Parafricta Bootees and Undergarments to Reduce Skin Breakdown in People with or at Risk of Pressure Ulcers: A NICE Medical Technologies Guidance

Catherine Meads (), Matthew Glover, Paul Dimmock and Subhash Pokhrel
Additional contact information
Catherine Meads: Brunel University
Matthew Glover: Brunel University
Paul Dimmock: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)
Subhash Pokhrel: Brunel University

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 2016, vol. 14, issue 6, No 3, 635-646

Abstract: Abstract As 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.

Date: 2016
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-016-0245-2 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:14:y:2016:i:6:d:10.1007_s40258-016-0245-2

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40258

DOI: 10.1007/s40258-016-0245-2

Access Statistics for this article

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy is currently edited by Timothy Wrightson

More articles in Applied Health Economics and Health Policy from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().