Cost-effectiveness of the tubeless automated insulin delivery system vs standard of care in the management of type 1 diabetes in the United States.

BACKGROUND: A tubeless, on-body automated insulin delivery (AID) system (Omnipod 5 Automated Insulin Delivery System) demonstrated improved glycated hemoglobin A1c levels and increased time in range (70 mg/dL to 180 mg/dL) for both adults and children with type 1 diabetes in a 13-week multicenter, single-arm study. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of the tubeless AID system compared with standard of care (SoC) in the management of type 1 diabetes (T1D) in the United States. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analyses were conducted from a US payer's perspective, using the IQVIA Core Diabetes Model (version 9.5), with a time horizon of 60 years and an annual discount of 3.0% on both costs and effects. Simulated patients received either tubeless AID or SoC, the latter being defined as either continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (86% of patients) or multiple daily injections. Two cohorts (children: <18 years; adults: ≥18 years) of patients with T1D and 2 thresholds for nonsevere hypoglycemia (nonsevere hypoglycemia event [NSHE] <54 mg/dL and <70 mg/dL) were considered. Baseline cohort characteristics and treatment effects of different risk factors for tubeless AID were sourced from the clinical trial. Utilities and cost of diabetes-related complications were obtained from published sources. Treatment costs were derived from US national database sources. Scenario analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the results. RESULTS: Treating children with T1D with tubeless AID, considering an NSHE threshold of less than 54 mg/dL, brings incremental life-years (1.375) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (1.521) at an incremental cost of $15,099 compared with SoC, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $9,927 per QALY gained. Similar results were obtained for adults with T1D assuming an NSHE threshold of less than 54 mg/dL (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio = $10,310 per QALY gained). Furthermore, tubeless AID is a dominant treatment option for children and adults with T1D assuming an NSHE threshold of less than 70 mg/dL compared with SoC. The probabilistic sensitivity analyses results showed that compared with SoC, in both children and adults with T1D, tubeless AID was cost-effective in more than 90% of simulations, assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY gained. The key drivers of the model were the cost of ketoacidosis, duration of treatment effect, threshold of NSHE, and definition of severe hypoglycemia. CONCLUSIONS: The current analyses suggest that the tubeless AID system can be considered a cost-effective treatment compared with SoC in people with T1D from a US payer's perspective. DISCLOSURES: This research was funded by Insulet. Mr Hopley, Ms Boyd, and Mr Swift are full-time Insulet employees and own stock in Insulet Corporation. IQVIA, the employer of Ms Ramos and Dr Lamotte, received consulting fees for this work. Dr Biskupiak is receiving research support and consulting fees from Insulet. Dr Brixner has received consulting fees from Insulet. The University of Utah has received research funding from Insulet. Dr Levy is a consultant with Dexcom and Eli Lilly and has received grant/research support from Insulet, Tandem, Dexcom, and Abbott Diabetes. Dr Forlenza conducted research sponsored by Medtronic, Dexcom, Abbott, Tandem, Insulet, Beta Bionics, and Lilly. He has been speaker/consultant/advisory board member for Medtronic, Dexcom, Abbott, Tandem, Insulet, Beta Bionics, and Lilly.

Improved Glycemia with Hybrid Closed-Loop Versus Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion Therapy: Results from a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Objective: To evaluate safety and effectiveness of MiniMed™ 670G hybrid closed loop (HCL) in comparison with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) therapy for 6 months in persons with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Methods: Adults (aged 18-80 years), adolescents, and children (aged 2-17 years) with T1D who were using CSII therapy were enrolled and randomized (1:1) to 6 months of HCL intervention (n = 151, mean age of 39.9 ± 19.8 years) or CSII without continuous glucose monitoring (n = 151, 35.7 ± 18.4 years). Primary effectiveness endpoints included change in A1C for Group 1 (baseline A1C >8.0%), from baseline to the end of study, and difference in the end of study percentage of time spent below 70 mg/dL (%TBR <70 mg/dL) for Group 2 (baseline A1C ≤8.0%), to show superiority of HCL intervention versus control. Secondary effectiveness endpoints were change in A1C and %TBR <70 mg/dL for Group 2 and Group 1, respectively, to show noninferiority of HCL intervention versus control. Primary safety endpoints were rates of severe hypoglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). Results: Change in A1C and difference in %TBR <70 mg/dL for the overall group were significantly improved, in favor of HCL intervention. In addition, a significant mean (95% confidence interval) change in A1C was observed for both Group 1 (-0.8% [-1.1% to -0.4%], P < 0.0001) and Group 2 (-0.3% [-0.5% to -0.1%], P < 0.0001), in favor of HCL intervention. The same was observed for difference in %TBR <70 mg/dL for Group 1 (-2.2% [-3.6% to -0.9%]) and Group 2 (-4.9% [-6.3% to -3.6%]) (P < 0.0001 for both). There was one DKA event during run-in and six severe hypoglycemic events: two during run-in and four during study (HCL: n = 0 and CSII: n = 4 [6.08 per 100 patient-years]). Conclusions: This RCT demonstrates that the MiniMed 670G HCL safely and significantly improved A1C and %TBR <70 mg/dL compared with CSII control in persons with T1D, irrespective of baseline A1C level.

Positive Impact of the Bionic Pancreas on Diabetes Control in Youth 6-17 Years Old with Type 1 Diabetes: A Multicenter Randomized Trial.

Objective: To evaluate the insulin-only configuration of the iLet® bionic pancreas (BP) in youth 6-17 years old with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Research Design and Methods: In this multicenter, randomized, controlled trial, 165 youth with T1D (6-17 years old; baseline HbA1c 5.8%-12.2%; 35% using multiple daily injections, 36% using an insulin pump without automation, 4% using an insulin pump with low glucose suspend, and 25% using a hybrid closed-loop system before the study) were randomly assigned 2:1 to use BP (n = 112) with insulin aspart or insulin lispro (BP group) or to a control group (n = 53) using their personal standard care insulin delivery (SC group) plus real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). The primary outcome was HbA1c at 13 weeks. Results: Mean HbA1c decreased from 8.1% ± 1.2% at baseline to 7.5% ± 0.7% at 13 weeks with BP versus 7.8% ± 1.1% at both baseline and 13 weeks with SC (adjusted difference = -0.5%, 95% CI -0.7% to -0.2%, P < 0.001). Participants with baseline HbA1c ≥9.0% (n = 34) decreased mean HbA1c from 9.7% ± 0.8% to 7.9% ± 0.6% after 13 weeks with BP compared with 9.7% ± 0.5% to 9.8% ± 0.8% with SC. Over 13 weeks, mean time in range (TIR) 70-180 mg/dL increased by 10% (2.4 h per day) and mean CGM glucose was reduced by 15 mg/dL with BP compared with SC (P < 0.001). Analyses of time >180 mg/dL, time >250 mg/dL, and standard deviation of CGM glucose favored BP (P < 0.001). Time <54 mg/dL was low at baseline (median 0.2%) and not significantly different between groups over 13 weeks (P = 0.24). A severe hypoglycemia event occurred in 3 (2.7%) participants in the BP group and in 1 (1.9%) in the SC group. Conclusions: In youth 6-17 years old with T1D, use of insulin-only configuration of BP improved HbA1c, TIR, and hyperglycemic metrics without increasing CGM-measured hypoglycemia compared with standard of care. Improvement in glycemic metrics was most pronounced in participants with high baseline HbA1c levels. Clinical Trial Registry: clinicaltrials.gov; NCT04200313.