ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Partial thickness burns not undergoing surgical excision are treated with topical silver products including silver sulfadiazine (SSD) and Mepilex Ag. Skin allograft is a more costly alternative that acts as definitive wound coverage until autogenous epithelialization. Economic constraints and the movement toward value-based care demand cost and outcome justification prior to adopting more costly products. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was performed comparing skin allograft to SSD and Mepilex Ag using decision tree analysis. The base case modeled a superficial partial thickness 20% total body surface area burn. Utilities were derived from expert opinion on the basis of personal experience. Costs were derived from 2019 Medicare payments. Quality adjusted life years were calculated using rollback method assuming standard life expectancies in the United States. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to asses model robustness. RESULTS: The incremental costs of skin allograft to Mepilex Ag and SSD were $907.71 and $1257.86, respectively. The incremental quality adjusted life year (QALY) gains from allograft over Mepilex Ag and SSD were 0.011 and 0.016. This yielded an incremental cost-utility ratio for allograft vs. Mepilex Ag of $84,189.29/QALY compared with an incremental cost-utility ratio of $79,684.63/QALY for allograft vs. SSD. Assuming willingness-to-pay thresholds of $100,000/QALY, probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that allograft was cost effective to Mepilex Ag in 62.1% of scenarios, and cost effective to SSD in 64.9% of simulations. CONCLUSION: Skin allograft showed greater QALYs compared with topical silver dressings at a higher cost. Depending on willingness-to-pay thresholds, skin allograft may be a considered a cost-effective treatment of partial-thickness burns.
