Autologous whole blood clot and negative-pressure wound therapy in South Africa: A comparison of the cost and social considerations
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7196/SAMJ.2022.v112i10.16527Keywords:
Blood clot, WoundAbstract
Background. Advanced wound treatment modalities enhance healing of hard-to-heal wounds, decrease the risk of amputations, and
improve the quality of life of patients. Modalities have different rates of efficacy and incur different social and financial costs to the
individual and the healthcare system. Two such modalities, the autologous whole blood clot (WBC) and negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT), were compared in the South African (SA) context. The comparison was conducted on hard-to-heal wounds, with a specific focus on diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs).
Objectives. To compare the social considerations and financial costs of using autologous WBC v. NPWT in the treatment of DFUs in SA.
Methods. Data were obtained based on current supply costs from SA suppliers for the two modalities, the standard of care for both
modalities, the number of applications required for each, and social considerations provided by SA wound management clinicians. Wound healing rates were obtained from the published literature. This information was used to calculate costs of two scenarios (scenario 1: low exudate v. scenario 2: high exudate), which were compared over two treatment durations (4 and 12 weeks) for each treatment modality. Calculations included weekly cost of supplies, total cost saved by a patient with a DFU managed with either of the wound therapies, and the difference in total cost saved between the two modalities. Key social considerations were assessed qualitatively from discussions with SA clinicians experienced in both autologous WBC and NPWT, and from published research.
Results. The cost of supplies per week was ZAR3 250 for autologous WBC and ZAR4 804 for NPWT in scenario 1, and ZAR3 332 and
ZAR6 612 in scenario 2. With healing rates over 4 weeks’ treatment duration of 19% for autologous WBC and 10% for NPWT, autologous WBC saved ZAR17 719.93, or 9% more than using NPWT, in scenario 1 and ZAR18 381.47, or 10% more, in scenario 2. At 12 weeks’ treatment duration, healing rates for autologous WBC and NPWT were 75% and 43%, respectively. In scenario 1, results indicated a 43% cost difference between the two modalities. Autologous WBC had a total cost saving of ZAR61 874.40 compared with NPWT over a period of 12 weeks. In scenario 2, results indicated a 46% cost difference between the two modalities. Autologous WBC had a total cost saving of ZAR70 454.68 compared with NPWT over a period of 12 weeks. One of the identified social considerations is that NPWT needs a reliable supply of electricity to recharge the pump, while autologous WBC does not.
Conclusion. Both modalities are safe and effective in treating hard-to-heal wounds of the lower extremities. Autologous WBC consistently demonstrated better outcomes than NPWT in terms of both healing rate and cost-effectiveness, as well as having some advantages in terms of social considerations in SA.
References
Aitken SJ, Choy OS, Monaro S. A qualitative study exploring patient concerns and values in chronic limb- threatening ischemia. J Surg Res 2019;243:289-300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2019.05.055
Boersema GC, Smart H, Giaquinto-Cilliers MG, et al. Management of nonhealable and maintenance wounds: A systematic integrative review and referral pathway. Adv Skin Wound Care 2021;34(1):11-22. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ASW.0000722740.93179.9f
Woo K, Santos VD, Alam T. Optimising quality of life for people with non-healing wounds. Wounds Int 2018;9(3):6-14.
Sibbald RG, Elliott JA, Ayello EA, Somayaji R. Optimizing the moisture management tightrope with Wound Bed Preparation 2015. Adv Skin Wound Care 2015;28(10):466-476. https://doi.org/10.1097/01. ASW.0000470851.27030.98
Woo KY, Krasner DL, Kennedy B, Wardle D, Moir O. Palliative wound care management strategies for palliative patients and their circles of care. Adv Skin Wound Care 2015;28(3):130-140. https://doi. org/10.1097/01.ASW.0000461116.13218.43
KimHS,SunX,LeeJH,KimHW,FuX,LeongKW.Advanceddrugdeliverysystemsandartificialskingrafts for skin wound healing. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2019;146:209-239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2018.12.014
WangY,ArmatoU,WuJ.Targetingtunablephysicalpropertiesofmaterialsforchronicwoundcare.Front Bioengineering Biotechnol 2020;8:584. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2020.00584
Zhao R, Liang H, Clarke E, Jackson C, Xue M. Inflammation in chronic wounds. Int J Mol Sci 2016;17(12):2085. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms17122085
Snyder RJ, Ead K. A comparative analysis of the cost effectiveness of five advanced skin substitutes in the treatment of foot ulcers in patients with diabetes. Ann Rev Res 2020;6(1):555678. https://doi.org/10.19080/ ARR.2020.06.555678
Olsson M, Järbrink K, Divakar U, et al. The humanistic and economic burden of chronic wounds: A systematic review. Wound Repair Regen 2019;27(1):114-125. https://doi.org/10.1111/wrr.12683
GuptaS,SagarS,MaheshwariG,KisakaT,TripathiS.Chronicwounds:Magnitude,socioeconomicburden and consequences. Wounds Asia 2021;4:8-14.
