Cost-utility analysis of Dexcom G6 real-time continuous glucose monitoring versus FreeStyle Libre 1 intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes in Belgium.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of Dexcom G6 real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) with alert functionality compared with FreeStyle Libre 1 intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) without alerts in adults with type 1 diabetes in Belgium. METHODS: The IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model was used to estimate cost-effectiveness. Input data for the simulated baseline cohort were sourced from the randomised ALERTT1 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov. REGISTRATION NO: NCT03772600). The age of the participants was 42.9 ± 14.1 years (mean ± SD), and the baseline HbA1c was 57.8 ± 9.5 mmol/mol (7.4 ± 0.9%). Participants using rtCGM showed a reduction in HbA1c of 3.6 mmol/mol (0.36 percentage points) based on the 6-month mean between-group difference. In the base case, both rtCGM and isCGM were priced at €3.92/day (excluding value-added tax [VAT]) according to the Belgian reimbursement system. The analysis was performed from a Belgian healthcare payer perspective over a lifetime time horizon. Health outcomes were expressed as quality-adjusted life years. Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses were used to account for parameter uncertainty. RESULTS: In the base case, rtCGM dominated isCGM, resulting in lower diabetes-related complication costs and better health outcomes. The associated main drivers favouring rtCGM were lower HbA1c, fewer severe hypoglycaemic events and reduced fear of hypoglycaemia. The results were robust under a wide range of one-way sensitivity analyses. In models where the price of rtCGM is €5.11/day (a price increase of 30.4%) or €12.34/day (a price increase of 214.8%), rtCGM was cost-neutral or reached an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €40,000 per quality-adjusted life year, respectively. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: When priced similarly, Dexcom G6 rtCGM with alert functionality has both economic and clinical benefits compared with FreeStyle Libre 1 isCGM without alerts in adults with type 1 diabetes in Belgium, and appears to be a cost-effective glucose monitoring modality. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03772600.

Assessment and management of diabetes-related foot infection according to the new International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot guidelines 2023-Multidisciplinary grand rounds.

Diabetes-related foot disease is a serious and common complication for people with diabetes mellitus. The gold standard care for a person with diabetes-related foot disease is the involvement of a multidisciplinary foot team engaged in evidence-based care. To date, there are seven International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot (IWGDF) guidelines published to assist healthcare providers in managing diabetes-related foot disease around the world. This review discusses the acute management of diabetes-related foot infection with insights from experts of various specialities (internal medicine, infectious disease, vascular surgery, radiology) with a discussion on the implementation of IWGDF guidelines in real life practice and the challenges that healthcare providers may face.

Impact of diabetes on medical costs in the pre- and postoperative year of lower extremity amputations in Belgium.

AIMS: To compare the medical costs of individuals undergoing lower extremity amputation (LEA) in Belgium with those of amputation-free individuals. METHODS: Belgian citizens undergoing LEAs in 2014 were identified. The median costs per capita in euros for the 12 months preceding and following minor and major LEAs were compared with those of matched amputation-free individuals. RESULTS: A total of 3324 Belgian citizens underwent LEAs (2295 minor, 1029 major), 2130 of them had diabetes. The comparison group included 31,716 individuals. Amputation was associated with high medical costs (individuals with diabetes: major LEA €49,735, minor LEA €24,243, no LEA €2,877 in the year preceding amputation; €45,740, €21,445 and €2,284, respectively, in the post-amputation year). Significantly higher costs were observed in the individuals with (versus without) diabetes in all groups. This difference diminished with higher amputation levels. Individuals undergoing multiple LEAs generated higher costs (individuals with diabetes: €39,313-€89,563 when LEAs preceded index amputation; €46,629-€92,877 when LEAs followed index amputation). Individuals dying in the year after a major LEA generated remarkably lower costs. CONCLUSIONS: LEA-related medical costs were high. Diabetes significantly impacted costs, but differences in costs diminished with higher amputation levels. Individuals with multiple amputations generated the highest costs.

Quality of Life and Glucose Control After 1 Year of Nationwide Reimbursement of Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Adults Living With Type 1 Diabetes (FUTURE): A Prospective Observational Real-World Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: In 2016, nationwide reimbursement of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) for people living with type 1 diabetes treated in specialist diabetes centers was introduced in Belgium. We undertook a 12-month prospective observational multicenter real-world study to investigate impact of isCGM on quality of life and glycemic control. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Between July 2016 and July 2018, 1,913 adults with type 1 diabetes were consecutively recruited in three specialist diabetes centers. Demographic, metabolic, and quality of life data were collected at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months of standardized clinical follow-up. The primary end point was evolution of quality of life from baseline to 12 months. Secondary outcome measures were, among others, change in HbA1c, time spent in different glycemic ranges, occurrence of acute diabetes complications, and work absenteeism. RESULTS: General and diabetes-specific quality of life was high at baseline and remained stable, whereas treatment satisfaction improved (P < 0.0001). Admissions for severe hypoglycemia and/or ketoacidosis were rare in the year before study (n = 63 out of 1,913; 3.3%), but decreased further to 2.2% (n = 37 out of 1,711; P = 0.031). During the study, fewer people reported severe hypoglycemic events (n = 280 out of 1,913 [14.6%] vs. n = 134 out of 1,711 [7.8%]; P < 0.0001) or hypoglycemic comas (n = 52 out of 1,913 [2.7%] vs. n = 18 out of 1,711 [1.1%]; P = 0.001) while maintaining HbA1c levels. Fewer people were absent from work (n = 111 out of 1,913 [5.8%] vs. n = 49 out of 1,711 [2.9%]; P < 0.0001). Time spent in hypoglycemia significantly decreased in parallel with less time in range and more time in hyperglycemia. Eleven percent (n = 210) of participants experienced skin reactions, leading to stopping of isCGM in 22 participants (1%). CONCLUSIONS: Nationwide unrestricted reimbursement of isCGM in people with type 1 diabetes treated in specialist diabetes centers results in higher treatment satisfaction, less severe hypoglycemia, and less work absenteeism, while maintaining quality of life and HbA1c.

Delivering Diabetes Education through Nurse-Led Telecoaching. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: People with diabetes have a high risk of developing micro- and macrovascular complications associated with diminished life expectancy and elevated treatment costs. Patient education programs can improve diabetes control in the short term, but their cost-effectiveness is uncertain. Our study aimed to analyze the lifelong cost-effectiveness of a nurse-led telecoaching program compared to usual care in people with type 2 diabetes from the perspective of the Belgian healthcare system. METHODS: The UKPDS Outcomes Model was populated with patient-level data from an 18-month randomized clinical trial in the Belgian primary care sector involving 574 participants; trial data were extrapolated to 40 years; Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs), treatment costs and Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) were calculated for the entire cohort and the subgroup with poor glycemic control at baseline ("elevated HbA1c subgroup") and the associated uncertainty was explored. RESULTS: The cumulative mean QALY (95% CI) gain was 0.21 (0.13; 0.28) overall and 0.56 (0.43; 0.68) in elevated HbA1c subgroup; the respective incremental costs were €1,147 (188; 2,107) and €2,565 (654; 4,474) and the respective ICERs €5,569 (€677; €15,679) and €4,615 (1,207; 9,969) per QALY. In the scenario analysis, repeating the intervention for lifetime had the greatest impact on the cost-effectiveness and resulted in the mean ICERs of €13,034 in the entire cohort and €7,858 in the elevated HbA1c subgroup. CONCLUSION: Taking into account reimbursement thresholds applied in West-European countries, nurse-led telecoaching of people with type 2 diabetes may be considered highly cost-effective within the Belgian healthcare system. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01612520.

The German and Belgian accreditation models for diabetic foot services.

The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot recommends that auditing should be part of the organization of diabetic foot care, the efforts required for data collection and analysis being balanced by the expected benefits. In Germany legislature demands measures of quality management for in- and out-patient facilities, and, in 2003, the Germany Working Group on the Diabetic Foot defined and developed a certification procedure for diabetic foot centres to be recognized as 'specialized'. This includes a description of management facilities, treatment procedures and outcomes, as well as the organization of mutual auditing visits between the centres. Outcome data is collected at baseline and 6 months on 30 consecutive patients. By 2014 almost 24,000 cases had been collected and analysed. Since 2005 Belgian multidisciplinary diabetic foot clinics could apply for recognition by health authorities. For continued recognition diabetic foot clinics need to treat at least 52 patients with a new foot problem (Wagner 2 or more or active Charcot foot) per annum. Baseline and 6-month outcome data of these patients are included in an audit-feedback initiative. Although originally fully independent of each other, the common goal of these two initiatives is quality improvement of national diabetic foot care, and hence exchanges between systems has commenced. In future, the German and Belgian accreditation models might serve as templates for comparable initiatives in other countries. Just recently the International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot initiated a working group for further discussion of accreditation and auditing models (International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot AB(B)A Working Group).

