Dataset Information

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Flash Glucose Monitoring System for People with Type 2 Diabetes Receiving Intensive Insulin Treatment.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

For people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) on intensive insulin therapy, the use of flash continuous glucose monitoring ("flash monitoring") is associated with improved average glucose control and/or reduced hypoglycemic exposure. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of flash monitoring versus traditional blood glucose monitoring (BGM) in people with T2D using intensive insulin in the United Kingdom (UK).

Methods

The IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model (IQVIA CDM; v9.0) was used to analyze the impact of flash monitoring versus BGM over a 40-year time horizon from the UK payer perspective. Model inputs included baseline characteristics, intervention effects, resource utilization, costs, and utilities, based on recently published literature and national databases. UK National Health Service reimbursed costs of flash monitoring and BGM were used. An intervention-related health utility was obtained from a time trade-off study. Alternative scenarios were explored to assess the impact of key assumptions on base case results.

Results

In base-case analysis, flash monitoring compared with BGM resulted in an incremental cost of £5781 and an additional 0.47 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). This provides an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £12,309/QALY. HbA1c and the intervention-related health utility were the key drivers of differentiation. All scenario analyses, including different discount rates, time horizons, effects on HbA1c and on the intervention-related health utility, as well as glycemic emergencies, generated ICERs of less than £20,000 per QALY.

Conclusions

The consistent results across base case and a range of scenario analyses indicate that long-term flash glucose monitoring use is cost-effective compared with BGM in a UK population of T2D on intensive insulin therapy based on updated clinical effects and a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000-30,000 per QALY.

SUBMITTER: Ajjan R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9607728 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Flash Glucose Monitoring System for People with Type 2 Diabetes Receiving Intensive Insulin Treatment.

Ajjan Ramzi R Bilir S Pinar SP Hellmund Richard R Souto Diana D

Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders 20221026 11-12

<h4>Aims</h4>For people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) on intensive insulin therapy, the use of flash continuous glucose monitoring ("flash monitoring") is associated with improved average glucose control and/or reduced hypoglycemic exposure. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of flash monitoring versus traditional blood glucose monitoring (BGM) in people with T2D using intensive insulin in the United Kingdom (UK).<h4>Methods</h4>The IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model (IQVIA CDM; v9.0) was used to an ...[more]

PMID: 36287387

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionTo compare the cost-effectiveness of flash glucose monitoring versus self-monitoring of blood glucose/point of care testing (SMBG/POCT) in both patients with type 1 and patients with type 2 diabetes (T1D/T2D) receiving insulin therapy.MethodsThe IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model (version 9.5) was used to project the lifetime costs and health outcomes of flash glucose monitoring and SMBG/POCT from a Chinese societal perspective. We considered both hospital and individual version flash glucose monitoring to reflect the clinical practice in China. The clinical inputs leveraged the outcomes from both clinical trials and real-world studies. Cohort characteristics, intervention costs, treatment-related disutility and mortality were extracted from the literature. We also conducted scenario analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of results.ResultsCompared with SMBG/POCT using efficacy results from clinical trial, flash glucose monitoring brought the incremental costs of Chinese yuan (CNY) 58,021 and CNY 90,997 and additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 1.22 and 0.65 for patients with T1D and patients with T2D, respectively. According to the "WHO-CHOICE threshold" of three times the gross domestic product per capita in China (CNY 217,341 in 2020) as cost-effectiveness threshold, flash glucose monitoring was cost-effective for both patients with T1D and patients with T2D with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) of CNY 47,636 and CNY 140,297 per QALY gained, respectively. According to the real-world effectiveness data, flash glucose monitoring was dominant for patients with T1D (lower costs and better effectiveness) and cost-effective for patients with T2D with an ICER of CNY 124,169 per QALY gained compared with SMBG/POCT. Scenario analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results.ConclusionFlash glucose monitoring is likely to be considered as a cost-effective strategy compared to SMBG/POCT for Chinese patients with T1D and patients with T2D receiving insulin therapy.

Project description:IntroductionPublished evaluations of sensor glucose monitoring use in insulin treated type 2 diabetes are limited. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of flash glucose-sensing technology as a replacement for self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) over a 12-month period in participants with type 2 diabetes who were on intensive insulin therapy.MethodsAn open-label, randomized, controlled study in adults with type 2 diabetes on intensive insulin therapy from 26 European diabetes centers aimed at assessing flash glucose sensing technology was conducted. Participants (N = 224) were randomized (1:2 respectively) to a control group (n = 75) that used SMBG (FreeStyle Lite™) or to an intervention group (n = 149) which used sensor glucose data (FreeStyle Libre™ Flash Glucose Monitoring System) for self-management over 6 months. All intervention group participants who completed the 6-month treatment phase continued into an additional 6-month open-access phase.ResultsA total of 139 intervention participants completed the 6-month treatment phase and continued into the open-access phase. At 12 months (end of open-access period), time in hypoglycemia [sensor glucose <3.9 mmol/L (70 mg/dL)] was reduced by 50% compared to baseline [-0.70 ± 1.85/24 h (mean ± standard deviation); p = 0.0002]. Nocturnal hypoglycemia [2300 to 0600 hours, <3.9 mmol/L (70 mg/dL)] was reduced by 52%; p = 0.0002. There was no change in time in range [sensor glucose 3.9-10.0 mmol/L (70-180 mg/dL)]. SMBG testing fell from a mean of 3.9 (median 3.9) times/day at baseline to 0.2 (0.0), with an average frequency of sensor scanning of 7.1 (5.7) times/day at 12 months, and mean sensor utilization was 83.6 ± 13.8% (median 88.3%) during the open-access phase. During this 6-month extension period no device-related serious adverse events were reported. Nine participants reported 16 instances of device-related adverse events (e.g. infection, allergy) and 28 participants (20.1%) experienced 134 occurrences of anticipated skin symptoms/sensor-insertion events expected with device use (e.g. erythema, itching and rash).ConclusionThe use of flash glucose-sensing technology for glycemic management in individuals with type 2 diabetes treated by intensive insulin therapy over 12 months was associated with a sustained reduction in hypoglycemia and safely and effectively replaced SMBG.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02082184.

Dataset Information

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Flash Glucose Monitoring System for People with Type 2 Diabetes Receiving Intensive Insulin Treatment.

Aims

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Flash Glucose Monitoring System for People with Type 2 Diabetes Receiving Intensive Insulin Treatment.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets