Cost-utility analysis of a flash continuous glucose monitoring system in the management of people with type 2 diabetes mellitus on basal insulin therapy-An Italian healthcare system perspective.

AIMS: To assess the cost-utility of the FreeStyle Libre flash continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system from an Italian healthcare system perspective, when compared with self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in people living with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) receiving basal insulin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A patient-level microsimulation model was run using Microsoft Excel for 10 000 patients over a lifetime horizon, with 3.0% discounting for costs and utilities. Inputs were based on clinical trials and real-world evidence, with patient characteristics reflecting Italian population data. The effect of flash CGM was modelled as a persistent 0.8% reduction in glycated haemoglobin versus SMBG. Costs (€ 2023) and disutilities were applied to glucose monitoring, diabetes complications, severe hypoglycaemia, and diabetic ketoacidosis. The health outcome was measured as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). RESULTS: Direct costs were €5338 higher with flash CGM than with SMBG. Flash CGM was associated with 0.51 more QALYs than SMBG, giving an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €10 556/QALY. Scenario analysis ICERs ranged from €3825/QALY to €26 737/QALY. In probabilistic analysis, flash CGM was 100% likely to be cost effective at willingness-to-pay thresholds > €20 000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: From an Italian healthcare system perspective, flash CGM is cost effective compared with SMBG for people living with T2DM on basal insulin.

The effects of continuous glucose monitoring system on patient outcomes and associated costs in a real-world setting.

AIMS: Continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS) technologies may alert unaware hypoglycaemia or near hypoglycaemia events. However, costs are a significant concern in general CGMS use. This study describes the real-world effects of both clinical outcomes and associated costs in a major Health Maintenance Organization, 1 year following preauthorization of CGMS for each patient. METHODS: Cohort study. Type 1 diabetes patients who were preauthorized CGMS were identified, and their medical records during the year before preauthorization were compared to the following year. Data were collected for glucose control, medical services utilization and related costs. RESULTS: We identified 524 eligible patients, 57% males. Adherence to CGMS use was improved by age. The proportion of patients reaching HbA1c  < 7.5% (58 mmol/mol) increased in the high-adherence group and decreased in the low-adherence group. There were no significant changes in outpatient medical services utilization. However, there was a decrease in emergency room visit rates (30%-19%, p < 0.01) and hospitalization rates (22%-12%, p < 0.01) with the highest decrease among the high-adherence group. Hospitalization duration also decreased. However, the total costs per patient were higher as CGMS adherence increased. CONCLUSION: Continuous glucose monitoring system technologies have the potential of both improving blood glucose control and reducing inpatient utilization. However, CGMS technologies costs may put a significant burden on healthcare systems.

Continuous glucose monitoring: A review of the evidence in type 1 and 2 diabetes mellitus.

CONTEXT AND AIM: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is becoming widely accepted as an adjunct to diabetes management. Compared to standard care, CGM can provide detailed information about glycaemic variability in an internationally standardised ambulatory glucose profile, enabling more informed user and clinician decision making. We aimed to review the evidence, user experience and cost-effectiveness of CGM. METHODS: A literature search was conducted by combining subject headings 'CGM' and 'flash glucose monitoring', with key words 'type 1 diabetes' and 'type 2 diabetes', limited to '1999 to current'. Further evidence was obtained from relevant references of retrieved articles. RESULTS: There is a strong evidence for CGM use in people with type 1 diabetes, with benefits of reduced glycated haemoglobin and hypoglycaemia, and increased time in range. While the evidence for CGM use in type 2 diabetes is less robust, similar benefits have been demonstrated. CGM can improve diabetes-related satisfaction in people with diabetes (PWD) and parents of children with diabetes, as well as the clinician experience. However, CGM does have limitations including cost, accuracy and perceived inconvenience. Cost-effectiveness analyses have indicated that CGM is a cost-effective adjunct to type 1 diabetes management that is associated with reduced diabetes-related complications and hospitalisation. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous glucose monitoring is revolutionising diabetes management. It is a cost-effective adjunct to diabetes management that has the potential to improve glycaemic outcomes and quality of life in PWD, especially type 1 diabetes.

