INTRODUCTION: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
INTRODUCTION: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
Authors: Roy W Beck; Tonya D Riddlesworth; Katrina Ruedy; Andrew Ahmann; Stacie Haller; Davida Kruger; Janet B McGill; William Polonsky; David Price; Stephen Aronoff; Ronnie Aronson; Elena Toschi; Craig Kollman; Richard Bergenstal Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2017-08-22 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Boris Draznin; Vanita R Aroda; George Bakris; Gretchen Benson; Florence M Brown; RaShaye Freeman; Jennifer Green; Elbert Huang; Diana Isaacs; Scott Kahan; Jose Leon; Sarah K Lyons; Anne L Peters; Priya Prahalad; Jane E B Reusch; Deborah Young-Hyman Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2022-01-01 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: George Grunberger; Jennifer Sherr; Myriam Allende; Thomas Blevins; Bruce Bode; Yehuda Handelsman; Richard Hellman; Rosemarie Lajara; Victor Lawrence Roberts; David Rodbard; Carla Stec; Jeff Unger Journal: Endocr Pract Date: 2021-06 Impact factor: 3.443
Authors: Sarah Puhr; Mark Derdzinski; John B Welsh; Andrew Scott Parker; Tomas Walker; David A Price Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2019-03-22 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Thomas Martens; Roy W Beck; Ryan Bailey; Katrina J Ruedy; Peter Calhoun; Anne L Peters; Rodica Pop-Busui; Athena Philis-Tsimikas; Shichun Bao; Guillermo Umpierrez; Georgia Davis; Davida Kruger; Anuj Bhargava; Laura Young; Janet B McGill; Grazia Aleppo; Quang T Nguyen; Ian Orozco; William Biggs; K Jean Lucas; William H Polonsky; John B Buse; David Price; Richard M Bergenstal Journal: JAMA Date: 2021-06-08 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Melanie J Davies; David A D'Alessio; Judith Fradkin; Walter N Kernan; Chantal Mathieu; Geltrude Mingrone; Peter Rossing; Apostolos Tsapas; Deborah J Wexler; John B Buse Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2018-10-04 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Martin B Whyte; William Hinton; Andrew McGovern; Jeremy van Vlymen; Filipa Ferreira; Silvio Calderara; Julie Mount; Neil Munro; Simon de Lusignan Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2019-10-07 Impact factor: 11.069