Wen Wan1, M Reza Skandari2, Alexa Minc2, Aviva G Nathan2, Aaron Winn3, Parmida Zarei2, Michael O'Grady4, Elbert S Huang2. 1. Section of General Internal Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL wwan1@medicine.bsd.uchicago.edu. 2. Section of General Internal Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL. 3. School of Pharmacy, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI. 4. National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the societal cost-effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using multiple insulin injections. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In the Multiple Daily Injections and Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Diabetes (DIAMOND) trial, 158 patients with T1D and HbA1c ≥7.5% were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to CGM or control. Participants were surveyed at baseline and 6 months. Within-trial and lifetime cost-effectiveness analyses were conducted. A modified Sheffield T1D policy model was used to simulate T1D complications. The main outcome was cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: Within the 6-month trial, the CGM group had similar QALYs to the control group (0.462 ± 0.05 vs. 0.455 ± 0.06 years, P = 0.61). The total 6-month costs were $11,032 (CGM) vs. $7,236 (control). The CGM group experienced reductions in HbA1c (0.60 ± 0.74% difference in difference [DiD]), P < 0.01), the daily rate of nonsevere hypoglycemia events (0.07 DiD, P = 0.013), and daily test strip use (0.55 ± 1.5 DiD, P = 0.04) compared with the control group. In the lifetime analysis, CGM was projected to reduce the risk of T1D complications and increase QALYs by 0.54. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $98,108 per QALY for the overall population. By extending sensor use from 7 to 10 days in a real-world scenario, the ICER was reduced to $33,459 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: For adults with T1D using multiple insulin injections and still experiencing suboptimal glycemic control, CGM is cost-effective at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY, with improved glucose control and reductions in nonsevere hypoglycemia.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the societal cost-effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using multiple insulin injections. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In the Multiple Daily Injections and Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Diabetes (DIAMOND) trial, 158 patients with T1D and HbA1c ≥7.5% were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to CGM or control. Participants were surveyed at baseline and 6 months. Within-trial and lifetime cost-effectiveness analyses were conducted. A modified Sheffield T1D policy model was used to simulate T1D complications. The main outcome was cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: Within the 6-month trial, the CGM group had similar QALYs to the control group (0.462 ± 0.05 vs. 0.455 ± 0.06 years, P = 0.61). The total 6-month costs were $11,032 (CGM) vs. $7,236 (control). The CGM group experienced reductions in HbA1c (0.60 ± 0.74% difference in difference [DiD]), P < 0.01), the daily rate of nonsevere hypoglycemia events (0.07 DiD, P = 0.013), and daily test strip use (0.55 ± 1.5 DiD, P = 0.04) compared with the control group. In the lifetime analysis, CGM was projected to reduce the risk of T1D complications and increase QALYs by 0.54. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $98,108 per QALY for the overall population. By extending sensor use from 7 to 10 days in a real-world scenario, the ICER was reduced to $33,459 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: For adults with T1D using multiple insulin injections and still experiencing suboptimal glycemic control, CGM is cost-effective at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY, with improved glucose control and reductions in nonsevere hypoglycemia.
Authors: Don Husereau; Michael Drummond; Stavros Petrou; Chris Carswell; David Moher; Dan Greenberg; Federico Augustovski; Andrew H Briggs; Josephine Mauskopf; Elizabeth Loder Journal: Value Health Date: 2013 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Kellee M Miller; Nicole C Foster; Roy W Beck; Richard M Bergenstal; Stephanie N DuBose; Linda A DiMeglio; David M Maahs; William V Tamborlane Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Roy W Beck; Tonya Riddlesworth; Katrina Ruedy; Andrew Ahmann; Richard Bergenstal; Stacie Haller; Craig Kollman; Davida Kruger; Janet B McGill; William Polonsky; Elena Toschi; Howard Wolpert; David Price Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-01-24 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Grazia Aleppo; Katrina J Ruedy; Tonya D Riddlesworth; Davida F Kruger; Anne L Peters; Irl Hirsch; Richard M Bergenstal; Elena Toschi; Andrew J Ahmann; Viral N Shah; Michael R Rickels; Bruce W Bode; Athena Philis-Tsimikas; Rodica Pop-Busui; Henry Rodriguez; Emily Eyth; Anuj Bhargava; Craig Kollman; Roy W Beck Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2017-02-16 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Wen Wan; M Reza Skandari; Alexa Minc; Aviva G Nathan; Parmida Zarei; Aaron N Winn; Michael O'Grady; Elbert S Huang Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Shekhar Sehgal; Martin De Bock; Jonathan Williman; Barry Taylor; Mona Elbalshy; Barbara Galland; Rosemary Hall; Ryan Paul; Alisa Boucsein; Shirley Jones; Carla Frewen; Benjamin J Wheeler Journal: J Diabetes Metab Disord Date: 2021-10-31
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
Authors: Mona Elbalshy; Sara Boucher; Barbara Galland; Jillian J Haszard; Hamish Crocket; Esko Wiltshire; Craig Jefferies; Martin I de Bock; Paul Tomlinson; Shirley Jones; Benjamin J Wheeler Journal: J Diabetes Metab Disord Date: 2020-10-30
Authors: Maurizio Gallieni; Cristina De Salvo; Maria Elena Lunati; Antonio Rossi; Francesca D'Addio; Ida Pastore; Gianmarco Sabiu; Roberta Miglio; Gian Vincenzo Zuccotti; Paolo Fiorina Journal: Acta Diabetol Date: 2021-03-20 Impact factor: 4.280