Personal Continuous Glucose Monitoring Use Among Adults with Type 2 Diabetes: Clinical Efficacy and Economic Impacts.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This article reviews recent clinical efficacy research and economic analysis of the use of personal continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in type 2 diabetes (T2D). RECENT FINDINGS: Studies from the past 5 years include a variety of randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and other studies which generally favor CGM over self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in T2D, especially among people with T2D treated with insulin. Concurrently, some studies show no significant difference, but there is no evidence of worse outcomes with CGM. CGM is frequently associated with greater reduction in HbA1c than is SMBG. HbA1c reductions tend to be greater when baseline HbA1c is higher. Reductions in hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia have also been demonstrated with CGM in people with T2D, as have comfort with, preference for, and psychosocial benefits of CGM compared to SMBG. There is a small but growing evidence base on the economics and cost-effectiveness of CGM in T2D. CGM has been clearly demonstrated to have clinical benefits in people with T2D, especially among those treated with insulin. Economic and cost-effectiveness data are more scant but are generally favorable. CGM should be an important consideration in the management of T2D, and its use is likely to increase as efficacy data accumulate further and as costs associated with CGM gradually decrease.

Self-reported insulin pump prescribing practices in pediatric type 1 diabetes.

INTRODUCTION: Disadvantaged and minority youth with type 1 diabetes are less likely to be on insulin pump therapy compared to the majority population. Little is known about how pediatric endocrinology providers determine eligibility for insulin pump. We aimed to identify provider factors influencing the decision to initiate insulin pump therapy. METHODS: We conducted a survey of Pediatric Endocrine Society members who prescribe insulin pump therapy to pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes. The survey collected information about prescriber characteristics, use and adherence to guidelines, eligibility criteria, and objective and subjective factors that influence insulin pump prescription. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 192 individuals who met eligibility criteria (14.1% response rate). The majority of respondents were attending providers, and were white, non-Hispanic females. A minority of providers (22%) reported following written insulin pump guidelines, and many (70%) reported using personal guidelines to guide patient selection. Most providers had no objective eligibility criteria, aside from standard glucose monitoring. Providers identified patient lifestyle and increased risk of hypoglycemia, as well as patient and family factors such as motivation, realistic expectations of insulin pump use, ability to demonstrate carbohydrate counting, patient request, and ability to communicate as important in the decision to initiate insulin pump. CONCLUSION: Pediatric endocrinology providers place significant importance on subjective factors and utilize few objective criteria in determining eligibility for insulin pump. In the setting of the known disparities in insulin pump use, providers should utilize objective, consistent criteria to determine which patients are safe to initiate insulin pump.

Monetary reinforcement for self-monitoring of blood glucose among young people with type 1 diabetes: evaluating effects on psychosocial functioning.

AIMS: To explore the auxiliary psychosocial effects of a monetary reinforcement intervention targeting self-monitoring of blood glucose among young people with Type 1 diabetes. METHODS: Sixty young people with Type 1 diabetes, HbA1c concentrations between 58 and 119 mmol/mol (7.5-13.0%), and average self-monitoring of blood glucose <4 times per day were randomized to either enhanced usual care or a 24-week intervention of monetary rewards for self-monitoring of blood glucose and associated behaviours (e.g. uploading glucose meters). Data were collected from the young people and their parents at baseline, during the intervention (6, 12 and 24 weeks) and after the intervention (36 weeks). RESULTS: Linear mixed models were used to evaluate the intervention effects on psychosocial outcomes, adjusting for corresponding baseline levels and potential moderation by baseline level. The intervention reduced diabetes distress at week 6 among young people who had average and high baseline distress. It also reduced diabetes distress at weeks 12 and 24 among those with low baseline distress. The intervention also reduced young person-reported diabetes-related family conflict and diabetes-related interference among those with high baseline scores in these areas; however, the intervention worsened young person-reported diabetes interference among those with low baseline interference. Effects were medium-sized and time-limited. CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate predominantly positive impacts of monetary reinforcement interventions on psychosocial outcomes, although effects varied by outcome and time point. Whereas early improvements in diabetes distress were observed for all who received the intervention, improvements in other areas varied according to the level of psychosocial challenge at baseline. Incorporating psychosocial interventions may bolster and maintain effects over time.

