Skip to main content
Top
Published in: PharmacoEconomics 12/2008

01-12-2008 | Review Article

Management and Prevention of Diabetic Foot Ulcers and Infections

A Health Economic Review

Authors: Ivy Chow, Elkin V. Lemos, Dr Thomas R. Einarson

Published in: PharmacoEconomics | Issue 12/2008

Login to get access

Abstract

Diabetic foot ulcers and infections are common and incur substantial economic burden for society, patients and families. We performed a comprehensive review, on a number of databases, of health economic evaluations of a variety of different prevention, diagnostic and treatment strategies in the area of diabetic foot ulcers and infections. We included English-language, peer-reviewed, cost-effectiveness, cost-minimization, cost-utility and cost-benefit studies that evaluated a treatment modality against placebo or comparator (i.e. drug, standard of care), regardless of year. Differences were settled through consensus.
The search resulted in 1885 potential citations, of which 20 studies were retained for analysis (3 cost minimization, 13 cost effectiveness and 4 cost utility). Quality scores of studies ranged from 70.8% (fair) to 87.5% (good); mean = 78.4% ± 5.33%.
In diagnosing osteomyelitis in patients with diabetic foot infection, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) showed 82% sensitivity and 80% specificity. MRI cost less than 3-phase bone scanning + Indium (In)-111/Gallium (Ga)-67; however, when compared with prolonged antibacterials, MRI cost $US120 (year 1993 value) more without additional quality-adjusted life-expectancy. Prevention strategies improved life expectancy and QALYs and reduced foot ulcer rates and amputations.
Ampicillin/sulbactam and imipenem/cilastatin were both 80% successful in treating diabetic foot infections but the latter cost $US2924 more (year 1994 value). Linezolid cure rates were higher (97.7%) than vancomycin (86.0%) and cost $US873 less (year 2004 value). Ertapenem costs were significantly lower than piperacillin/tazobactam ($US356 vs $US503, respectively; year 2005 values). Becaplermin plus good wound care may be cost effective in specific populations. Bioengineered living-skin equivalents increased ulcer-free months and ulcers healed, but costs varied between countries. Promogran® produced more ulcer-free months than wound care alone (3.75 vs 3.41 months, respectively). Treatment with cadexomer iodine resulted in higher rates of healed ulcer (29% vs 11%) and lower weekly treatment costs (Swedish krona [SEK]903 vs SEK1421; year 1993 values) than standard care. Filgrastim decreased hospital stays, time to resolution and costs (36% lower) compared with usual care. Adjunctive hyperbaric oxygen produced an incremental cost per QALY at year 1 of $US27 310 and $US2255 at year 12 (year 2001 values).
Overall, preventive strategies were shown to be cost effective and potentially cost saving. Various antibacterial regimens are cost effective but empiric choices should be based on local resistance patterns. MRI was cost effective compared with three-phase bone scanning + In-111/Ga-67 but not against prolonged antibacterial therapy. Other innovations (becaplermin, bioengineered living-skin equivalents, filgrastim, cadexomer iodine ointment, hyperbaric oxygen, Promogran®) may be cost effective in this population but more studies are needed to confirm these findings.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Footnotes
1
The use of trade names is for product identification purposes only and does not imply endorsement.
 
