COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF INTERVENTIONS AIMED AT DECREASING THE NUMBER OF AMPUTATIONS AMONG PATIENTS WITH DIABETES MELLITUS
Author(s)
Ignatyeva V1, Avxentyeva M1, Galstyan GR2, Bregovskiy V3, Udovichenko O4
1The Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, Moscow, Russia, 2The Endocrinological Scientific Center, Moscow, Russia, 3Federal Almazov Medical Research Center, St. Petersburg, Russia, 4Moscow Municipal outpatient clinic #22, Moscow, Russia
OBJECTIVES To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of interventions aimed at decreasing the number of amputations among patients with diabetic foot ulcers (DFU) in Russia METHODS We have modeled the changes in the annual outcomes (minor and major amputations) and costs (services provided in outpatient clinics and hospitals, medications, orthopedic shoes and prosthetic devices and services provided in case of amputation) from the perspective of public health and social care. Two interventions were assessed: preventive services for patients with the very high risk of DFU (additional outpatient visits for foot care and orthopedic shoes) and provision of care for DFU patients at hospital by multidisciplinary foot care team (MDT). The current number of amputations and costs among DFU patients in Russia was assessed on the basis of published Russian data and experts’ survey. The expected effectiveness of interventions was derived from the international publications. Costs were estimated on the basis on reimbursement rates in public medical insurance and social care. RESULTS The implementation of hospital care by MDT for cohort of 1000 DFU patients at the current rate of hospitalizations will require additional annual spending of €532,520, and the expected annual number of major amputations will decrease by 41. The ICER for this intervention is €12,988 per prevented amputation, which is almost 2 times higher than the costs associated with major amputation at the current moment. For the preventive services, if all patients are compliant, additional costs per prevented amputation are slightly lower - € 10,216, but also well above the costs of major amputation. CONCLUSIONS Both interventions require considerable additional budget spending. Preventive measures, if all the patients follow the recommendations, are more cost effective than introduction of hospital MDT.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2014-11, ISPOR Europe 2014, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Value in Health, Vol. 17, No. 7 (November 2014)
Code
PDB84
Topic
Economic Evaluation
Topic Subcategory
Cost-comparison, Effectiveness, Utility, Benefit Analysis
Disease
Diabetes/Endocrine/Metabolic Disorders, Infectious Disease (non-vaccine)