Cost-Effectiveness of Prevention and Treatment of the Diabetic Foot

A Markov analysis

  1. Monica Maria Ortegon, MD12,
  2. William Ken Redekop, PHD2 and
  3. Louis Wilhelmus Niessen, PHD2
  1. 1Netherlands Institute of Health Sciences, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
  2. 2Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
  1. Address correspondence and reprint requests to Monica Ortegon, Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus Medical Center, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, Netherlands. E-mail: ortegon{at}bmg.eur.nl

Abstract

OBJECTIVE—To estimate the lifetime health and economic effects of optimal prevention and treatment of the diabetic foot according to international standards and to determine the cost-effectiveness of these interventions in the Netherlands.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—A risk-based Markov model was developed to simulate the onset and progression of diabetic foot disease in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes managed with care according to guidelines for their lifetime. Mean survival time, quality of life, foot complications, and costs were the outcome measures assessed. Current care was the reference comparison. Data from Dutch studies on the epidemiology of diabetic foot disease, health care use, and costs, complemented with information from international studies, were used to feed the model.

RESULTS—Compared with current care, guideline-based care resulted in improved life expectancy, gain of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and reduced incidence of foot complications. The lifetime costs of management of the diabetic foot following guideline-based care resulted in a cost per QALY gained of <$25,000, even for levels of preventive foot care as low as 10%. The cost-effectiveness varied sharply, depending on the level of foot ulcer reduction attained.

CONCLUSIONS—Management of the diabetic foot according to guideline-based care improves survival, reduces diabetic foot complications, and is cost-effective and even cost saving compared with standard care.

Footnotes

    • Accepted January 5, 2004.
    • Received October 1, 2003.
« Previous | Next Article »Table of Contents