Literature
1.
go back to reference Bartus CL, Margolis DJ. Reducing the incidence of foot ulceration and amputation in diabetes. Curr Diab Rep 2004; 4: 413–8PubMedCrossRef Bartus CL, Margolis DJ. Reducing the incidence of foot ulceration and amputation in diabetes. Curr Diab Rep 2004; 4: 413–8PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Lipsky BA, Berendt AR, Deery HG, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of diabetic foot infections. Clin Infect Dis 2004; 39: 885–910PubMedCrossRef Lipsky BA, Berendt AR, Deery HG, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of diabetic foot infections. Clin Infect Dis 2004; 39: 885–910PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Armstrong DG, Lipsky BA. Advances in the treatment of diabetic foot infections. Diabetes Technol Ther 2004; 6: 167–77PubMedCrossRef Armstrong DG, Lipsky BA. Advances in the treatment of diabetic foot infections. Diabetes Technol Ther 2004; 6: 167–77PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Boulton AJM, Vileikyte L, Ragnarson-Tennvall G, et al. The global burden of diabetic foot infections. Lancet 2005; 366: 1719–24PubMedCrossRef Boulton AJM, Vileikyte L, Ragnarson-Tennvall G, et al. The global burden of diabetic foot infections. Lancet 2005; 366: 1719–24PubMedCrossRef
6.
7.
go back to reference Kantor J, Margolis DJ. Treatment options for diabetic neuropathic foot ulcers: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Dermatol Surg 2001; 27: 347–51PubMedCrossRef Kantor J, Margolis DJ. Treatment options for diabetic neuropathic foot ulcers: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Dermatol Surg 2001; 27: 347–51PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Ragnarson-Tennvall G, Apelqvist J. Health-economic consequences of diabetic foot lesions. Clin Infect Dis 2004; 39: S132–9CrossRef Ragnarson-Tennvall G, Apelqvist J. Health-economic consequences of diabetic foot lesions. Clin Infect Dis 2004; 39: S132–9CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Ramsey SD, Newton K, Blough D, et al. Incidence, outcomes, and costs of foot ulcers in patients with diabetes. Diabetes Care 1999; 22: 382–7PubMedCrossRef Ramsey SD, Newton K, Blough D, et al. Incidence, outcomes, and costs of foot ulcers in patients with diabetes. Diabetes Care 1999; 22: 382–7PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Ulbrecht JS, Cavanagh PR, Caputo GM. Foot problems in diabetes: an overview. Clin Infect Dis 2004; 39: S73–82CrossRef Ulbrecht JS, Cavanagh PR, Caputo GM. Foot problems in diabetes: an overview. Clin Infect Dis 2004; 39: S73–82CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Apelqvist J, Larson J. What is the most effective way to reduce incidence of amputation in the diabetic foot? Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2000; 16: S75–83CrossRef Apelqvist J, Larson J. What is the most effective way to reduce incidence of amputation in the diabetic foot? Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2000; 16: S75–83CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Canadian Diabetes Association. Clinical Practice Guidelines Expert Committee. Canadian Diabetes Association 2003 clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and management of diabetes in Canada. Can J Diabetes 2003; 27: S1–152 Canadian Diabetes Association. Clinical Practice Guidelines Expert Committee. Canadian Diabetes Association 2003 clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and management of diabetes in Canada. Can J Diabetes 2003; 27: S1–152
13.
go back to reference Ollendorf DA, Kotsanos JG, Wishner WJ, et al. Potential economic benefits of lower-extremity amputation prevention strategies in diabetes. Diabetes Care 1998; 21: 1240–5PubMedCrossRef Ollendorf DA, Kotsanos JG, Wishner WJ, et al. Potential economic benefits of lower-extremity amputation prevention strategies in diabetes. Diabetes Care 1998; 21: 1240–5PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Haynes RB. Of studies, summaries, synopses and systems: the ‘4S’ evolution of services for finding current best evidence. Evid Based Nurs 2005; 8: 4–6PubMedCrossRef Haynes RB. Of studies, summaries, synopses and systems: the ‘4S’ evolution of services for finding current best evidence. Evid Based Nurs 2005; 8: 4–6PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Matricali GA, Dereymaeker G, Muls E, et al. Economic aspects of diabetic foot care in a multidisciplinary setting: a review. Diabetes Metabol Res Rev 2007; 23: 339–47CrossRef Matricali GA, Dereymaeker G, Muls E, et al. Economic aspects of diabetic foot care in a multidisciplinary setting: a review. Diabetes Metabol Res Rev 2007; 23: 339–47CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Edmonds M, Gough A, Solovera J, et al. Filgrastim in the treatment of infected diabetic foot ulcers: retrospective cost analysis of a phase II randomised clinical trial. Clin Drug Invest 1999; 17: 275–86CrossRef Edmonds M, Gough A, Solovera J, et al. Filgrastim in the treatment of infected diabetic foot ulcers: retrospective cost analysis of a phase II randomised clinical trial. Clin Drug Invest 1999; 17: 275–86CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Tice AD, Turpin RS, Hoey C, et al. Comparative costs of ertapenem and piperacillin-tazobactam in the treatment of diabetic foot infections. Am J Health-Syst Pharm 2007; 64: 1080–6PubMed Tice AD, Turpin RS, Hoey C, et al. Comparative costs of ertapenem and piperacillin-tazobactam in the treatment of diabetic foot infections. Am J Health-Syst Pharm 2007; 64: 1080–6PubMed
