1. Treatment of severe intermittent claudication with PGE1--a short-term vs a long-term infusion plan--a 20 week, European randomized trial--analysis of efficacy and costs.
- Author
-
Belcaro G, Laurora G, Nicolaides AN, Agus G, Cesarone MR, DeSanctis MT, Incandela L, Ricci A, Cazaubon M, Ippolito E, Barsotti A, Vasdekis S, Ledda A, Iacobitti P, Christopoulos D, Errichi BM, Helmis H, Cornelli U, Ramaswami G, Bucci M, Ferrari PG, Corsi M, Pomante P, Mezzanotte L, and Geroulakos G
- Subjects
- Alprostadil administration & dosage, Alprostadil economics, Costs and Cost Analysis, Europe, Exercise Test, Female, Humans, Infusions, Intravenous, Intermittent Claudication economics, Male, Middle Aged, Time Factors, Treatment Outcome, Vasodilator Agents administration & dosage, Vasodilator Agents economics, Alprostadil therapeutic use, Intermittent Claudication drug therapy, Vasodilator Agents therapeutic use
- Abstract
The efficacy, safety, and cost of prostaglandin E1 (PGE1) in the treatment of severe intermittent claudication was studied by comparing a long-term treatment protocol (LTP) with a short-term treatment protocol (STP) in a randomized 20-week study. The study included 109 patients (96 completed the study) with an average total walking distance of 65.5 +/- 8 m (range 20-109). Phase 1 was a 2-week run-in phase (no treatment) for both protocols. In LTP, phase 2 was the main treatment phase. In the LTP, treatment was performed with 2-hour infusions (60 microg PGE1, 5 days each week for 4 weeks). In phase 3 (4-week interval period) PGE1 was administered twice a week (same dosage). In phase 4 (monitoring lasting 3 months, from week 9 to 20) no drugs were used. In STP, phase 2 treatment was performed in 2 days by a 2-hour infusion (1st day: morning 20 microg, afternoon 40 microg; 2nd day morning and afternoon 60 microg). The reduced dosage was used only at the first cycle (week 0) to evaluate reduced tolerability or side effects. Full dosage (60 microg b.i.d.) was used for all other cycles. The same cycle was repeated at the beginning of weeks 4, 8, and 12. The observation period was between weeks 12 and 20. A treadmill test was performed at inclusion, at the beginning of each phase, and at the end of the 20th week. A similar progressive physical training plan (based on walking) and a reduction in risk factors levels plan was used in both groups. Intention-to-treat analysis indicated an increase in walking distance, which improved at 4 weeks (101.5% in STP vs 78.3% in LTP), at 8 weeks (260.9% STP vs 107.3% LTP), and at 20 weeks (351% STP vs 242% LTP). Comparable increases in pain-free walking distance were observed in the two groups. No serious drug-related side effects were observed. Local, mild adverse reactions were seen in 7% of the treated subjects in the LTP and 5% in the STP. Average cost of LTP was approximately 6,588 ECU; for STP the average cost was approximately 1,881 ECU. The cost to achieve an improvement in walking distance of 1 m was 35.6 ECU with the LTP and 9.45 ECU with the STP (26% of the LTP cost; p<0.02). For an average 100% increase in walking distance the LTP cost was 1,937 ECU vs 550 ECU with STP (p<0.02). The cost of PGE1 (including infusion and operative costs) was 25% of the total cost for LTP (24.9% for STP). In summary, between-group-analysis favors STP, in terms of walking distance and costs. Results indicate good efficacy and tolerability of PGE1 treatment. With STP less time is spent in infusion and more can be spent in the exercise program. STP reduces costs, speeds up rehabilitation, and may be used in a larger number of nonspecialized units available to follow the protocol.
- Published
- 1998
- Full Text
- View/download PDF