Log in

Forgot password

Not a member?

Register now

Economic study: Cost-effectiveness of SANTYL Ointment vs medicinal honey in the hospital outpatient department (HOPD) setting

  • For patients with pressure ulcers (PUs), SANTYL Ointment was associated with greater quality-adjusted life weeks (QALWs) (22.7 vs 21.9) and with lower incurred costs ($6,161 vs $7,149) over one year vs medicinal honey, making it the dominant economic treatment strategy24
  • Debridement with SANTYL Ointment was more effective than medicinal honey, with significantly fewer total clinic visits (9.1 vs 12.6, P<0.001), less negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) (29% vs 38%, P=0.002), fewer average debridements (12.31 vs 17.61), higher proportion of granulation/proliferation (41.4% vs 34.6%), and higher proportion of epithelization (27.6% vs 20.7%)
  • Real-world data from the US were used for outpatients treated with PUs24

Incurred healthcare costs over one year*

$6,161
per patient

with SANTYL Ointment24†


$7,149
per patient

with medicinal honey24†

SANTYL Ointment was associated with a $988 total savings per patient over one year vs medicinal honey

* Using a Markov model with base case model assumptions.

2016 US dollars.

Study details

Study overview, endpoints, and design

Mearns ES, et al. (2017)24
Objective Assess the cost-effectiveness and economic impact of enzymatic debridement with SANTYL Ointment vs autolytic debridement with medicinal honey for PU treatment in the HOPD setting.
Primary endpoint Calculate incurred costs over one year for each study group
Secondary endpoint Determine QALWs for each study group
Limitations

Study results cannot be generalized to:

  • Wounds of other etiologies
  • Other countries
  • Inpatients
  • Long term care patients
Number of subjects

(with stage III and IV PUs treated in the HOPD setting)

446 SANTYL Ointment-treated patients

341 Medicinal honey-treated patients


Total number of PUs: 517 in each group, with the majority being stage III or IV

Design

Markov model§ with base case analysis of adult patients (≥18 years) with PUs treated in a HOPD|| and budget impact model over a time horizon of one year


Two groups:

  • SANTYL Ointment
  • Medicinal honey

Three health states:

  • Inflammation/senescence
  • Granulation/proliferation
  • Epithelialization

From US World Registry (USWR).

§ Constructed from a US payer perspective and assessed all costs in 2016 US dollars.

|| All patients entered the model in the inflammation/senescence health state and could fail to progress clinically, achieve 100% granulation, or achieve epithelialization during any of the one-week cycles.

Transition probabilities were based on the observed rates from an analysis of patients from the USWR.

Study results

SANTYL Ointment was more cost effective compared to medicinal honey for the treatment of PU24

  • SANTYL Ointment was associated with greater QALWs (22.7 vs 21.9) and with lower incurred costs ($6,161 vs $7,149) over one year vs medicinal honey, making it the dominant economic treatment strategy
  • Debridement with SANTYL Ointment was more effective than medicinal honey, with significantly fewer total clinic visits (9.1 vs 12.6, P<0.001), less negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) (29% vs 38%, P=0.002), fewer average debridements (12.31 vs 17.61), higher proportion of granulation/proliferation (41.4% vs 34.6%), and higher proportion of epithelization (27.6% vs 20.7%)
  • Assuming a population of 1,000 patients, every 1% of patients shifted from medicinal honey to SANTYL Ointment would result in a cost savings to the payer of $9,883 over a one-year period: a shift in use from 20% SANTYL Ointment, 80% medicinal honey to 50% SANTYL Ointment, 50% medicinal honey would yield a total cost savings of $296,484 over one year

Log in or register to download clinical study: Economic study: Cost-effectiveness of SANTYL Ointment vs medicinal honey in HOPD setting

What's next?

Patient case studies

Important Safety Information:Use of SANTYL Ointment should be terminated when debridement is complete and granulation tissue is well established.

One case of systemic hypersensitivity has been reported after 1 year of treatment with collagenase and cortisone. Occasional slight transient erythema has been noted in surrounding tissue when applied outside the wound.