Has subsidized continuous glucose monitoring improved outcomes in pediatric diabetes?

INTRODUCTION: In 2017, the Australian Federal Government fully subsidized continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices for patients under 21 years of age with T1D with the aim of reducing rates of severe hypoglycaemia (SH) and improving metabolic control. The aim of this study was to reports on metabolic outcomes in youth from a single tertiary centre. METHODS: The study design was observational. Data were obtained on youth who commenced CGM between May 2017 and December 2019. RESULTS: Three hundred and forty one youth who commenced CGM and had clinical outcome data for a minimum of 4 months. 301, 261, 216, 172, and 125 had outcome data out to 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24 months, respectively. Cessation occurred between 27.9% and 32.8% of patients 12 to 24 months after CGM commencement. HbA1c did not change in patients who continued to use CGM. In the 12 months prior to starting CGM the rate of severe hypoglycaemia events were 5.0 per 100 patient years. The rates of severe hypoglycaemia in those continuing to use CGM at 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24 months, were 5.2, 5.1, 1.6, 6.1, 2.4, and 0 per 100 patient years, respectively. DISCUSSION: Our experience of patients either ceasing or underusing CGM is less than reported in other cohorts but is nonetheless still high. There may have been a reduction in rates of severe hypoglycaemia over the 24 months follow up period; however, the absolute numbers of events were so low as to preclude meaningful statistical analysis.

Changing costs of type 1 diabetes care among US children and adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Modern therapy for type 1 diabetes (T1D) increasingly utilizes technology such as insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitors (CGMs). Prior analyses suggest that T1D costs are driven by preventable hospitalizations, but recent escalations in insulin prices and use of technology may have changed the cost landscape. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of T1D medical costs from 2012 to 2016 using the OptumLabs Data Warehouse, a comprehensive database of deidentified administrative claims for commercial insurance enrollees. Our study population included 9445 individuals aged ≤18 years with T1D and ≥13 months of continuous enrollment. Costs were categorized into ambulatory care, hospital care, insulin, diabetes technology, and diabetes supplies. Mean costs for each category in each year were adjusted for inflation, as well as patient-level covariates including age, sex, race, census region, and mental health comorbidity. RESULTS: Mean annual cost of T1D care increased from $11 178 in 2012 to $17 060 in 2016, driven primarily by growth in the cost of insulin ($3285 to $6255) and cost of diabetes technology ($1747 to $4581). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the cost of T1D care is now driven by mounting insulin prices and growing utilization and cost of diabetes technology. Given the positive effects of pumps and CGMs on T1D health outcomes, it is possible that short-term costs are offset by future savings. Long-term cost-effectiveness analyses should be undertaken to inform providers, payers, and policy-makers about how to support optimal T1D care in an era of increasing reliance on therapeutic technology.