18.
go back to reference Apelqvist J, Ragnarson-Tennvall G. Cavity foot ulcers in diabetic patients: a comparative study of cadexomer iodine ointment and standard treatment. An economic analysis alongside a clinical trial. Acta Derm Venereol 1996; 76: 231–5PubMed Apelqvist J, Ragnarson-Tennvall G. Cavity foot ulcers in diabetic patients: a comparative study of cadexomer iodine ointment and standard treatment. An economic analysis alongside a clinical trial. Acta Derm Venereol 1996; 76: 231–5PubMed
19.
go back to reference Morrison WB, Schweitzer ME, Wapner KL, et al. Osteomyelitis in feet of diabetics: clinical accuracy, surgical utility, and cost-effectiveness of MR imaging. Radiology 1995; 196: 557–64PubMed Morrison WB, Schweitzer ME, Wapner KL, et al. Osteomyelitis in feet of diabetics: clinical accuracy, surgical utility, and cost-effectiveness of MR imaging. Radiology 1995; 196: 557–64PubMed
20.
go back to reference McCabe CJ, Stevenson RC, Dolan AM. Evaluation of a diabetic foot screening and protection programme. Diabet Med 1998; 15: 80–4PubMedCrossRef McCabe CJ, Stevenson RC, Dolan AM. Evaluation of a diabetic foot screening and protection programme. Diabet Med 1998; 15: 80–4PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference McKinnon PS, Paladino JA, Grayson ML, et al. Cost-effectiveness of ampicillin/sulbactam versus imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of limb-threatening foot infections in diabetic patients. Clin Infect Dis 1997; 24: 57–63PubMedCrossRef McKinnon PS, Paladino JA, Grayson ML, et al. Cost-effectiveness of ampicillin/sulbactam versus imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of limb-threatening foot infections in diabetic patients. Clin Infect Dis 1997; 24: 57–63PubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference McKinnon PS, Sorensen SV, Liu LZ, et al. Impact of linezolid on economic outcomes and determinants of costs in a clinical trial evaluating patients with MRSA complicated skin and soft tissue infections. Ann Pharmacother 2006; 40: 1017–23PubMedCrossRef McKinnon PS, Sorensen SV, Liu LZ, et al. Impact of linezolid on economic outcomes and determinants of costs in a clinical trial evaluating patients with MRSA complicated skin and soft tissue infections. Ann Pharmacother 2006; 40: 1017–23PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Ghatnekar O, Persson U, Willis M, et al. Cost effectiveness of becaplermin in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers in four European Countries. Pharmacoeconomics 2001; 19: 767–78PubMedCrossRef Ghatnekar O, Persson U, Willis M, et al. Cost effectiveness of becaplermin in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers in four European Countries. Pharmacoeconomics 2001; 19: 767–78PubMedCrossRef
24.
go back to reference Persson U, Willis M, Odegaard K, et al. The cost-effectiveness of treating diabetic lower extremity ulcers with becaplermin (Regranex): a core model with an application using Swedish cost data. Value Health 2000; 3: S39–46PubMedCrossRef Persson U, Willis M, Odegaard K, et al. The cost-effectiveness of treating diabetic lower extremity ulcers with becaplermin (Regranex): a core model with an application using Swedish cost data. Value Health 2000; 3: S39–46PubMedCrossRef
25.
go back to reference Sibbald RG, Torrance G, Hux M, et al. Cost-effectiveness of becaplermin for non-healing neuropathic diabetic foot ulcer. Ostomy Wound Manage 2003; 49: 76–84PubMed Sibbald RG, Torrance G, Hux M, et al. Cost-effectiveness of becaplermin for non-healing neuropathic diabetic foot ulcer. Ostomy Wound Manage 2003; 49: 76–84PubMed
26.
go back to reference Ghatnekar O, Persson U, Willis M, et al. The cost-effectiveness in the UK of treating diabetic lower extremity ulcers with becaplermin gel. J Drug Assess 2000; 3: 243–51 Ghatnekar O, Persson U, Willis M, et al. The cost-effectiveness in the UK of treating diabetic lower extremity ulcers with becaplermin gel. J Drug Assess 2000; 3: 243–51
27.
go back to reference Steinberg J, Beusterien K, Plante K, et al. A cost analysis of a living skin equivalent in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers. Wounds: A Compendium of Clinical Research and Practice 2002; 14: 142–9 Steinberg J, Beusterien K, Plante K, et al. A cost analysis of a living skin equivalent in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers. Wounds: A Compendium of Clinical Research and Practice 2002; 14: 142–9
