Chris Boodoo1, Julie A Perry1, General Leung1, Karen M Cross1, Wanrudee Isaranuwatchai2. 1. Department of Medical Imaging (Boodoo, Leung), Division of Plastic Surgery (Perry, Cross), Centre for Excellence in Economic Analysis Research (Isaranuwatchai) and Keenan Research Centre for Biomedical Science (Leung, Cross), St. Michael's Hospital; Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (Isaranuwatchai), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. 2. Department of Medical Imaging (Boodoo, Leung), Division of Plastic Surgery (Perry, Cross), Centre for Excellence in Economic Analysis Research (Isaranuwatchai) and Keenan Research Centre for Biomedical Science (Leung, Cross), St. Michael's Hospital; Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation (Isaranuwatchai), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. isaranuwatcw@smh.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: One of the most common (and costly) complications of diabetes are diabetic foot ulcers, which often result in lower-extremity amputation. Regular foot care can reduce complications; however, roughly half of Canadians with diabetes do not participate in screening. We sought to evaluate the economic effects of using telemonitoring for diabetic foot ulcer prevention using mathematical modelling. METHODS: We used Markov modelling to compare current screening standards (standard care) to population-wide and targeted (high-risk) telemonitoring programs in a hypothetical cohort of Canadian patients aged 60 years. We varied the effectiveness (or outcome), defined as the proportion of diabetic foot ulcers prevented, to explore cost-effectiveness using model parameters from published literature and clinical experts. RESULTS: At 20%-40% effectiveness, population-based prevention resulted in 0.00399-0.00790 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained per person over 5 years and an incremental cost of $479-$402 compared to standard care. At 15%-40% effectiveness, high-risk prevention resulted in a cost decrease per person over 5 years ($1.26-$25.55), with health benefits of 0.000207-0.00058 QALYs gained. INTERPRETATION: The use of telemonitoring in the diabetic lower extremity can offer patients better quality of life and can be cost-effective compared to current Canadian screening practices. Future work should focus on developing and validating technologies based on objective outcome measures for remote monitoring of the diabetic foot. Copyright 2018, Joule Inc. or its licensors.
BACKGROUND: One of the most common (and costly) complications of diabetes are diabetic foot ulcers, which often result in lower-extremity amputation. Regular foot care can reduce complications; however, roughly half of Canadians with diabetes do not participate in screening. We sought to evaluate the economic effects of using telemonitoring for diabetic foot ulcer prevention using mathematical modelling. METHODS: We used Markov modelling to compare current screening standards (standard care) to population-wide and targeted (high-risk) telemonitoring programs in a hypothetical cohort of Canadian patients aged 60 years. We varied the effectiveness (or outcome), defined as the proportion of diabetic foot ulcers prevented, to explore cost-effectiveness using model parameters from published literature and clinical experts. RESULTS: At 20%-40% effectiveness, population-based prevention resulted in 0.00399-0.00790 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained per person over 5 years and an incremental cost of $479-$402 compared to standard care. At 15%-40% effectiveness, high-risk prevention resulted in a cost decrease per person over 5 years ($1.26-$25.55), with health benefits of 0.000207-0.00058 QALYs gained. INTERPRETATION: The use of telemonitoring in the diabetic lower extremity can offer patients better quality of life and can be cost-effective compared to current Canadian screening practices. Future work should focus on developing and validating technologies based on objective outcome measures for remote monitoring of the diabetic foot. Copyright 2018, Joule Inc. or its licensors.
Authors: S A Bus; J J van Netten; L A Lavery; M Monteiro-Soares; A Rasmussen; Y Jubiz; P E Price Journal: Diabetes Metab Res Rev Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 4.876
Authors: Don Husereau; Michael Drummond; Stavros Petrou; Chris Carswell; David Moher; Dan Greenberg; Federico Augustovski; Andrew H Briggs; Josephine Mauskopf; Elizabeth Loder Journal: Value Health Date: 2013 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: J J van Netten; P E Price; L A Lavery; M Monteiro-Soares; A Rasmussen; Y Jubiz; S A Bus Journal: Diabetes Metab Res Rev Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 4.876
Authors: Claire M Buckley; Anne O'Farrell; Ronan J Canavan; Anthony D Lynch; Davida V De La Harpe; Colin P Bradley; Ivan J Perry Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-07-31 Impact factor: 3.240