Diabetes care cascade in Ukraine: an analysis of breakpoints and opportunities for improved diabetes outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes is one of the leading causes of poor health and high care costs in Ukraine. To prevent diabetes complications and alleviate the financial burden of diabetes care on patients, the Ukrainian government reimburses diabetes medication and provides glucose monitoring, but there are significant gaps in the care continuum. We estimate the costs of providing diabetes care and the most cost-effective ways to address these gaps in the Poltava region of Ukraine. METHODS: We gathered data on the unit costs of diabetes interventions in Poltava and estimated expenditure on diabetes care. We estimated the optimal combination of facility-based and outreach screening and investigated how additional funding could best be allocated to improve glucose control outcomes. RESULTS: Of the ~ 40,000 adults in diabetes care, only ~ 25% achieved sustained glucose control. Monitoring costs were higher for those who did not: by 10% for patients receiving non-pharmacological treatment, by 61% for insulin patients, and twice as high for patients prescribed oral treatment. Initiatives to improve treatment adherence (e.g. medication copayment schemes, enhanced adherence counseling) would address barriers along the care continuum and we estimate such expenditures may be recouped by reductions in patient monitoring costs. Improvements in case detection are also needed, with only around two-thirds of estimated cases having been diagnosed. Outreach screening campaigns could play a significant role: depending on how well-targeted and scalable such campaigns are, we estimate that 10-46% of all screening could be conducted via outreach, at a cost per positive patient identified of US$7.12-9.63. CONCLUSIONS: Investments to improve case detection and treatment adherence are the most efficient interventions for improved diabetes control in Poltava. Quantitative tools provide essential decision support for targeting investment to close the gaps in care.

Cost-Effectiveness of a Continuous Glucose Monitoring Mobile App for Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Analysis Simulation.

BACKGROUND: Apps for real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) on smartphones and other devices linked to CGM systems have recently been developed, and such CGM apps are also coming into use in Japan. In comparison with conventional retrospective CGM, the use of CGM apps improves patients' own blood glucose control, which is expected to help slow the progression of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) and prevent complications, but the effect of their introduction on medical costs remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: Our objective in this study was to perform an economic appraisal of CGM apps from the viewpoint of assessing public medical costs associated with type 2 DM, using the probability of developing type 2 DM-associated complications, and data on medical costs and utility value to carry out a medical cost simulation using a Markov model in order to ascertain the cost-effectiveness of the apps. METHODS: We developed a Markov model with the transition states of insulin therapy, nephrosis, dialysis, and cardiovascular disease, all of which have a major effect on medical costs, to identify changes in medical costs and utility values resulting from the introduction of a CGM app and calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: The ICER for CGM app use was US $33,039/quality-adjusted life year (QALY). CONCLUSIONS: Sensitivity analyses showed that, with the exception of conditions where the transition probability of insulin therapy, utility value, or increased medical costs increases, the ICER for the introduction of CGM apps was below the threshold of US $43,478/QALY used by the Central Social Insurance Medical Council. Our results provide basic data on the cost-effectiveness of introducing CGM apps, which are currently starting to come into use.

Modelling potential cost savings from use of real-time continuous glucose monitoring in pregnant women with Type 1 diabetes.

AIM: To investigate potential cost savings associated with the use of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (RT-CGM) throughout pregnancy in women with Type 1 diabetes. METHODS: A budget impact model was developed to estimate, from the perspective of National Health Service England, the total costs of managing pregnancy and delivery in women with Type 1 diabetes using self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) with and without RT-CGM. It was assumed that the entire modelled cohort (n = 1441) would use RT-CGM from 10 to 38 weeks' gestation (7 months). Data on pregnancy and neonatal complication rates and related costs were derived from published literature, national tariffs, and device manufacturers. RESULTS: The cost of glucose monitoring was £588 with SMBG alone and £1820 with RT-CGM. The total annual costs of managing pregnancy and delivery in women with Type 1 diabetes were £23 725 648 with SMBG alone, and £14 165 187 with SMBG and RT-CGM; indicating potential cost savings of approximately £9 560 461 from using RT-CGM. The principal drivers of cost savings were the daily cost of neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admissions (£3743) and the shorter duration of NICU stay (mean 6.6 vs. 9.1 days respectively). Sensitivity analyses showed that RT-CGM remained cost saving, albeit to lesser extents, across a range of NICU costs and durations of hospital stay, and with varying numbers of daily SMBG measurements. CONCLUSIONS: Routine use of RT-CGM by pregnant women with Type 1 diabetes, would result in substantial cost savings, mainly through reductions in NICU admissions and shorter duration of NICU care.