28.
go back to reference Redekop WK, McDonnell J, Verboom P, et al. The cost effectiveness of Apligraf. Pharmacoeconomics 2003; 21 (16): 1171–83PubMedCrossRef Redekop WK, McDonnell J, Verboom P, et al. The cost effectiveness of Apligraf. Pharmacoeconomics 2003; 21 (16): 1171–83PubMedCrossRef
29.
go back to reference Allenet B, Paree F, Lebrun T, et al. Cost-effectiveness modeling of Dermagraft® for the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers in the French context. Diabetes Metab 2000; 26: 125–32PubMed Allenet B, Paree F, Lebrun T, et al. Cost-effectiveness modeling of Dermagraft® for the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers in the French context. Diabetes Metab 2000; 26: 125–32PubMed
30.
go back to reference Ghatnekar O, Willis M, Persson U. Cost-effectiveness of treating deep diabetic foot ulcers with Promogran in four European countries. J Wound Care 2002; 11: 70–4PubMed Ghatnekar O, Willis M, Persson U. Cost-effectiveness of treating deep diabetic foot ulcers with Promogran in four European countries. J Wound Care 2002; 11: 70–4PubMed
31.
go back to reference Eckman MH, Greenfield S, Mackey WC, et al. Foot infections in diabetic patients: decision and cost-effectiveness analyses. JAMA 1995; 273: 712–20PubMedCrossRef Eckman MH, Greenfield S, Mackey WC, et al. Foot infections in diabetic patients: decision and cost-effectiveness analyses. JAMA 1995; 273: 712–20PubMedCrossRef
32.
go back to reference Ortegon MM, Redekop WK, Niessen LW. Cost-effectiveness of prevention and treatment of the diabetic foot. Diabetes Care 2004; 27: 901–7PubMedCrossRef Ortegon MM, Redekop WK, Niessen LW. Cost-effectiveness of prevention and treatment of the diabetic foot. Diabetes Care 2004; 27: 901–7PubMedCrossRef
33.
go back to reference Ragnarson-Tennvall G, Apelqvist J. Prevention of diabetes-related foot ulcers and amputations: a cost-utility analysis based on Markov model simulations. Diabetologia 2001; 44: 2077–87PubMedCrossRef Ragnarson-Tennvall G, Apelqvist J. Prevention of diabetes-related foot ulcers and amputations: a cost-utility analysis based on Markov model simulations. Diabetologia 2001; 44: 2077–87PubMedCrossRef
34.
go back to reference Guo S, Counte MA, Gillespie KN, et al. Cost-effectiveness of adjunctive hyperbaric oxygen in the treatment of diabetic ulcers. Intl J Technol Assess Health Care 2003; 19: 731–7 Guo S, Counte MA, Gillespie KN, et al. Cost-effectiveness of adjunctive hyperbaric oxygen in the treatment of diabetic ulcers. Intl J Technol Assess Health Care 2003; 19: 731–7
35.
go back to reference Iskedjian M, Trakas K, Bradley CA, et al. Quality assessment of economic evaluations published in PharmacoEconomics: the first four years (1992. Pharmacoeconomics 1997; 12 (6): 685–94PubMedCrossRef Iskedjian M, Trakas K, Bradley CA, et al. Quality assessment of economic evaluations published in PharmacoEconomics: the first four years (1992. Pharmacoeconomics 1997; 12 (6): 685–94PubMedCrossRef
36.
go back to reference Redekop WK, Stolk EA, Kok E, et al. Diabetic foot ulcers and amputations: estimates of health utility for use in cost-effectiveness analyses of new treatments. Diabetes Metab 2004; 30: 549–56PubMedCrossRef Redekop WK, Stolk EA, Kok E, et al. Diabetic foot ulcers and amputations: estimates of health utility for use in cost-effectiveness analyses of new treatments. Diabetes Metab 2004; 30: 549–56PubMedCrossRef
37.
go back to reference Lipsky BA, Armstrong DG, Citron DM, et al. Ertapenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam for diabetic foot infections (SIDESTEP): prospective, randomised, controlled, double-blinded, multicentre trial. Lancet 2005; 366: 1695–703PubMedCrossRef Lipsky BA, Armstrong DG, Citron DM, et al. Ertapenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam for diabetic foot infections (SIDESTEP): prospective, randomised, controlled, double-blinded, multicentre trial. Lancet 2005; 366: 1695–703PubMedCrossRef
38.
go back to reference Veves A, Falanga V, Armstrong DG, et al. Graftskin, a human skin equivalent, is effective in the management of noninfected neuropathic diabetic foot ulcers: a prospective randomized multicenter clinical trial. Diabetes Care 2001; 24: 290–5PubMedCrossRef Veves A, Falanga V, Armstrong DG, et al. Graftskin, a human skin equivalent, is effective in the management of noninfected neuropathic diabetic foot ulcers: a prospective randomized multicenter clinical trial. Diabetes Care 2001; 24: 290–5PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Management and Prevention of Diabetic Foot Ulcers and Infections
A Health Economic Review
Authors
Ivy Chow
Elkin V. Lemos
Dr Thomas R. Einarson
Publication date
01-12-2008
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
PharmacoEconomics / Issue 12/2008
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2165/0019053-200826120-00005

Other articles of this Issue 12/2008

PharmacoEconomics 12/2008 Go to the issue

Acknowledgments

Acknowledgement