Efficacy and costs of nanocrystalline silver dressings versus 1% silver sulfadiazine dressings to treat burns in adults in the outpatient setting: A randomized clinical trial

Abstract

Background: Nanocrystalline silver dressings can reduce the number of changes, facilitating burn wound management. However, the evidence regarding their efficacy and cost-consequences compared to well-established treatments, such as 1% silver sulfadiazine, is still scarce.

Objective: To determine the efficacy, safety, and costs of nanocrystalline silver dressings compared to 1% silver sulfadiazine dressings to treat adult patients with burns.

Study design and setting: Randomized, single-center, single-blind trial conducted at a referral hospital in São Paulo, Brazil.

Methods: 100 adult patients were randomized 1:1 to nanocrystalline silver (n = 50) or 1% silver sulfadiazine (n = 50). The primary outcome was the proportion of participants with complete re-epithelization at day 15 after randomization. Secondary outcomes included the number of dressing changes, direct medical costs (in international dollars, I$), pain intensity, the incidence of infections, number of patients undergoing surgery, and adverse events.

Results: On day 15, the proportion of patients who reached the primary outcome did not differ significantly between participants treated with nanocrystalline silver dressings (24 [48%]) and those treated with 1% silver sulfadiazine dressings (26 [52%]); risk difference of -4.0 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], -17 to 9; P = 0.56). The number of patients undergoing surgical intervention was similar between groups (6% vs. 6%), and no local or serious adverse events were reported. The mean (standard deviation, SD) number of dressing changes in the nanocrystalline silver group was 4.1 (2.3), and the corresponding estimate in the 1% silver sulfadiazine group was 9.6 (6.7); mean difference of -5.56 (95% CI), -7.57 to -3.55, P < 0.001). Treatment with nanocrystalline silver dressing incurred significant cost reductions in medical materials, human resources, and administrative labor. However, the mean total cost with nanocrystalline silver dressing was higher compared to 1% silver sulfadiazine dressings: I$496.37 (445.90) vs. I$274.73 (182.76); mean difference = 221.63 (95% CI, 89.04 to 354.23, P = 0.001). The main driver of higher mean total costs among nanocrystalline silver-treated participants was the purchase cost of the dressings, representing 79.3% of the total cost in the nanocrystalline silver group but only 15.2% in the 1% silver sulfadiazine group.

Conclusion: We found no evidence of a difference between nanocrystalline silver and 1% silver sulfadiazine dressings regarding efficacy and safety outcomes. Nanocrystalline silver dressings were associated with an increase in the total costs, but they could result in important savings for an institution (less changes of dressings, reducing human resources burden), especially if acquisition costs can be decreased. Additional cost-effectiveness studies are warranted.

Trial registration number: NCT02108535.

Keywords: Burns. Dressings; Costs; Effectiveness; Silver compounds.