SaloméGM,deAlmeidaSA,deJesusPereiraMT,etal.Theimpactofvenouslegulcersonbodyimageandself- esteem. Adv Skin Wound Care 2016;29(7):316-321. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ASW.0000484243.32091.0c
Upton D, Upton P. Psychology of Wounds and Wound Care in Clinical Practice. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2015.
Platsidaki E, Kouris A, Christodoulou C. Psychosocial aspects in patients with chronic leg ulcers. Wounds 2017;29(10):306-310. https://doi.org/10.25270/wnds/2017.10.306310
Frykberg RG, Banks J. Challenges in the treatment of chronic wounds. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle) 2015;4(9):560-582. https://doi.org/doi:10.1089/wound.2015.0635
SenCK,GordilloGM,RoyS,etal.Humanskinwounds:Amajorandsnowballingthreattopublichealthand the economy. Wound Repair Regen 2009;17(6):763-771. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-475X.2009.00543.x 17. Guest JF, Fuller GW, Vowden P. Cohort study evaluating the burden of wounds to the UK’s National Health
Service in 2017/2018: Update from 2012/2013. BMJ Open 2020;10(12):e045253. https://doi.org/10.1136/
bmjopen-2020-045253
Sen CK. Human wounds and its burden: An updated compendium of estimates. Adv Wound Care 2019;8(2):39-48. https://doi.org/10.1089/wound.2019.0946
JärbrinkK,NiG,SönnergrenH,etal.Thehumanisticandeconomicburdenofchronicwounds:Aprotocol for a systematic review. Syst Rev 2017;6:15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0400-8
Shankaran V, Brooks M, Mostow E. Advanced therapies for chronic wounds: NPWT, engineered skin, growth factors, extracellular matrices. Dermatol Ther 2013;26(3):215-221. https://doi.org/10.1111/dth.12050 21. Snyder RJ, Kasper MA, Patel K, et al. Safety and efficacy of an autologous blood clot product in the management of Texas 1A or 2A neuropathic diabetic foot ulcers: A prospective, multicenter, open label pilot
study. Wounds 2018;30(7):84-89.
Naude L, Idensohn P, Bruwer F, et al. An observational pilot study to collect safety and efficacy data on
wound care using whole blood clot technology on hard-to-heal wounds. Wounds Int J 2021;12(2):42-53. 23. RedDress. Summary. 14 May 2018. https://www.fda.gov/media/113744/download (accessed 18 January
.
Lima RV, Coltro PS, Farina JA. Negative pressure therapy for the treatment of complex wounds. Rev Col Bras
Cir 2017;44(1):81-93. https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-69912017001001
OthmanD.Negativepressurewoundtherapyliteraturereviewofefficacy,costeffectiveness,andimpacton
patients’ quality of life in chronic wound management and its implementation in the United Kingdom. Plast
Surg Int 2012;2012:374398. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/374398
Priyatham K, Rao YP, Satyanavamani G, Poornima D. Comparison of vacuum assisted closure vs
conventional moist dressing in the management of chronic wounds. IOSR J Dent Med Sci 2016;15(2):35-49.
https://doi.org/10.9790/0853-15273549
Siddha LV, Shetty SK, Varghese T. Efficacy of modified vacuum assisted closure in wound healing. Int J Sci Study 2015;2(11):52-59. https://doi.org/10.17354/ijss/2015/52
ArmstrongDG,LaveryLA;DiabeticFootStudyConsortium.Negativepressurewoundtherapyafterpartial diabetic foot amputation: A multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2005;366(9498):1704-1710. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67695-7
Blume PA, Walters J, Payne W, Ayala J, Lantis J. Comparison of negative pressure wound therapy using vacuum-assisted closure with advanced moist wound therapy in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers: A multicenter randomised controlled trial. Diabetes Care 2008;31(4):631-636. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc07- 2196
SeidelD,StorckM,LawallH,etal.Negativepressurewoundtherapycomparedwithstandardmoistwound care on diabetic foot ulcers in real-life clinical practice: Results of the German DiaFu-RCT. BMJ Open 2020;10(3):e026345. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026345
Alipour V, Rezapour A, Ebrahimi M, Arabloo J. Cost-utility analysis of negative pressure wound therapy compared with traditional wound care in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers in Iran. Wounds 2021;33(2):50-56.
Al-Mallah A, Al-Sayed A, Bayoumi A. Negative pressure wound therapy versus conventional dressing in treatment of diabetic foot wound. Egypt J Hosp Med 2018;72(3):4054-4059. https://doi.org/10.21608/ ejhm.2018.9115
Sajid MT, Mustafa QuA, Shaheen N, Hussain SM, Shukr I, Ahmed M. Comparison of negative pressure wound therapy using vacuum-assisted closure with advanced moist wound therapy in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2015;25(11):789-793.
