Meads_2016.pdf.docx (107.07 kB)
Parafricta Bootees and Undergarments to Reduce Skin Breakdown in People with or at Risk of Pressure Ulcers: A NICE Medical Technologies Guidance
journal contribution
posted on 2023-08-30, 15:23 authored by Catherine Meads, Matthew Glover, Paul Dimmock, Subhash PokhrelAs part of the development of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Medical Technologies Guidance on Parafricta Bootees and Undergarments to reduce skin breakdown in people with, or at risk of, pressure ulcers, the manufacturer (APA Parafricta Ltd) submitted clinical and economic evidence, which was critically appraised by an External Assessment Centre (EAC) and subsequently used by the Medical Technologies Advisory Committee (MTAC) to develop recommendations for further research. The University of Birmingham and Brunel University, acting as a consortium, were commissioned to act as the EAC, independently appraising the submission. This article is an overview of the original evidence submitted, the EAC’s findings and the final NICE guidance. Very little comparative evidence was submitted to demonstrate the effectiveness of Parafricta Bootees or Undergarments. The sponsor submitted a simple cost analysis to estimate the costs of using Parafricta in addition to current practice—in comparison with current practice alone—in hospital and community settings separately. The analysis took a National Health Service (NHS) perspective. The basis of the analysis was a previously published comparative study, which showed no statistical difference in average lengths of stay between patients who wore Parafricta Undergarments and Bootees, and those who did not. The economic model incorporated the costs of Parafricta but assumed shorter lengths of stay with Parafricta. The sponsor concluded that Parafricta was cost saving relative to the comparators. The EAC made amendments to the sponsor’s analysis to correct for errors and to reflect alternative assumptions. Parafricta remained cost saving in most analyses, and the savings per prevalent case ranged from £757 in the hospital model to £3455 in the community model. All analyses were severely limited by the available data on effectiveness—in particular, a lack of good-quality comparative studies.
History
Refereed
- Yes
Volume
14Issue number
6Page range
635-646Publication title
Applied Health Economics and Health PolicyISSN
1179-1896External DOI
Publisher
SpringerFile version
- Accepted version
Language
- eng
Official URL
Legacy posted date
2018-06-27Legacy creation date
2018-06-21Legacy Faculty/School/Department
ARCHIVED Faculty of Health, Social Care & Education (until September 2018)Usage metrics
Categories
No categories selectedKeywords
Licence
Exports
RefWorks
BibTeX
Ref. manager
Endnote
DataCite
NLM
DC