Glucose management for rewards: A randomized trial to improve glucose monitoring and associated self-management behaviors in adolescents with type 1 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: This randomized, controlled trial evaluated a monetary-based reinforcement intervention for increasing self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) among youth with poorly controlled type 1 diabetes. METHODS: After a 2-week baseline, 60 participants were randomized to enhanced usual care (EUC) or Reinforcers. The Reinforcers group earned monetary rewards for SMBG and associated behaviors such as uploading glucose meters. Reinforcers were withdrawn at 24 weeks. A follow-up evaluation occurred at 36 weeks. RESULTS: Participants in the reinforcers group increased the proportion of days they completed ≥4 SMBG from 14.6% at baseline to 64.4%, 47.5%, and 37.8% at 6, 12, and 24 weeks, respectively. In contrast, EUC participants declined from 22.7% at baseline to 17.5%, 10.5%, and 11.1% (Ps < .01 vs EUC at all time points). Group differences were attenuated but remained significant after withdrawal of reinforcers. Effect sizes for SMBG were very large during reinforcement and large after withdrawal of reinforcers. In the reinforcers group, mean A1c dropped from 9.5% ± 1.2% at baseline to 9.0% ± 1.3% at week 6 and 9.0% ± 1.4% at week 12. For EUC, A1c was 9.2% ± 0.2% at baseline and ranged from 9.2% ± 1.5% to 9.6% ± 1.6% throughout the study (P < .05 vs EUC). Group differences in A1c were no longer significant at weeks 24 and 36. Effect sizes for A1c were small during reinforcement and also after withdrawal of reinforcement. CONCLUSIONS: Monetary-based reinforcement of adolescents with type 1 diabetes caused durable increases in SMBG. Modification of the reinforcement structure may be needed to sustain improved metabolic control in this challenging age group.

The impact of free medical supplies and regular telephonic contact on glycemic control in Indian children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: The effect of economic assistance to underprivileged families with type 1 diabetes has never been described. Such a study is relevant as logistic and cultural factors may preclude an anticipated good outcome. The objective of the study is to determine the impact of economic and educational intervention on hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and diabetes knowledge. METHODS: Eighty-five consecutive participants were prospectively provided insulin and glucose strips for 1 year. From the 6th to 12th month, patients were randomized such that half of them (telephone group) received proactive telephonic advice by a diabetes educator, while the non-telephone group received usual care. HbA1c and diabetes knowledge were measured at baseline, 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: Significant improvement was seen in HbA1c with provision of free diabetes supplies, when patients were compared with their own HbA1c values during the prior 36 months (baseline [8.38 ± 2.0%], at 3 months [8.0 ± 1.6%] and at 6 months [8.1 ± 1.5%, P = 0.0106]). Knowledge score increased from baseline (48 ± 15) to 6 months (58 ± 13, P < 0.001). No difference was seen between the telephone and non-telephone groups in HbA1c from the 6th to 9th and 12th month. The knowledge score showed significant improvement in the telephone group during the proactive telephonic advice study compared with the non-telephone group (P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The provision of free medical supplies improved HbA1c and diabetes knowledge. Intensive telephone contact improved knowledge, not HbA1c. These results provide important background for policy makers and diabetes management teams.

Persistent heterogeneity in diabetes technology reimbursement for children with type 1 diabetes: The SWEET perspective.

