Cost-Effectiveness of a Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring System Versus Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose in People with Type 2 Diabetes on Insulin Therapy in the UK.

Cost effectiveness Health economics Insulin-treated T2D Real-time continuous glucose monitoring Type 2 diabetes UK

Journal

Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders
ISSN: 1869-6953
Titre abrégé: Diabetes Ther
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101539025

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Dec 2022
Historique:
received: 19 08 2022
accepted: 03 10 2022
pubmed: 19 10 2022
medline: 19 10 2022
entrez: 18 10 2022
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rt-CGM) involves the measurement and display of glucose concentrations, potentially improving glucose control among insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). The present analysis aimed to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of rt-CGM versus self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) based on a USA retrospective cohort study in insulin-treated people with T2D adapted to the UK. Long-term costs and clinical outcomes were estimated using the CORE Diabetes Model, with clinical input data sourced from a retrospective cohort study. Patients were assumed to have a baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) of 8.3%. Patients using rt-CGM were assumed to have a 0.56% reduction in HbA1c based on the mean difference between groups after 12 months of follow-up. Reduced fingerstick testing when using rt-CGM was associated with a quality of life (QoL) benefit. The analysis was performed over a lifetime time horizon from a National Health Service (NHS) perspective, including only direct costs from published data. Future costs and clinical outcomes were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Extensive sensitivity analyses were performed. Projections showed that rt-CGM was associated with increased quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.731 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and increased mean total lifetime costs of Great British pounds (GBP) 2694, and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of GBP 3684 per QALY compared with SMBG. Key drivers of outcomes included HbA1c reduction and reduced fingerstick testing QoL benefit. Over patient lifetimes, rt-CGM was associated with improved clinical outcomes and is highly likely to be cost effective versus SMBG in people with T2D on insulin therapy in the UK.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36258158
doi: 10.1007/s13300-022-01324-x
pii: 10.1007/s13300-022-01324-x
pmc: PMC9663778
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

1875-1890

Informations de copyright

© 2022. The Author(s).

Références

Patient Educ Couns. 2007 Sep;68(1):10-5
pubmed: 17582726
Diabetes Care. 2018 Dec;41(12):2669-2701
pubmed: 30291106
Diabet Med. 2020 Feb;37(2):242-247
pubmed: 31901175
Patient Educ Couns. 2000 Oct-Nov;41(3):251-61
pubmed: 11042428
Value Health. 2011 Jul-Aug;14(5):665-71
pubmed: 21839404
Curr Med Res Opin. 2006 Aug;22(8):1523-34
pubmed: 16870077
Diabetes Care. 2022 Jan 1;45(Suppl 1):S97-S112
pubmed: 34964871
J Med Econ. 2011;14(3):357-66
pubmed: 21563878
J Diabetes Investig. 2015 Sep;6(5):567-70
pubmed: 26417415
Value Health. 2014 Jun;17(4):462-70
pubmed: 24969008
Diabet Med. 2015 Apr;32(4):459-66
pubmed: 25439048
Diabetes Obes Metab. 2014 Apr;16(4):366-75
pubmed: 24373113
JAMA. 2021 Jun 8;325(22):2262-2272
pubmed: 34077499
Diabetes Obes Metab. 2013 Sep;15(9):844-52
pubmed: 23675742
Value Health. 2017 Mar;20(3):507-511
pubmed: 28292497
J Wound Care. 2002 Feb;11(2):70-4
pubmed: 11901743
Value Health. 2014 Sep;17(6):714-24
pubmed: 25236995
Diabet Med. 2012 Jul;29(7):855-62
pubmed: 22537247
Diabetes Care. 2015 Apr;38(4):544-50
pubmed: 25552422
Diabetes Care. 2003 Mar;26(3):959-60
pubmed: 12610077
Diabetes Care. 2021 Jan;44(Suppl 1):S15-S33
pubmed: 33298413
J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab. 1998 Mar;11 Suppl 1:189-94
pubmed: 9642659
Br J Ophthalmol. 2003 Oct;87(10):1201-4
pubmed: 14507746
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2021 Mar;23(S1):S27-S34
pubmed: 33534631
Diabetes Care. 2017 Jun;40(6):736-741
pubmed: 28389582
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019 Apr;21(4):155-158
pubmed: 30896290
Endocr Pract. 2021 Jun;27(6):505-537
pubmed: 34116789
JAMA. 2021 Jun 8;325(22):2273-2284
pubmed: 34077502
Curr Med Res Opin. 2004 Aug;20 Suppl 1:S5-26
pubmed: 15324513
PLoS Med. 2019 Oct 7;16(10):e1002942
pubmed: 31589609
Diabetes Care. 2021 Dec;44(12):2729-2737
pubmed: 34588210
Med Decis Making. 2002 Jul-Aug;22(4):340-9
pubmed: 12150599
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013 Jun 03;11:90
pubmed: 23731777
Curr Med Res Opin. 2004 Aug;20 Suppl 1:S27-40
pubmed: 15324514
Arch Ophthalmol. 1998 Mar;116(3):297-303
pubmed: 9514482
Ann Intern Med. 2017 Sep 19;167(6):365-374
pubmed: 28828487
Lancet. 2010 Aug 7;376(9739):419-30
pubmed: 20594588
Diabet Med. 2017 Oct;34(10):1361-1366
pubmed: 28727175
Diabet Med. 2014 Dec;31(12):1498-504
pubmed: 24984759
Diabetologia. 2013 Sep;56(9):1925-33
pubmed: 23793713

Auteurs

John J Isitt (JJ)

Vyoo Agency, San Diego, CA, USA. jisitt@vyoo-agency.com.

Stéphane Roze (S)

Vyoo Agency, Lyon, France.

Helen Sharland (H)

Ossian Health Economics and Communications, Basel, Switzerland.

Greg Cogswell (G)

Dexcom, San Diego, CA, USA.

Hamza Alshannaq (H)

Dexcom, San Diego, CA, USA.
University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, USA.

Gregory J Norman (GJ)

Dexcom, San Diego, CA, USA.

Peter M Lynch (PM)

Dexcom, San Diego, CA, USA.

Classifications MeSH