Clinical Drug Investigation

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 275–286 | Cite as

Filgrastim in the Treatment of Infected Diabetic Foot Ulcers

Retrospective Cost Analysis of a Phase II Randomised Clinical Trial
  • Michael Edmonds
  • Andrew Gough
  • José Solovera
  • Bo Standaert
Clinical Pharmacoeconomics


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.


Adis International Limited Filgrastim Decision Tree Model Clin Drug Invest Diabetic Foot Ulcer 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Ragnarson-Tennvall G, Applequist J. Cost-effective management of diabetic foot ulcers. Pharmacoeconomics 1997; 12: 42–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boulton AJM. The pathogenesis of diabetic foot problems. Diabetic Med 1996; 13: S12–S16PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Joseph W. Treatment of lower extremity infections in diabetics. Drugs 1991; 42: 984–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Grayson ML. Diabetic foot infections: antimicrobial therapy. Infect Dis Clin North Am 1995; 9: 143–61PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lipsky B, Pecoraro R, Ahroni J. Foot ulceration and infections in elderly patients. Clin Geriatr Med 1990; 6: 747–69PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Reiber GE. The epidemiology of diabetic foot problems. Diabetic Med 1996; 13:S6–S11PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Caputo GM, Cavanagh PR, Ulbrecht J, et al. Assessment and management of foot disease in diabetic patients. N Engl J Med 1994; 331: 854–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eckman MH, Greenfield S, Mackey W. Foot infections in diabetic patients: decisions and cost-effectiveness analysis. JAMA 1995; 273: 712–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    van der Meer JWM, Koopmans PP, Lutterman JA. Antibiotic therapy in diabetic foot infection. Diabetic Med 1996; 13: S48–S52PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 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: 1061–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Weite K, Gabrilove J, Bronchud M, et al. Filgrastim (r-met HuG-CSF): the first 10 years. Blood 1996; 88: 1907–29Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cockett JRB, Herrera JA. Decision tree analysis. JACM 1990; 37: 815–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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: 855–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chantelau E, Kimmerle R. Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor in diabetic foot infection. Lancet 1998; 351: 370PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    B-plan Precision+, Version 5.0, Manchester, UK, September 1996Google Scholar
  16. 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: 388–94Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Edmonds
    • 1
  • Andrew Gough
    • 2
  • José Solovera
    • 3
  • Bo Standaert
    • 3
  1. 1.PRCP, Diabetic Foot ClinicKing’s College HospitalLondonEngland
  2. 2.Diabetes CentreMedway HospitalGillinghamEngland
  3. 3.AMGEN EuropeLucerneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations