Infrared Thermography Compared to Standard Care in the Prevention and Care of Diabetic Foot: A Cost Analysis Utilizing Real-World Data and an Expert Panel
Olli Kurkela,Jorma Lahtela,Martti Arffman,Leena Forma
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S396137
2023-02-23
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research
Abstract:Olli Kurkela, 1– 3 Jorma Lahtela, 4 Martti Arffman, 1, 2 Leena Forma 1, 3 1 Faculty of Social Sciences, Tampere University, Tampere, 30014, Finland; 2 Department of Public Health and Welfare, Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare (THL), Helsinki, 00271, Finland; 3 Laurea University of Applied Sciences, Vantaa, 01300, Finland; 4 Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, 33520, Finland Correspondence: Olli Kurkela, Health Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Tampere University, P.O. Box 100, Tampere, 33014, Finland, Tel +358 50 5099170, Email Aim: Infrared thermography (IRT) is a non-invasive technology for screening and early detection of diabetic foot. Real-world data and the Delphi technique were used to assess IRT's potential effect on typical care pathways of diabetic foot and their costs in the Finnish healthcare setting. Methods: The most typical care pathways of diabetic foot were identified from national healthcare registers from 2011 to 2017. The effect of IRT in terms of avoidable care episodes was assessed by a Delphi panel including Finnish diabetic foot specialists (n=13). By combining a series of decision-analytic models, the IRT's potential effect on the costs of each pathway and their sensitivity to model assumptions were estimated. Results: Hypothetical annual savings were estimated to be EUR ~1.7 million (EUR ~1.3 million–EUR ~2.5 million), constituting approximately 20% of the total annual care pathway costs examined. In the longer and more complex pathways, the application of IRT was estimated to result in notable savings while in the shorter pathways, IRT could increase costs. Conclusion: Our modeling suggests that IRT could potentially reduce costs in a Finnish healthcare setting. Given our analysis, generation of robust evidence on the effectiveness of recent IRT technologies with up-to-date protocols seems appropriate. Keywords: foot complication, infrared thermography, healthcare costs, cost analysis, expert panel, diabetic foot Diabetic foot syndrome is a public health issue resulting in disability, reduced quality of life, and increased healthcare costs. The global prevalence of diabetic foot is over 6% and it occurs more often among men than women and people with type 2 than type 1 diabetes mellitus. 1 In Finland, the age-standardized incidence and prevalence of diabetic foot were 111 and 989 per 10,000 people with diabetes in 2015–2017. In the coming years, the prevalence is expected to increase due to the aging diabetes population. 2 The economic burden of diabetic foot on healthcare systems is also substantial. The severity of the condition and the specifics of provided health services incorporate variability in the costs, 3–6 of which the latter highlights the need for country-specific studies. According to two recent Finnish studies, annual per-person costs related to diabetes foot complications were the highest of all complications, varying from 13,694 € to 17,666 € (2017 euros), while the total costs were approximately one-third of cardiovascular complications and around one-sixth of total costs of diagnosis-specific costs of complications. 7,8 Infrared thermography (IRT) is a non-invasive technology used in screening and early detection of diabetic foot. IRT detects infrared radiation resulting from increased skin surface temperature induced by inflammation in the tissue. The assessment of side-to-side and local differences in temperature can enable early detection of ulcers. 9 Although studies have shown successful applications of IRT in a variety of fields in medicine including diabetic foot, 10 conflicting evidence on its effectiveness has restricted its role to complement diagnostic information provided by other methods. IRT has been recommended by the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) as an option to prevent ulcers, mainly based on evidence from three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in early 2000s. These studies showed large effects of IRT in the reduction of foot ulcer recurrence, 11–14 however, these findings have been contradicted by more recent RCTs. 15–17 The estimated technology and characteristics of the study setting arguably affect the effectiveness estimates. Since no consensus has yet been reached among experts on IRT's effectiveness, studies evaluating its economic efficiency are limited. The lack of evidence is the most probable reason for the rather low adaptation of IRT to routine care, which is also the case in Finland. This ex-ante study assessed the effects of IRT on typical care pathways of diabetic foot and their costs when applied at regular check- -Abstract Truncated-