Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine whether a difference exists in the financial impact of the use of a 2-piece ceramide-infused skin barrier (CIB) versus standard of care barrier (SOC) in Ontario and Alberta using a cost-effectiveness model over a 1-year period for people with a fecal or urinary ostomy.
DESIGN: A cost-effectiveness model adapted from a previously published work.
SUBJECTS AND SETTING: The model was populated with data inputs from a hypothetical cohort of 1000 individuals in Ontario and 4000 in Alberta. Model results were assessed for robustness via the use of deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. The provinces of Ontario and Alberta were chosen because cost data were readily accessible. The combined population of these provinces accounts for 50% of Canada's population.
RESULTS: An expected cost savings of Can$443.13 (US $322.60) and Can$243.84 (US $177.52) per user for the hypothetical cohort of 1000 individuals in Ontario and 4000 in Alberta per year was obtained for those using a CIB versus a non-infused skin barrier in Ontario and Alberta, respectively. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CIB to SOC per peristomal skin complication (PSC) avoided and per quality-adjusted life day (QALD) gained was approximately Can$2702 (US $1967)/PSC and Can$1266 (US $922)/QALD for Ontario and approximately Can$1487 (US $1083)/PSC and Can$697 (US $507)/QALD for Alberta. Analysis indicated CIBs remained cost-effective across all sensitivity analyses performed.
CONCLUSIONS: Finding suggest that a CIB is cost-effective when compared to a barrier not infused with ceramide when applied to persons with an ostomy and residing in the provinces of Alberta and Ontario.