Upton D, Andrews A. Pain and trauma in negative pressure wound therapy: A review. Int Wound J 2015;12(1):100-105. https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.12059
KimYH,HwangKT,KimJT,KimSW.Whatistheidealintervalbetweendressingchangesduringnegative pressure wound therapy for open traumatic fractures? J Wound Care 2015;24(11):536-542. https://doi. org/10.12968/jowc.2015.24.11.536
Searle R, Milne J. Tools to compare the cost of NPWT with advanced wound care: An aid to clinical decision- making. Wounds UK 2010;6(1):106-109.
VaidhyaN,PanchalA,AnchaliaMM.Anewcost-effectivemethodofNPWTindiabeticfootwound.Indian J Surg 2015;77(2):525-529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-013-0907-3
Liu S, He CZ, Cai YT, et al. Evaluation of negative-pressure wound therapy for patients with diabetic foot ulcers: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Ther Clin Risk Manag 2017;13:533-544. https://doi. org/10.2147/TCRM.S131193
McCall B. Huge burden of foot ulcers doubles diabetes costs in US. Medscape Medical News, 13 March 2014. https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/821908 (accessed 23 January 2022).
KushnirI,KushnirA,SerenaTE,GarfinkelD.Efficacyandsafetyofanovelautologouswoundmatrixinthe management of complicated, chronic wounds: A pilot study. Wounds 2016;28(9):317-327.
Mohseni S, Aalaa M, Atlasi R, Mohajeri Tehrani MR, Sanjari M, Amini MR. The effectiveness of negative pressure wound therapy as a novel management of diabetic foot ulcers: An overview of systematic reviews. J Diabetes Metab Disord 2019;18(2):625-641. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40200-019-00447-6
World Bank Group. Overcoming poverty and inequality in South Africa: An assessment of drivers, constraints and opportunities. 1 March 2018. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents- reports/documentdetail/530481521735906534/overcoming-poverty-and-inequality-in-south-africa-an- assessment-of-drivers-constraints-and-opportunities (accessed 2 March 2022).
Chingwete A, Felton J, Logan C. Prerequisite for progress: Accessible, reliable power still in short supply across Africa. Afrobarometer, 5 December 2019. https://afrobarometer.org/sites/default/files/publications/ Dispatches/ab_r7_dipstachno334_pap11_reliable_electricity_still_out_of_reach_for_most_africans.pdf (accessed 2 March 2022).
Burton J, Caetano T, McCall B. Coal transitions in South Africa: Understanding the implications of a 2°C-compatible coal phase-out for South Africa. IDDRI & Climate Strategies, 2018. https://www.iddri.org/ sites/default/files/PDF/Publications/Catalogue%20Iddri/Rapport/20180609_ReportCoal_SouthAfrica.pdf (accessed 2 March 2022).
NovakA,KhanWS,PalmerJ.Theevidence-basedprinciplesofnegativepressurewoundtherapyintrauma & orthopedics. Open Orthop J 2014;8:168-177. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874325001408010168
McLaren ZM, Ardington C, Leibbrandt M. Distance decay and persistent health care disparities in South Africa. BMC Health Serv Res 2014;14(1):1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-014-0541-1
SyedST,GerberBS,SharpLK.Travelingtowardsdisease:Transportationbarrierstohealthcareaccess. J Comm Health 2013;38(5):976-993. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-013-9681-1
Panayi AC, Leavitt T, Orgill DP. Evidence based review of negative pressure wound therapy. World J Dermatol 2017;6(1). https://doi.org/10.5314/wjd.v6.i1.1
CitakM,BackhausM,MeindlR,MuhrG,FehmerT.RarecomplicationafterVAC-therapyinthetreatment of deep sore ulcers in a paraplegic patient. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2010;130(12):1511-1514. https://doi. org/10.1007/s00402-010-1091-6
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 L Naude, G Balenda, A Lombaard
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Licensing Information
The SAMJ is published under an Attribution-Non Commercial International Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY-NC 4.0) License. Under this license, authors agree to make articles available to users, without permission or fees, for any lawful, non-commercial purpose. Users may read, copy, or re-use published content as long as the author and original place of publication are properly cited.
Exceptions to this license model is allowed for UKRI and research funded by organisations requiring that research be published open-access without embargo, under a CC-BY licence. As per the journals archiving policy, authors are permitted to self-archive the author-accepted manuscript (AAM) in a repository.
Publishing Rights
Authors grant the Publisher the exclusive right to publish, display, reproduce and/or distribute the Work in print and electronic format and in any medium known or hereafter developed, including for commercial use. The Author also agrees that the Publisher may retain in print or electronic format more than one copy of the Work for the purpose of preservation, security and back-up.
