Skip to main content
Log in

Filgrastim in the Treatment of Infected Diabetic Foot Ulcers

Retrospective Cost Analysis of a Phase II Randomised Clinical Trial

  • Clinical Pharmacoeconomics
  • Published:
Clinical Drug Investigation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective: A retrospective cost-minimisation study of a randomised clinical trial comparing the resource use and treatment cost of hospitalised diabetic patients with infected foot ulcers with and without filgrastim (5 μg/kg/day) support for 7 days consecutively.

Design: Costs were estimated from the hospital perspective. Resource use data were collected from patient record files. Unit cost data were gathered from the hospital administration records. A decision tree model was built to estimate the mean cost for each treatment arm.

Patients: Forty patients were randomised. At study entry, all had infected ulcers and were clinically investigated regarding their vascular condition. At inclusion no significant difference was observed between cases and controls.

Results: Clinical results showed that the recovery of the filgrastim-treated patient was quicker, resulting in an earlier hospital discharge. The intent-to-treat cost analysis demonstrated that the mean cost savings were £2666 (36%) in favour of the filgrastim treatment arm. Sensitivity analysis was performed on patient type, probability distribution, unit cost and hospital duration. Subgroup analysis identified that the cost savings ranged from £3129 (39%) to £155 (4%) when patients with vascular problems and/or tissue necrosis were excluded from the analysis.

Conclusion: The overall clinical benefit observed with the use of filgrastim could be translated into cost savings. These measured cost savings should, however, be interpreted cautiously as patient selection may have occurred that appeared during the in-hospital stay. More patients in the control group experienced a bad vascular condition inducing more costly interventions. The results need therefore to be confirmed in a large phase III randomised clinical trial.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ragnarson-Tennvall G, Applequist J. Cost-effective management of diabetic foot ulcers. Pharmacoeconomics 1997; 12: 42–53

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Boulton AJM. The pathogenesis of diabetic foot problems. Diabetic Med 1996; 13: S12–S16

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Joseph W. Treatment of lower extremity infections in diabetics. Drugs 1991; 42: 984–96

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Grayson ML. Diabetic foot infections: antimicrobial therapy. Infect Dis Clin North Am 1995; 9: 143–61

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Lipsky B, Pecoraro R, Ahroni J. Foot ulceration and infections in elderly patients. Clin Geriatr Med 1990; 6: 747–69

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Reiber GE. The epidemiology of diabetic foot problems. Diabetic Med 1996; 13:S6–S11

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Caputo GM, Cavanagh PR, Ulbrecht J, et al. Assessment and management of foot disease in diabetic patients. N Engl J Med 1994; 331: 854–60

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Eckman MH, Greenfield S, Mackey W. Foot infections in diabetic patients: decisions and cost-effectiveness analysis. JAMA 1995; 273: 712–20

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. van der Meer JWM, Koopmans PP, Lutterman JA. Antibiotic therapy in diabetic foot infection. Diabetic Med 1996; 13: S48–S52

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Dale D, Liles C, Summer W, et al. Review: granulocyte colony-stimulating factor —role and relationships in infectious disease. J Infect Dis 1995; 172: 1061–75

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Weite K, Gabrilove J, Bronchud M, et al. Filgrastim (r-met HuG-CSF): the first 10 years. Blood 1996; 88: 1907–29

    Google Scholar 

  12. Cockett JRB, Herrera JA. Decision tree analysis. JACM 1990; 37: 815–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Gough A, Clapperton M, Rolando N, et al. Randomised placebo-controlled trial of granulocyte colony stimulating factor in diabetic foot infection. Lancet 1997; 350: 855–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Chantelau E, Kimmerle R. Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor in diabetic foot infection. Lancet 1998; 351: 370

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. B-plan Precision+, Version 5.0, Manchester, UK, September 1996

  16. Applequist J, Ragnarson-Tennvall G, Larsson J, et al. Long-term costs for foot ulcers in diabetic patients in a multi-disciplinary setting. Foot Ankle Int 1995; 16: 388–94

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Edmonds, M., Gough, A., Solovera, J. et al. Filgrastim in the Treatment of Infected Diabetic Foot Ulcers. Clin. Drug Investig. 17, 275–286 (1999). https://doi.org/10.2165/00044011-199917040-00003

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00044011-199917040-00003

Keywords

Navigation