Search

Objective: To calculate costs for the management of deep foot infections and to identify the most important factors related to treatment costs., Design: Costs for in-hospital care, surgery, investigations, antibacterials, visits to the foot-care team, orthopaedic appliances and topical treatment were calculated retrospectively from diagnosis until healing or death. Multiple regression analysis was used to identify factors that independently affect costs., Setting: A multidisciplinary foot-care team., Patients: 220 prospectively followed patients with diabetes mellitus and deep foot infections who were referred to the team from 1986 to 1995., Main Outcome Measures and Results: Total cost for healing without amputation was Swedish kronor (SEK)136,600 per patient, while the corresponding cost for healing with minor amputation was SEK260,000 and with major amputation was SEK234,500. All costs were quoted in SEK at 1997 price levels (1 Pound sterling and $US1 equalled approximately SEK12.50 and SEK7.64, respectively). The cost of antibacterials was 4% of total costs. The cost of topical treatment was 51% of total costs and related to wound healing time. Number of weeks between diagnosis of deep foot infection and healing, and number of surgical procedures were variables that explained 95% of costs in the multiple regression analysis. It was not possible to find any parameters present at diagnosis that could contribute to an explanation of total treatment costs., Conclusions: Topical treatment accounted for the largest proportion of total costs and the most important cost driving factors were wound healing duration and repeated surgery. Costs of antibacterials should not be used as an argument in the choice between early amputation and conservative treatment.

Objective: Recent research has focused on eradication therapy as the principal treatment of patients with duodenal ulcers and Helicobacter pylori infection. The aim of this study was to analyse the cost effectiveness of triple therapy versus 2 dual therapies., Design: A health economic evaluation of triple therapy with lansoprazole, amoxicillin and clarithromycin versus 2 dual therapies (lansoprazole or omeprazole, each with amoxicillin) in the eradication of Helicobacter pylori in patients with duodenal ulcers was performed in parallel with a randomised clinical trial. Direct and indirect costs were estimated for 1 year using data elicited from patient questionnaires and from the clinical trial., Main Outcome Measures and Results: Despite the initial drug cost for triple therapy being 650 Swedish kronor (SEK; 1996 values) higher, the average total direct cost in this group was only SEK150 to SEK200 higher than in the dual therapy groups. This was a result of fewer outpatient visits and lower drug use after treatment failure in the triple therapy group. Triple therapy had a more favourable cost-effectiveness ratio than the dual therapies., Conclusion: In spite of higher initial antimicrobial costs, triple therapy with lansoprazole, amoxicillin and clarithromycin is more cost effective than dual therapy because of a higher eradication rate and greater symptom relief.

Economic appraisal of pharmaceuticals is becoming increasingly important. In a retrospective study of patient records from 58 organ or bone marrow-transplanted patients with systemic mycoses, the cost-effectiveness of treatment with a liposomal amphotericin B formulation was compared with that of conventional amphotericin B. Treatment with liposomal amphotericin B results in fewer adverse reactions, increased life expectancy and higher costs than treatment with conventional amphotericin B. Pricing liposomal amphotericin B at about SKE6000 per patient treatment day will result in an additional cost per life-year gained of about SEK150 000 relative to that using conventional amphotericin B for patients receiving kidney, kidney and pancreas, or pancreas transplants. For liver and bone marrow transplant (BMT) recipients the marginal cost-effectiveness ratio was about SEK195 000 and SEK150 000 per life-year gained. Compared with alternative use of resources in society and health care, use of liposomal amphotericin B rather than conventional amphotericin treatment can be considered cost-effective at the price assumed.