Cost-Effectiveness of the Use of Autologous Cell Harvesting Device Compared to Standard of Care for Treatment of Severe Burns in the United States

• DOI: 10.1007/s12325-019-00961-2
• Publication Date: 2019-05-07T20:47:18Z
• Authors: Stacey Kowal; Eliza Kruger; Pinar Bilir; James H. Holmes; William Hickerson; Kevin Foster; Scott Nystrom; Jeremiah Sparks; Narayan Iyer; Katie Bush; Andrew Quick
• Keywords: Burn center

When introducing a new intervention into burn care, it is important to consider both clinical and economic impacts, as the financial burden of burns in USA significant. This study utilizes health modeling approach estimate cost-effectiveness center budget-impact for use RECELL® Autologous Cell Harvesting Device prepare autologous skin cell suspension (ASCS) compared standard care (SOC) split-thickness graft (STSG) treatment severe injuries requiring surgical definitive closure.A hospital-perspective model using sequential decision trees depicts acute pathway (wound assessment, debridement/excision, temporary coverage, closure) predicts relative differences between ASCS SOC. Clinical inputs impact on length stay (LOS) were derived from trials real-world data, American Burn Association National Repository database analyses, surgeon interviews. Hospital resource unit costs three US centers. A budget calculation leverages Monte Carlo simulation overall center.ASCS cost-saving or cost-neutral (< 2% difference) results lower LOS SOC across expected patient profiles scenarios. In aggregate, saves 14-17.3% annually. Results are sensitive to, but remain robust across, changing assumptions LOS, procedure time, number procedures.Use reduces hospital USA.AVITA Medical.