5 for meta-analysis.Data extraction and synthesisIndependent quality assessment for Cochrane risk of bias and data extraction by 2 authors with appeal to third author if disagreement unresolved (PRISMA). Data pooled using fixed effects model.Main outcomes and measuresThe a priori primary outcome was any healing outcome (proportion healed, time to healing, or change in ulcer area). Secondary outcomes (adverse events, costs, and health-related quality of life) were only collected if a primary outcome was reported.ResultsSix RCTs were identified and 5 (190 participants) met inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. The exercise interventions were progressive resistance exercise alone (2 RCTs, 53 participants) or combined with prescribed physical activity (2 RCTs, 102 participants), walking only (1 RCT, 35 participants), or ankle exercises (1 RCT, 40 participants). Overall, exercise was associated with increased VLU healing at 12 weeks although the effect was imprecise (additional 14 cases healed per 100 patients; 95% CI, 1-27 cases per 100; P = .04). The combination of progressive resistance exercise plus prescribed physical activity appeared to be most effective, again with imprecision (additional 27 cases healed per 100 patients; 95% CI, 9-45 cases per 100; P = .004).Conclusions and relevanceThe evidence base may now be sufficiently suggestive for clinicians to consider recommending simple progressive resistance and aerobic activity to suitable patients with VLU while further research is produced.

Project description:BackgroundThe frequency of skin ulceration makes an important contributor to the morbidity burden in people with sickle cell disease. Many treatment options are available to the healthcare professional, although it is uncertain which treatments have been assessed for effectiveness in people with sickle cell disease. This is an update of a previously published Cochrane Review.ObjectivesTo assess the clinical effectiveness and harms of interventions for treating leg ulcers in people with sickle cell disease.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register. We searched LILACS (1982 to January 2020), ISI Web of Knowledge (1985 to January 2020), and the Clinical Trials Search Portal of the World Health Organization (January 2020). We checked the reference lists of all the trials identified. We also contacted those groups or individuals who may have completed relevant randomised trials in this area. Date of the last search of the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register: 13 January 2020; date of the last search of the Cochrane Wounds Group Trials Register: 17 February 2017.Selection criteriaRandomised controlled trials of interventions for treating leg ulcers in people with sickle cell disease compared to placebo or an alternative treatment.Data collection and analysisTwo authors independently selected studies for inclusion. All three authors independently assessed the risk of bias of the included studies and extracted data. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence.Main resultsSix studies met the inclusion criteria (198 participants with 250 ulcers). Each trial investigated a different intervention and within this review we have grouped these as systemic pharmaceutical interventions (L-cartinine, arginine butyrate, isoxsuprine) and topical pharmaceutical interventions (Solcoseryl® cream, arginine-glycine-aspartic acid (RGD) peptide dressing and topical antibiotics). No trials on non-pharmaceutical interventions were included in the review. All trials had an overall unclear or high risk of bias, and drug companies sponsored four of them. We were unable to pool findings due to the heterogeneity in outcome definitions, and inconsistency between the units of randomisation and analysis. Three interventions reported on the change in ulcer size (arginine butyrate, RGD peptide, L-cartinine). Of these, only arginine butyrate showed a reduction of ulcer size compared with a control group, mean reduction -5.10 cm² (95% CI -9.65 to -0.55), but we are uncertain whether this reduces ulcer size compared to standard care alone as the certainty of the evidence has been assessed as very low. Three trials reported on complete leg ulcer closure (isoxsuprine, arginine butyrate, RGD peptide matrix; very low quality of evidence). None reported a clinical benefit. No trial reported on: the time to complete ulcer healing; ulcer-free survival following treatment for sickle cell leg ulcers; quality of life measures; incidence of amputation or harms.Authors' conclusionsGiven the very low quality of the evidence identified in this updated Cochrane Review we are uncertain whether any of the assessed pharmaceutical interventions reduce ulcer size or result in leg ulcer closure in treated participants compared to controls. However, this intervention was assessed as having a high risk of bias due to inadequacies in the single trial report. Other included studies were also assessed as having an unclear or high risk of bias. The harm profile of the all interventions remains inconclusive.