Cost‐effectiveness of ON101 with general wound care for diabetic foot ulcers among patients with type 2 diabetes in Singapore: Analysis of a multi‐ethnic country in Asia
Authors' conclusion
Combining ON101 with GWC versus GWC alone was highly cost-effective for DFUs in Singapore. Also, the economic results for complex DFU cases underscore the value of ON101 in addressing DFU treatment challenges for managing complex cases, offering cost-savings alongside clinical benefits.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with T2D and diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) in Singapore; inputs mainly from the Singapore Wound Registry and published literature
- Comparison
- ON101 + general wound care vs general wound care (GWC) alone
- Outcome
- Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER)
- Follow-up
- 5 years
Methodological detailsMarkov model, 5-year horizon, healthcare sector perspective, subgroup analyses, scenario analyses
- Markov model
- 5-year horizon
- Healthcare sector perspective
- Subgroup analyses
- Scenario analyses
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Incremental QALY gained with ON101 + GWC vs GWC
0.15
Incremental healthcare costs with ON101 + GWC vs GWC
-US$16237
Further findings
Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in complex DFU subgroups
- ICER, HbA1c ≥ 9%
- -US$161 963 per QALY gained
- ICER, ulcer duration >6 months
- -US$181 726 per QALY gained
- ICER, ulcer size >5 cm²
- -US$199 130 per QALY gained
Scenario: ON101 + GWC vs negative pressure wound therapy + GWC
- ICER
- -US$677 243 per QALY gained
Original publication
Cost‐effectiveness of ON101 with general wound care for diabetic foot ulcers among patients with type 2 diabetes in Singapore: Analysis of a multi‐ethnic country in Asia. Diabetes Obes Metab. Published 21 May 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →