Part 6: Detection and Prevention of Foot Problems in Type 2 Diabetes
Part 6: Detection and Prevention of Foot Problems in Type 2 Diabetes Part 6: Detection and Prevention of Foot Problems in Type 2 Diabetes
Section 12: Diabetes Foot ProblemsIssueWhat are the economic consequences of diabetes foot problems?RecommendationThe cost effectiveness of intensified interventions should be considered in the preventionand management of diabetes foot problemsEvidence Statements• Foot problems in people with diabetes are costlyEvidence Level III-2• Intensified foot care prevention and management strategies are cost effectiveEvidence Level III-290
Background - Economic considerationsDiabetic foot problems are a major cost to the health care system. The most commonreason for hospital admission for diabetes is a diabetic foot complication (Young et al,1993a). The DiabCost Australia study (Colagiuri et al, 2003) showed thathospitalisation and complications were the major cost drivers in people with Type 2diabetes.People with diabetes are 3-7 fold more likely to have an amputation than thosewithout diabetes (Reiber, 1993). About half of the lower extremity amputations are“major” (below or above knee), while the other half involving the foot or toes aredesignated “minor”. The direct cost of an amputation in the UK in 1996 was $A27,600 for a major amputation and $A 6,900 for a minor amputation (Connor, 1997)and are estimated to be similar in Australia. In Australia there are at least 2600diabetes-related lower limb amputations each year (Payne, 2000). Applying thesecosts to the 2600 amputations which are performed each year in Australia gives a totaldirect cost of approximately $A 44 million each year. A 50% reduction in LEA wouldresult in an annual saving of $A 22 million. However, there is little evidence tosupport a reduction and the trend may be in the other direction. For example, during1992 to 1997, hospital separations in Central Australia for diabetes foot problemsincreased 3-fold (Eward et al, 2001).Evidence - Economic considerationsFoot problems in people with diabetes are costlyGirod et al (2003) evaluated the cost of foot ulcers in people with diabetes. Among239 subjects (mean age 65.5 years, 72.8% with Type 2 diabetes), 79.5% hadneuropathy, and 59% had previously suffered from one or more foot ulcers and 38.5%had already had an amputatation. At the time of inclusion in this study, patient’s mainlesion had been present for an average of 13.5 months. Lesions were most commonlyfound on the toes (50.5%) or the sole of the foot (24.3%). Lesions were consideredsevere in 28% of subjects - grade 3, 4 or 5 according to the Wagner classification atthe study inclusion consultation. The average monthly costs related to the treatment offoot ulcers per person were $A 1190 for outpatient care and $A 2660 forhospitalisation. The grade of the lesion was a significant cost determinant of bothoutpatient (p=0.0403) and hospital care (p=0.0001). The average monthly cost for apatient with a grade 4/5 lesion was 2.5 times higher than for a grade 1 lesion ($A 4690v $A 1925).An Australia study also found a considerable difference between hospital andoutpatient costs of treating foot ulcers. The average cost of hospitalisation fortreatment of a diabetic foot ulcer was $A 12,474 in 1994. By comparison outpatienttreatment by a specialist foot care team dthis cost by 85% (Hoskins, 1994).In a study by Benotmane et al (2001), 163 out of 1,779 hospital admissions fordiabetes were related to a foot lesion during a 5-year period. The lesions wereallocated to one of the following groups: I - superficial or deep ulcer; II - deep abscess91
- Page 40 and 41: Section 5: Diabetes Foot ProblemsIs
- Page 42 and 43: The other frequently reported metho
- Page 44 and 45: side; and 82% having the same resul
- Page 46 and 47: Evidence Table: Section 5Detection
- Page 48 and 49: Background - Clinical Detection of
- Page 50 and 51: pulse was bilaterally absent in 1.8
- Page 52 and 53: Evidence Table: Section 6AuthorClin
- Page 54 and 55: Background - Frequency of Foot Exam
- Page 56 and 57: Summary - Frequency of Foot Examina
- Page 58 and 59: Section 8: Diabetes Foot ProblemsIs
- Page 60 and 61: Behaviour assessment scores, measur
- Page 62 and 63: Mazzuca et al (1986) studies 532 pe
- Page 64 and 65: with before the programme, after 1-
- Page 66 and 67: Evidence Table: Section 8AuthorEffe
- Page 68 and 69: Background - Glycaemic Control and
- Page 70 and 71: In a previous Japanese randomised s
- Page 72 and 73: Evidence Table: Section 9AuthorGlyc
- Page 74 and 75: Background - Footwear to Reduce Ulc
- Page 76 and 77: period. In addition people without
- Page 78 and 79: Comparisons of in-shoe foot pressur
- Page 80 and 81: The rate of plantar callus formatio
- Page 82 and 83: Evidence Table: Section 10AuthorFoo
- Page 84 and 85: Background - Foot Clinics and Multi
- Page 86 and 87: A prospective non randomised contro
- Page 88 and 89: Summary - Foot Clinics and Multi-di
- Page 92 and 93: and/or osteomyelitis; III - fore-fo
- Page 94 and 95: Summary - Economic consequences•
- Page 96 and 97: Section 13: Diabetes Foot ProblemsI
- Page 98 and 99: Some ethnic groups are associated w
- Page 100 and 101: Evidence Table: Section 13AuthorSoc
- Page 102 and 103: Calle-Pascual AL, Duran A, Diaz A,
- Page 104 and 105: Jannink MJ, van Dijk H, de Vries J,
- Page 106 and 107: Moss SE, Klein R, Klein BE. The 14-
- Page 108 and 109: Soulier SM, Godsey C, Asay ED, Perr
- Page 110 and 111: Diabetes Foot Problems: General Ref
- Page 112 and 113: McNeely MJ, Boyko EJ, Ahroni JH, St
- Page 114 and 115: Diabetes Foot Problems: Other Refer
- Page 116 and 117: Caputo GM, Cavanagh PR, Ulbrecht JS
- Page 118 and 119: Garbalosa JC, Cavanagh PR, Wu G, Ul
- Page 120 and 121: Lavery LA, Armstrong DG, Wunderlich
- Page 122 and 123: Payne C. Regional variations of dia
- Page 124 and 125: Tovi J, Svanborg E, Nilsson BY, Eng
- Page 126 and 127: Criteria used to determine the suit
- Page 128 and 129: QUESTIONS KEY WORDS NO.ARTICLESIDEN
- Page 130 and 131: QUESTIONS KEY WORDS NO.ARTICLESIDEN
- Page 132 and 133: QUESTIONS KEY WORDS NO.ARTICLESIDEN
- Page 134 and 135: QUESTIONS KEY WORDS NO.ARTICLESIDEN
- Page 136 and 137: QUESTIONS KEY WORDS NO.ARTICLESIDEN
- Page 138 and 139: QUESTIONS KEY WORDS NO.ARTICLESIDEN
Background - Economic considerationsDiabetic foot problems are a major cost to the health care system. The most commonreason for hospital admission for diabetes is a diabetic foot complication (Young et al,1993a). The DiabCost Australia study (Colagiuri et al, 2003) showed thathospitalisation <strong>and</strong> complications were the major cost drivers <strong>in</strong> people with <strong>Type</strong> 2diabetes.People with diabetes are 3-7 fold more likely to have an amputation than thosewithout diabetes (Reiber, 1993). About half <strong>of</strong> the lower extremity amputations are“major” (below or above knee), while the other half <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g the foot or toes aredesignated “m<strong>in</strong>or”. The direct cost <strong>of</strong> an amputation <strong>in</strong> the UK <strong>in</strong> 1996 was $A27,600 for a major amputation <strong>and</strong> $A 6,900 for a m<strong>in</strong>or amputation (Connor, 1997)<strong>and</strong> are estimated to be similar <strong>in</strong> Australia. In Australia there are at least 2600diabetes-related lower limb amputations each year (Payne, 2000). Apply<strong>in</strong>g thesecosts to the 2600 amputations which are performed each year <strong>in</strong> Australia gives a totaldirect cost <strong>of</strong> approximately $A 44 million each year. A 50% reduction <strong>in</strong> LEA wouldresult <strong>in</strong> an annual sav<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> $A 22 million. However, there is little evidence tosupport a reduction <strong>and</strong> the trend may be <strong>in</strong> the other direction. For example, dur<strong>in</strong>g1992 to 1997, hospital separations <strong>in</strong> Central Australia for diabetes foot problems<strong>in</strong>creased 3-fold (Eward et al, 2001).Evidence - Economic considerations<strong>Foot</strong> problems <strong>in</strong> people with diabetes are costlyGirod et al (2003) evaluated the cost <strong>of</strong> foot ulcers <strong>in</strong> people with diabetes. Among239 subjects (mean age 65.5 years, 72.8% with <strong>Type</strong> 2 diabetes), 79.5% hadneuropathy, <strong>and</strong> 59% had previously suffered from one or more foot ulcers <strong>and</strong> 38.5%had already had an amputatation. At the time <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>clusion <strong>in</strong> this study, patient’s ma<strong>in</strong>lesion had been present for an average <strong>of</strong> 13.5 months. Lesions were most commonlyfound on the toes (50.5%) or the sole <strong>of</strong> the foot (24.3%). Lesions were consideredsevere <strong>in</strong> 28% <strong>of</strong> subjects - grade 3, 4 or 5 accord<strong>in</strong>g to the Wagner classification atthe study <strong>in</strong>clusion consultation. The average monthly costs related to the treatment <strong>of</strong>foot ulcers per person were $A 1190 for outpatient care <strong>and</strong> $A 2660 forhospitalisation. The grade <strong>of</strong> the lesion was a significant cost determ<strong>in</strong>ant <strong>of</strong> bothoutpatient (p=0.0403) <strong>and</strong> hospital care (p=0.0001). The average monthly cost for apatient with a grade 4/5 lesion was 2.5 times higher than for a grade 1 lesion ($A 4690v $A 1925).An Australia study also found a considerable difference between hospital <strong>and</strong>outpatient costs <strong>of</strong> treat<strong>in</strong>g foot ulcers. The average cost <strong>of</strong> hospitalisation fortreatment <strong>of</strong> a diabetic foot ulcer was $A 12,474 <strong>in</strong> 1994. By comparison outpatienttreatment by a specialist foot care team dthis cost by 85% (Hosk<strong>in</strong>s, 1994).In a study by Benotmane et al (2001), 163 out <strong>of</strong> 1,779 hospital admissions fordiabetes were related to a foot lesion dur<strong>in</strong>g a 5-year period. The lesions wereallocated to one <strong>of</strong> the follow<strong>in</strong>g groups: I - superficial or deep ulcer; II - deep abscess91