Cost Analysis of Pure Hypochlorous Acid Preserved Wound Cleanser versus Mafenide for the Irrigation of Burn Wounds

Abstract

Evelyn J Rizzo,1 Peter J Mallow,2 Aidan Jeffrey Noble,3 Kevin Foster4 1Mobility HEOR, Akron, OH, USA; 2Department of Health Services Administration, Xavier University, Cincinnati, OH, USA; 3The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA; 4Arizona Burn Center, Valleywise Health, Phoenix, AZ, USACorrespondence: Evelyn J Rizzo, Email [email protected]: Over 40,000 patients in the United States (US) require hospitalization for burns annually. The treatment regimen can cost more than $6,000 a day and requires the use of numerous supplies to ensure the graft takes for successful wound healing. Irrigation of the wound is a critical step for burn treatment, yet little is known about the cost-effectiveness of different irrigation modalities. In a recent study, pure hypochlorous acid preserved wound cleanser (pHA) was shown to be safe and effective compared to mafenide. This study estimated the associated costs of two common wound irrigation modalities, pHA and mafenide solution, for the treatment of patients with burns. In this study, a patient-level Monte Carlo simulation model using data from a randomized control trial (RCT) was used to conduct the cost analysis from the US Hospital perspective. Based upon 100,000 simulated patients, pHA was expected to save $133 ($123 to $144, 10th to 90th percentile) for the hospital compared to using a mafenide solution over 14 days. Adoption of pHA should be considered a cost-saving strategy when treating patients with burns.Keywords: wound care, burn irrigation, economic evaluation

Keywords

• wound care
• burn irrigation
• economic evaluation