Journal of diabetes · 2017
Cost-effectiveness of prevention and management of diabetic foot ulcer and amputation in a health resource-limited setting.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wu Bin, Wan Xu, Ma Jing
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to estimate the lifetime health and economic effects of different strategies of caring for diabetic foot in the Chinese setting.
METHODS: A mathematical model was developed to simulate the onset and progression of diabetic foot disease in patients with type 2 diabetes managed with optimal care and usual care. Clinical and utility data were obtained from the published literature. Direct medical costs and resource utilization in the Chinese healthcare setting were considered. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken to test the effects of a range of variables and assumptions on the results. Heath benefits and costs were the outcome measures assessed.
RESULTS: Compared with usual care, optimal care was a cost-saving option that exhibited lower costs with improved health benefits, including greater quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and reduced incidence of foot complications. The lifetime saving costs per additional QALY gained by optimal care were US$2015. The model outcome was most sensitive to the risk ratio of foot ulcers and amputation for optimal care over usual care.
CONCLUSIONS: Implementing guideline-based optimal care for diabetic foot is likely to be cost-effective in a health resource-limited setting.
METHODS: A mathematical model was developed to simulate the onset and progression of diabetic foot disease in patients with type 2 diabetes managed with optimal care and usual care. Clinical and utility data were obtained from the published literature. Direct medical costs and resource utilization in the Chinese healthcare setting were considered. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken to test the effects of a range of variables and assumptions on the results. Heath benefits and costs were the outcome measures assessed.
RESULTS: Compared with usual care, optimal care was a cost-saving option that exhibited lower costs with improved health benefits, including greater quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and reduced incidence of foot complications. The lifetime saving costs per additional QALY gained by optimal care were US$2015. The model outcome was most sensitive to the risk ratio of foot ulcers and amputation for optimal care over usual care.
CONCLUSIONS: Implementing guideline-based optimal care for diabetic foot is likely to be cost-effective in a health resource-limited setting.