Louis S Matza1, Katie D Stewart2, Evan W Davies3, Richard Hellmund4, William H Polonsky5, David Kerr6. 1. Outcomes Research, Evidera, Bethesda, MD, USA. Electronic address: louis.matza@evidera.com. 2. Outcomes Research, Evidera, Bethesda, MD, USA. 3. Actelion Pharmaceuticals, Allschwil, Switzerland. 4. Global Health Economics, Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc., Alameda, CA, USA. 5. University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA. 6. William Sansum Diabetes Center, Santa Barbara, CA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Glucose monitoring is important for patients with diabetes treated with insulin. Conventional glucose monitoring requires a blood sample, typically obtained by pricking the finger. A new sensor-based system called "flash glucose monitoring" monitors glucose levels with a sensor worn on the arm, without requiring blood samples. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the utility difference between these two glucose monitoring approaches for use in cost-utility models. METHODS: In time trade-off interviews, general population participants in the United Kingdom (London and Edinburgh) valued health states that were drafted and refined on the basis of literature, clinician input, and a pilot study. The health states had identical descriptions of diabetes and insulin treatment, differing only in glucose monitoring approach. RESULTS: A total of 209 participants completed the interviews (51.7% women; mean age = 42.1 years). Mean utilities were 0.851 ± 0.140 for conventional monitoring and 0.882 ± 0.121 for flash monitoring (significant difference between the mean utilities; t = 8.3; P < 0.0001). Of the 209 participants, 78 (37.3%) had a higher utility for flash monitoring, 2 (1.0%) had a higher utility for conventional monitoring, and 129 (61.7%) had the same utility for both health states. CONCLUSIONS: The flash glucose monitoring system was associated with a significantly greater utility than the conventional monitoring system. This difference may be useful in cost-utility models comparing the value of glucose monitoring devices for patients with diabetes. This study adds to the literature on treatment process utilities, suggesting that time trade-off methods may be used to quantify preferences among medical devices.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Glucose monitoring is important for patients with diabetes treated with insulin. Conventional glucose monitoring requires a blood sample, typically obtained by pricking the finger. A new sensor-based system called "flash glucose monitoring" monitors glucose levels with a sensor worn on the arm, without requiring blood samples. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the utility difference between these two glucose monitoring approaches for use in cost-utility models. METHODS: In time trade-off interviews, general population participants in the United Kingdom (London and Edinburgh) valued health states that were drafted and refined on the basis of literature, clinician input, and a pilot study. The health states had identical descriptions of diabetes and insulin treatment, differing only in glucose monitoring approach. RESULTS: A total of 209 participants completed the interviews (51.7% women; mean age = 42.1 years). Mean utilities were 0.851 ± 0.140 for conventional monitoring and 0.882 ± 0.121 for flash monitoring (significant difference between the mean utilities; t = 8.3; P < 0.0001). Of the 209 participants, 78 (37.3%) had a higher utility for flash monitoring, 2 (1.0%) had a higher utility for conventional monitoring, and 129 (61.7%) had the same utility for both health states. CONCLUSIONS: The flash glucose monitoring system was associated with a significantly greater utility than the conventional monitoring system. This difference may be useful in cost-utility models comparing the value of glucose monitoring devices for patients with diabetes. This study adds to the literature on treatment process utilities, suggesting that time trade-off methods may be used to quantify preferences among medical devices.
Authors: Andrei Krassioukov; Yasuhiko Igawa; Márcio Augusto Averbeck; Helmut Madersbacher; Andrew J Lloyd; Mette Bøgelund; Nikesh Thiruchelvam Journal: Med Devices (Auckl) Date: 2018-10-01
Authors: Louis S Matza; Beatrice Osumili; Katie D Stewart; Magaly Perez-Nieves; Jessica Jordan; Giovanni Biricolti; Ester Romoli; Serena Losi; Silvia Del Santo; Erik Spaepen; Gordon Parola; Hayley Karn; Kristina S Boye Journal: Diabetes Ther Date: 2019-11-23 Impact factor: 2.945
Authors: Lindsay A Sceats; Seul Ku; Alanna Coughran; Britainy Barnes; Emily Grimm; Matthew Muffly; David A Spain; Cindy Kin; Douglas K Owens; Jeremy D Goldhaber-Fiebert Journal: MDM Policy Pract Date: 2019-08-17