Background: Studies indicate that digoxin toxicity often results in lengthy hospitalizations and considerable costs, both of which may be decreased through the routine use of digoxin immune Fab (FAB).
Methods: A computer-based decision analysis model was developed to compare the treat ment of non-life-threatening digoxin toxicity with either FAB or standard therapy from the hospital perspective. A cost-minimization analysis was then performed to compare overall total costs (primary endpoint) for each treatment branch. A secondary endpoint of length of hospital stay (LOS) was also compared between the 2 groups. Clinical variables (serum digoxin concentration [SDC], creatinine clearance [Clcr], and body weight), event probabili ties, and other model-specific variables were varied in univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses.
Results: FAB was associated with an incremental cost of $54 compared with standard therapy ($2,784 vs. $2,730, respectively) but reduced LOS by 1.5 days (1.5 days vs. 3.0 days, respectively). Sensitivity analyses show that FAB is less costly at SDC > 3.5 ng/mL and Clcr < 22 mL/min. FAB reduced LOS at SDC > 2.3 ng/mL. Monte Carlo simulation revealed that FAB was less costly in 37% of the cases and reduced LOS 72% of the time compared with standard therapy.
Conclusions: The abbreviated LOS associated with the use of FAB in patients with non-life- threatening digoxin toxicity may translate into lower treatment costs in many clinical sce narios, making it a cost-saving alternative to standard therapy in patients with high SDC and renal dysfunction.
Jelliffe RWA mathematical analysis of digitalis kinetics in patients with normal and reduced renal function. Math Biosci1:305-325, 1967
2.
Gandhi AJ, Vlasses PH, Morton DJ, et al. Economic impact of digoxin toxicity. Pharmacoeconomics12:175-181, 1997
3.
Smith TW, Butler VP, Jr., Haber E., et al. Treatment of life-threatening digitalis intoxication with digoxin-specific Fab antibody fragments: Experience in 26 cases. N Engl J Med307:1357-1362, 1982
4.
Wenger TL, Butler VP, Jr., Haber E., et al. Treatment of 63 severely digitalis-toxic patients with digoxin-specific antibody fragments. J Am Coll Cardiol5:118A-123A, 1985
5.
Smolarz A., Roesch E., Lenz E., et al. Digoxin specific antibody (Fab) fragments in 34 cases of severe digitalis intoxication. Clin Toxicol23:327-340, 1985
6.
Antman EM, Wenger TL, Butler VP, Jr., et al. Treatment of 150 cases of life-threatening digitalis intoxication with digoxin-specific Fab antibody Fragments: Final report of a multicenter study. Circulation81:1744-1752, 1990
7.
Hickey AR, Wenger TL, Carpenter VP, et al. Digoxin immune Fab therapy in the management of digitalis intoxication: Safety and efficacy results of an observational surveillance study. J Am Coll Cardiol17:590-598, 1991
8.
Clark RF, Barton EDPitfalls in the administration of digoxin-specific Fab fragments [editorial] . J Emerg Med12: 233-234, 1994
9.
Allen NM, Dunham GDTreatment of digitalis intoxication with emphasis on the clinical use of digoxin immune Fab. DICP24:991-998, 1990
10.
Mahdyoon H. , Battilana G., Rosman H., et al. The evolving pattern of digoxin intoxication: Observations at a large urban hospital from 1980 to 1988. Am Heart J120:1189-1194, 1990
11.
Digibind Product Information. Research Triangle Park, NC : Glaxo Wellcome Inc.; 1996
12.
HealthCare Investment Analysts, Inc. The Medicare DRG handbook: Comparative clinical and financial standards. Baltimore, MD, Ernst & Young , 1997
13.
St. Anthony's DRG Guidebook 1998. Reston, VA, St. Anthony's Publishing, Inc., 1997
14.
Roberts SA, Diaz C., Nolan PE, et al. Effectiveness and costs of digoxin treatment for atrial fibrillation and flutter. Am J Cardiol72:567-573, 1993
15.
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics: CPI Detailed Report. Washington, D.C.U.S. Government Printing Office. Monthly Reports for January, 1988-December, 1996. Available at: http://www.hcfa.gov/stats/indicatr/tables/t09.htm . Accessed February 12, 1998
16.
Cardinale V, Chi JC (eds). 1997 Drug Topics Red Book. Montvale, NJ, Medical Economics, 1997
Kupersmith J., Holmes-Rovner M., Hogan A., et al. Cost-Effectiveness analysis in heart disease, Part I: General principles. Prog Cardiovasc Dis37:161-184, 1994
20.
Sonnenberg FA, Beck J.Markov models in medical decision making: A practical guide. Med Decis Making13: 322-328, 1993
21.
Mauskopf JA , Wenger TLCost-effectiveness analysis of the use of digoxin immune Fab (ovine) for the treatment of digoxin toxicity . Am J Cardiol68:1709-1714, 1991
22.
Beller GA, Smith TW, Abelmann WH, et al. Digitalis intoxication: A prospective clinical study with serum level correlations. N Engl J Med284:989-997, 1971
Digitalis Investigation Group. The effect of digoxin on mortality and morbidity in patients with heart failure. N Engl J Med336:525-533, 1997
25.
Williamson KM, Thrasher KA, Fulton KB, et al. Digoxin toxicity: AN evaluation in current clinical practice. Arch Intern Med158:2444-2449, 1998
26.
Ujhelyi MR, Sylvie R., Cummings DM, et al. Influence of digoxin immune Fab therapy and renal dysfunction on the disposition of total and free digoxin. Ann Intern Med119: 273-277, 1993
27.
Ujhelyi MR, Sylvie R., Cummings DM, et al. Disposition of digoxin immune Fab in patients with kidney failure . Clin Pharmacol Ther54:388-394, 1993
28.
Allen NM, Dunham GD, Sailstad JM, et al. Clinical and pharmacokinetic profiles of digoxin immune Fab in four patients with renal impairment. DICP25:1315-1320, 1991
