Log in

Forgot password

Not a member?

Register now

An economic review of real-world studies demonstrating the cost‑effectiveness of SANTYL Ointment across wound types and care settings

Compared to other debridement methods studied, patients treated with SANTYL Ointment:

  • had fewer outpatient visits25
  • required fewer debridements25
  • spent more weeks epithelialized25
See more findings

More cost effective for payers when added to sharp debridement than sharp debridement alone

37%

2-year payer cost with SANTYL Ointment*29

In a study of patients with stage IV pressure ulcers (PU), SANTYL Ointment together with sharp debridement had lower two-year payer costs than sharp debridement alone ($11,151 vs $17,596).*29

*2015 US dollars

Study Design:

Outcome data were derived from retrospective deidentified electronic medical records (EMR) of patients with stage IV PU from 2007 to 2013 using the USWR


The analysis constructed a three-state Markov model over a two-year time horizon

See more findings

More cost effective then medicinal honey for treating pressure ulcer patients

$988

one-year saving per patient with SANTYL Ointment†24

In a study among hospital outpatients with stage III or IV PUs, SANTYL Ointment had a 14% lower one-year cost than medicinal honey ($6,161 vs $7,149).†24

2016 US dollars

Study Design:

A Markov model from a US payer perspective (2016 USD) was developed with a base-case of adult patients with PUs treated in a hospital outpatient department.

See more findings

More cost effective for both in-office patients and outpatients with diabetic foot ulcers (DFU) compared to saline-moistened gauze

$210

lower mean in-office cost‡19

$373

lower mean outpatient cost‡19

In a study among DFU patients, SANTYL Ointment had a lower mean cost per responder vs saline-moistened gauze (SMG), for both in-office patients ($832 vs $1,042) and hospital outpatients ($1,607 vs $1,980).‡19

US dollars

Study Design:

A multicenter, open-label, 12-week RCT of 48 patients with DFU

See more findings

More cost effective in long-term care facilities, with a lower cost per PU-free day than hydrogel

75%

lower cost per PU-free day for SANTYL Ointment vs hydrogel§29

In a study among long-term care center residents with stages III and IV PUs, the direct cost for PU care per patient was $3,477 lower with SANTYL Ointment vs hydrogel, ($2,003 vs $5,480).§ The cost per PU-free day with hydrogel was 4x higher than SANTYL Ointment.29

§US dollars

Study Design:

Clinical and resource utilization data derived from a US-based, prospective, randomized, two-phase trial

See more findings

More cost effective for DFU patients compared to standard care plus sharp debridement

12%

lower cost per treated DFU for SANTYL Ointment vs standard care||30

In a study using a one-year time horizon from a third-party payer perspective, the expected cost per treated DFU was lower for SANTYL Ointment plus sharp debridement than for standard DFU care plus sharp debridement ($2,099 vs $2,376).||30

||2014 US dollars

Study Design:

Analysis of results from a randomized, open-label trial of 55 patients with DFU using a three-state Markov model

See more findings

More cost effective than medicinal honey comparing PU inpatient readmissions

Fewer

inpatient readmissions with SANTYL Ointment vs medicinal honey23

In a study comparing the impact of SANTYL Ointment vs medicinal honey on healthcare utilization in real-world hospital settings, PU patients treated with medicinal honey had greater odds of inpatient readmission after inpatient index visits.23


Study Design:

Analysis of SANTYL Ointment vs medicinal honey on healthcare utilization among PU inpatients and outpatients. Frequency of revisits up to six months after index encounter for SANTYL Ointment vs medicinal honey was compared with multivariate analysis.

What's next?

Save your patients up to $250

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.