Cost-effectiveness of a Ceram de Infused Skin Barrier Versus a Standard Barrier Findings From a Long-Term Cost-effectiveness Analysis

PURPOSE To assess the cost-effectiveness of a ceramide-infused skin barrier (CIB) versus other skin barriers (standard of care) among patients who have undergone ostomy creation. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis, based on a decision-analytic model that was estimated using data from the ADVOCATE (A Study Determining Variances in Ostomy Skin Conditions And The Economic Impact) trial, which investigated stoma-related healthcare costs over 12 weeks among patients who recently underwent fecal ostomy, and from other sources. SUBJECTS AND SETTING: Analysis was based on a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients who recently underwent fecal ostomy; over a 1-year period, 500 patients were assumed to use CIB and 500 were assumed to use standard of care. METHODS: We adapted a previous economic model to estimate expected 1-year costs and outcomes among persons with a new ostomy assumed to use CIB versus standard of care. Outcomes of interest included peristomal skin complications (PSCs) (up to 2 during the 1-year period of interest) and quality-adjusted life days (QALDs); QALDs vary from 1, indicating a day of perfect health to 0, indicating a day with the lowest possible health (deceased). Subjects were assigned QALDs on a daily basis, with the value of the QALD on any given day based on whether the patient was experiencing a PSC. Costs included those related to skin barriers, ostomy accessories, and care of PSCs. The incremental cost-effectiveness of CIB versus standard of care was estimated as the incremental cost per PSC averted and QALD gained, respectively; net monetary benefit of CIB was also estimated. All analyses were run using the perspective of an Australian payer. RESULTS: On a per-patient basis, use of CIB was expected over a 1-year period to result in 0.16 fewer PSCs, an additional 0.35 QALDs, and a savings of A$180 (Australian dollars, US $137) in healthcare costs all versus standard of care. Management with CIB provided a net monetary benefit (calculated as the product of maximum willingness to pay for 1 QALD times additional QALDs with CIB less the incremental cost of CIB) of A$228 (US $174). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was also completed; it revealed that 97% of model runs resulted in fewer expected PSCs with CIB; 92% of these runs resulted in lower expected costs with CIB. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that the CIB is a cost-effective skin barrier for persons living with an ostomy.