Literature DB >> 25128049

A cost-effectiveness analysis of sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy and automated insulin suspension versus standard pump therapy for hypoglycemic unaware patients with type 1 diabetes.

Trang T Ly1, Alan J M Brnabic2, Andrew Eggleston3, Athena Kolivos3, Margaret E McBride3, Rudolf Schrover4, Timothy W Jones5.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy with "Low Glucose Suspend" (LGS) functionality versus standard pump therapy with self-monitoring of blood glucose in patients with type 1 diabetes who have impaired awareness of hypoglycemia.
METHODS: A clinical trial-based economic evaluation was performed in which the net costs and effectiveness of the two treatment modalities were calculated and expressed as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The clinical outcome of interest for the evaluation was the rate of severe hypoglycemia in each arm of the LGS study. Quality-of-life utility scores were calculated using the three-level EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire. Resource use costs were estimated using public sources.
RESULTS: After 6 months, the use of sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy with LGS significantly reduced the incidence of severe hypoglycemia compared with standard pump therapy (incident rate difference 1.85 [0.17-3.53]; P = 0.037). Based on a primary randomized study, the ICER per severe hypoglycemic event avoided was $18,257 for all patients and $14,944 for those aged 12 years and older. Including all major medical resource costs (e.g., hospital admissions), the ICERs were $17,602 and $14,289, respectively. Over the 6-month period, the cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained was $40,803 for patients aged 12 years and older.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on the Australian experience evaluating new interventions across a broad range of therapeutic areas, sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy with LGS may be considered a cost-effective alternative to standard pump therapy with self-monitoring of blood glucose in hypoglycemia unaware patients with type 1 diabetes.
Copyright © 2014 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cost-effectiveness; hypoglycemia; insulin pump therapy; type 1 diabetes

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25128049     DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2014.05.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Value Health        ISSN: 1098-3015            Impact factor:   5.725


  11 in total

Review 1.  Sensor-Augmented Insulin Pumps and Hypoglycemia Prevention in Type 1 Diabetes.

Authors:  Isabelle Steineck; Ajenthen Ranjan; Kirsten Nørgaard; Signe Schmidt
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2016-10-06

2.  IQWiG Reanalyzes and Raises Questions About an Article by Ly et al Which Concluded Low Glucose Suspend Is Very Beneficial.

Authors:  Lutz Heinemann; Norbert Hermanns
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2015-08-06

Review 3.  Continuous Glucose Monitoring and Global Reimbursement: An Update.

Authors:  Claudia Graham
Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 6.118

Review 4.  The benefits, limitations, and cost-effectiveness of advanced technologies in the management of patients with diabetes mellitus.

Authors:  Robert A Vigersky
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2015-03

5.  The Potential Cost Implications of Averting Severe Hypoglycemic Events Requiring Hospitalization in High-Risk Adults With Type 1 Diabetes Using Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring.

Authors:  Amy Bronstone; Claudia Graham
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2016-06-28

6.  Continuous Monitoring of Glucose for Type 1 Diabetes: A Health Technology Assessment.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ont Health Technol Assess Ser       Date:  2018-02-21

Review 7.  The Stricter the Better? The Relationship between Targeted HbA1c Values and Metabolic Control of Pediatric Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus.

Authors:  Marcin Braun; Bartlomiej Tomasik; Ewa Wrona; Wojciech Fendler; Przemyslawa Jarosz-Chobot; Agnieszka Szadkowska; Agnieszka Zmysłowska; Jayne Wilson; Wojciech Mlynarski
Journal:  J Diabetes Res       Date:  2016-01-05       Impact factor: 4.011

Review 8.  Devices for continuous monitoring of glucose: update in technology.

Authors:  Ana María Gómez; Diana Cristina Henao Carrillo; Oscar Mauricio Muñoz Velandia
Journal:  Med Devices (Auckl)       Date:  2017-09-12

Review 9.  International Consensus on Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring.

Authors:  Thomas Danne; Revital Nimri; Tadej Battelino; Richard M Bergenstal; Kelly L Close; J Hans DeVries; Satish Garg; Lutz Heinemann; Irl Hirsch; Stephanie A Amiel; Roy Beck; Emanuele Bosi; Bruce Buckingham; Claudio Cobelli; Eyal Dassau; Francis J Doyle; Simon Heller; Roman Hovorka; Weiping Jia; Tim Jones; Olga Kordonouri; Boris Kovatchev; Aaron Kowalski; Lori Laffel; David Maahs; Helen R Murphy; Kirsten Nørgaard; Christopher G Parkin; Eric Renard; Banshi Saboo; Mauro Scharf; William V Tamborlane; Stuart A Weinzimer; Moshe Phillip
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 19.112

Review 10.  Glycemic Status Assessment by the Latest Glucose Monitoring Technologies.

Authors:  Ilaria Malandrucco; Benedetta Russo; Fabiana Picconi; Marika Menduni; Simona Frontoni
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2020-11-03       Impact factor: 5.923

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.