BACKGROUND: Frequent use of modern diabetes technologies increases the chance for optimal type 1 diabetes (T1D) control. Limited reimbursement influences the access of patients with T1D to these modalities and could worsen their prognosis. We aimed to describe the situation of reimbursement for insulins, glucometers, insulin pumps (CSII) and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for children with T1D in European countries participating in the SWEET Project and to compare data from EU countries with data from our previous study in 2009. METHODS: The study was conducted between March 2017 and August 2017. First, we approached diabetes technology companies with a survey to map the reimbursement of insulins and diabetic devices. The data collected from these companies were then validated by members of the SWEET consortium. RESULTS: We collected data from 29 European countries, whereas all types of insulins are mostly fully covered, heterogeneity was observed regarding the reimbursement of strips for glucometers (from 90 strips/month to no limit). CSII is readily available in 20 of 29 countries. Seven countries reported significant quota issues or obstacles for CSII prescription, and two countries had no CSII reimbursement. CGM is at least partially reimbursed in 17 of 29 countries. The comparison with the 2009 study showed an increasing availability of CSII and CGM across the EU. CONCLUSIONS: Although innovative diabetes technology is available, a large proportion of children with T1D still do not benefit from it due to its limited reimbursement.

[Continuous glucose monitoring in the management of diabetes†: state-of-the art and perspectives]. / Mesure continue du glucosedans la prise en charge du diabète†:état des lieux et perspectives.

Continuous glucose monitoring is a technique that allows near-continuous measurement of interstitial glucose concentration. Much progress has been made in this area. The management of certain diabetic patients, in particular type 1, has been considerably improved thanks to the use of this technique. Many pitfalls have been crossed to allow its commercialization. There is still a lot of progress to be made. A good knowledge of these new devices is necessary to understand their strengths and weaknesses. This article briefly discusses the state of the art in this area and the expected perspectives of this attractive but expensive technology that must meet the ever-increasing but legitimate expectations of diabetic patients.

La mesure continue du glucose est une technique permettant de mesurer de manière quasi continue la concentration de glucose interstitiel. De nombreux progrès ont été réalisés dans ce domaine. La prise en charge de certains patients diabétiques, en particulier de type 1, s'est vue considérablement améliorée grâce à l'utilisation de cette technique. Bien que certains écueils aient été franchis pour permettre sa commercialisation, des progrès doivent encore être réalisés. Une bonne connaissance de ces nouveaux dispositifs est nécessaire pour en appréhender leurs forces et leurs faiblesses. Cet article aborde brièvement l'état des lieux en la matière et les perspectives attendues de cette technologie séduisante, mais coûteuse, qui se doit de répondre aux attentes sans cesse grandissantes, mais légitimes, des patients diabétiques.

Flash forward: a review of flash glucose monitoring.

The FreeStyle Libre flash glucose monitor became available on prescription (subject to local health authority approval) in all four nations of the UK from November 2017, a watershed moment in the history of diabetes care. Calibration free, the FreeStyle Libre is a disc worn on the arm for 14 days which is designed largely to replace the recommended 4-10 painful finger-stick blood glucose tests required each day for the self-management of diabetes. This review discusses clinical data from randomized and observational studies, considers device accuracy metrics and deliberates its popularity and the potential challenges that this new device brings to diabetes care in the UK. In randomized trials, FreeStyle Libre use is associated with a reduction in hypoglycaemia and, in observational studies, improvements in HbA1c levels. User satisfaction is high and adverse events are low. Accuracy of the FreeStyle Libre is comparable to currently available real-time continuous glucose monitors in adults, children and during pregnancy; the cost of the FreeStyle Libre is lower. Glucose data can be visualized in multiple devices and platforms, and summarized in an ambulatory glucose profile to aid pattern recognition and insulin dose adjustment. There is a need for appropriate education, of both users and healthcare professionals, to harness the full benefits. Further randomized studies to assess the long-term impact on HbA1c , particularly in those with high baseline HbA1c and in specific age groups, such as adolescents and young adults, are warranted. The potential impact on complications, is yet to be realized.

The management of type 2 diabetes with fixed-ratio combination insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) versus basal-bolus therapy (insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart): A short-term cost-effectiveness analysis in the UK setting.

