AIMS: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) compared to self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) alone in people with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) using multiple daily injections (MDI) from the Canadian societal perspective. METHODS: The IMS CORE Diabetes Model (v.9.0) was used to assess the long-term (50 years) cost-effectiveness of real-time CGM (G5 Mobile CGM System; Dexcom, Inc., San Diego, CA) compared with SMBG alone for a cohort of adults with poorly-controlled T1DM. Treatment effects and baseline characteristics of patients were derived from the DIAMOND randomized controlled clinical trial; all other assumptions and costs were sourced from published research. The accuracy and clinical effectiveness of G5 Mobile CGM is the same as the G4 Platinum CGM used in the DIAMOND randomized clinical trial. Base case assumptions included (a) baseline HbA1c of 8.6%, (b) change in HbA1c of -1.0% for CGM users vs -0.4% for SMBG users, and (c) disutilities of -0.0142 for non-severe hypoglycemic events (NSHEs) and severe hypoglycemic events (SHEs) not requiring medical intervention, and -0.047 for SHEs requiring medical resources. Treatment costs and outcomes were discounted at 1.5% per year. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the base case G5 Mobile CGM vs SMBG was $33,789 CAD/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Sensitivity analyses showed that base case results were most sensitive to changes in percentage reduction in hypoglycemic events and disutilities associated with hypoglycemic events. The base case results were minimally impacted by changes in baseline HbA1c level, incorporation of indirect costs, changes in the discount rate, and baseline utility of patients. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this analysis demonstrate that G5 Mobile CGM is cost-effective within the population of adults with T1DM using MDI, assuming a Canadian willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 CAD per QALY.
RCT Entities:
AIMS: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) compared to self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) alone in people with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) using multiple daily injections (MDI) from the Canadian societal perspective. METHODS: The IMS CORE Diabetes Model (v.9.0) was used to assess the long-term (50 years) cost-effectiveness of real-time CGM (G5 Mobile CGM System; Dexcom, Inc., San Diego, CA) compared with SMBG alone for a cohort of adults with poorly-controlled T1DM. Treatment effects and baseline characteristics of patients were derived from the DIAMOND randomized controlled clinical trial; all other assumptions and costs were sourced from published research. The accuracy and clinical effectiveness of G5 Mobile CGM is the same as the G4 PlatinumCGM used in the DIAMOND randomized clinical trial. Base case assumptions included (a) baseline HbA1c of 8.6%, (b) change in HbA1c of -1.0% for CGM users vs -0.4% for SMBG users, and (c) disutilities of -0.0142 for non-severe hypoglycemic events (NSHEs) and severe hypoglycemic events (SHEs) not requiring medical intervention, and -0.047 for SHEs requiring medical resources. Treatment costs and outcomes were discounted at 1.5% per year. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the base case G5 Mobile CGM vs SMBG was $33,789 CAD/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Sensitivity analyses showed that base case results were most sensitive to changes in percentage reduction in hypoglycemic events and disutilities associated with hypoglycemic events. The base case results were minimally impacted by changes in baseline HbA1c level, incorporation of indirect costs, changes in the discount rate, and baseline utility of patients. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this analysis demonstrate that G5 Mobile CGM is cost-effective within the population of adults with T1DM using MDI, assuming a Canadian willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 CAD per QALY.
Entities:
Keywords:
Continuous glucose monitoring; cost-effectiveness; economics; type 1 diabetes
Authors: Karishma A Datye; Daniel R Tilden; Angelee M Parmar; Eveline R Goethals; Sarah S Jaser Journal: Curr Diab Rep Date: 2021-05-15 Impact factor: 4.810