AIM: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of IDegLira versus basal-bolus therapy (BBT) with insulin glargine U100 plus up to 4 times daily insulin aspart for the management of type 2 diabetes in the UK. METHODS: A Microsoft Excel model was used to evaluate the cost-utility of IDegLira versus BBT over a 1-year time horizon. Clinical input data were taken from the treat-to-target DUAL VII trial, conducted in patients unable to achieve adequate glycaemic control (HbA1c <7.0%) with basal insulin, with IDegLira associated with lower rates of hypoglycaemia and reduced body mass index (BMI) in comparison with BBT, with similar HbA1c reductions. Costs (expressed in GBP) and event-related disutilities were taken from published sources. Extensive sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: IDegLira was associated with an improvement of 0.05 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) versus BBT, due to reductions in non-severe hypoglycaemic episodes and BMI with IDegLira. Costs were higher with IDegLira by GBP 303 per patient, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of GBP 5924 per QALY gained for IDegLira versus BBT. ICERs remained below GBP 20 000 per QALY gained across a range of sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: IDegLira is a cost-effective alternative to BBT with insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart, providing equivalent glycaemic control with a simpler treatment regimen for patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on basal insulin in the UK.

Cost-effectiveness of sensor-augmented pump therapy in two different patient populations with type 1 diabetes in Italy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Sensor-augmented pump therapy (SAP) combines real time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) with Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion (CSII) and provides additional benefits beyond those provided by CSII alone. SAP with automated insulin suspension provides early warning of the onset of hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia and has the functionality to suspend insulin delivery if sensor glucose levels are predicted to fall below a predefined threshold. Aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of SAP with automated insulin suspension versus CSII alone in type 1 diabetes. METHODS AND RESULTS: Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using the CORE Diabetes Model. The analysis was performed in two different cohorts: one with high baseline HbA1c and one at elevated risk for hypoglycemic events. Clinical input data were sourced from published data. The analysis was conducted from a societal perspective over a lifetime time horizon; costs and clinical outcomes were discounted at 3% per year. In patients with poor glycemic control, SAP with automated insulin suspension resulted in improved discounted quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALY) versus CSII (12.44 QALYs vs. 10.99 QALYs) but higher mean total lifetime costs (€324,991 vs. €259,852), resulting in an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €44,982 per QALY gained. In patients at elevated risk for hypoglycemia, the ICER was €33,692 per QALY gained for SAP versus CSII. CONCLUSION: In Italy, the use of SAP with automated insulin suspension is associated with projected improvements in outcomes as compared to CSII. These benefits translate into an ICER usually considered as good value for money, particularly in patients at elevated risk of hypoglycemia.

Continuous glucose monitoring: a review of the evidence, opportunities for future use and ongoing challenges.

The advent of devices that can track interstitial glucose levels, which are closely related to blood glucose levels, on a near continuous basis, has facilitated better insights into patterns of glycaemia. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) therefore allows for more intensive monitoring of blood glucose levels and potentially improved glycaemic control. In the context of the announcement on 1 April 2017 that the Australian Government will fund CGM monitoring for people with type 1 diabetes under the age of 21 years, this paper provides a review of the evidence for CGM and some of the ongoing challenges. There is evidence that real-time CGM in type 1 diabetes improves HbA1c and hypoglycaemia, while in type 2 diabetes, the evidence is less robust. Initial barriers to widespread implementation of CGM included issues with accuracy and user friendliness; however, as the technology has evolved, these issues have largely improved. Ongoing barriers include cost, and weaker evidence for their benefit in certain populations such as those with type 2 diabetes and less glycaemic variability. CGM has the potential to reduce healthcare costs, although real-world studies, including cost-effectiveness analyses, are needed in this area.

Continuous Glucose Monitors: The Long and Winding Road To Acceptance, Coverage.

The time may finally be here for standalone continuous glucose monitors. It's been a long road. Medicare and consumer health plans were slow to cover them, but now the FDA has approved four such devices. Experts expect that nearly 3 million Americans will be able to use the devices.