Nurse-led telecoaching of people with type 2 diabetes in primary care: rationale, design and baseline data of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite the efforts of the healthcare community to improve the quality of diabetes care, about 50% of people with type 2 diabetes do not reach their treatment targets, increasing the risk of future micro-and macro-vascular complications. Diabetes self-management education has been shown to contribute to better disease control. However, it is not known which strategies involving educational programs are cost-effective. Telehealth applications might support chronic disease management. Transferability of successful distant patient self-management support programs to the Belgian setting needs to be confirmed by studies of a high methodological quality. "The COACH Program" was developed in Australia as target driven educational telephone delivered intervention to support people with different chronic conditions. It proved to be effective in patients with coronary heart disease after hospitalization. Clinical and cost-effectiveness of The COACH Program in people with type 2 diabetes in Belgium needs to be assessed. METHODS/DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial in patients with type 2 diabetes. Patients were selected based on their medication consumption data and were recruited by their sickness fund. They were randomized to receive either usual care plus "The COACH Program" or usual care alone. The study will assess the difference in outcomes between groups. The primary outcome measure is the level of HbA1c. The secondary outcomes are: Total Cholesterol, LDL-Cholesterol, HDL-Cholesterol, Triglycerides, Blood Pressure, body mass index, smoking status; proportion of people at target for HbA1c, LDL-Cholesterol and Blood Pressure; self-perceived health status, diabetes-specific emotional distress and satisfaction with diabetes care. The follow-up period is 18 months. Within-trial and modeled cost-utility analyses, to project effects over life-time horizon beyond the trial duration, will be undertaken from the perspective of the health care system if the intervention is effective. DISCUSSION: The study will enhance our understanding of the potential of telehealth in diabetes management in Belgium. Research on the clinical effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness is essential to support policy makers in future reimbursement and implementation decisions.

Implementation of a program for type 2 diabetes based on the Chronic Care Model in a hospital-centered health care system: "the Belgian experience".

BACKGROUND: Most research publications on Chronic Care Model (CCM) implementation originate from organizations or countries with a well-structured primary health care system. Information about efforts made in countries with a less well-organized primary health care system is scarce. In 2003, the Belgian National Institute for Health and Disability Insurance commissioned a pilot study to explore how care for type 2 diabetes patients could be organized in a more efficient way in the Belgian healthcare setting, a setting where the organisational framework for chronic care is mainly hospital-centered. METHODS: Process evaluation of an action research project (2003-2007) guided by the CCM in a well-defined geographical area with 76,826 inhabitants and an estimated number of 2,300 type 2 diabetes patients. In consultation with the region a program for type 2 diabetes patients was developed. The degree of implementation of the CCM in the region was assessed using the Assessment of Chronic Illness Care survey (ACIC). A multimethod approach was used to evaluate the implementation process. The resulting data were triangulated in order to identify the main facilitators and barriers encountered during the implementation process. RESULTS: The overall ACIC score improved from 1.45 (limited support) at the start of the study to 5.5 (basic support) at the end of the study. The establishment of a local steering group and the appointment of a program manager were crucial steps in strengthening primary care. The willingness of a group of well-trained and motivated care providers to invest in quality improvement was an important facilitator. Important barriers were the complexity of the intervention, the lack of quality data, inadequate information technology support, the lack of commitment procedures and the uncertainty about sustainable funding. CONCLUSION: Guided by the CCM, this study highlights the opportunities and the bottlenecks for adapting chronic care delivery in a primary care system with limited structure. The study succeeded in achieving a considerable improvement of the overall support for diabetes patients but further improvement requires a shift towards system thinking among policy makers. Currently primary care providers lack the opportunities to take up full responsibility for chronic care. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00824499.

Comparison of once- versus twice-daily administration of insulin detemir, used with mealtime insulin aspart, in basal-bolus therapy for type 1 diabetes: assessment of detemir administration in a progressive treat-to-target trial (ADAPT).

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare effects of insulin detemir once daily versus twice a day in a basal-bolus insulin regimen. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this open-label, 7-month study, 520 patients with type 1 diabetes were randomly assigned to receive detemir once daily or twice daily with mealtime insulin aspart. Insulin doses were titrated over 1 month, with patients followed up over the subsequent 3 months. Thereafter, patients were able to switch from one regimen to the other, with an additional nonrandomized 3-month follow-up, to a total of 7 months. The primary end point was A1C at 4 months, with noninferiority defined as a difference <0.4% between groups. RESULTS: A1C at 4 months was 8.1 +/- 0.9 versus 8.0 +/- 1.0% with once- and twice-daily detemir, respectively, with an adjusted between-group difference of 0.12% (95% CI -0.01 to 0.25%), showing noninferiority for once-daily dosing. Similar results were found in the per protocol population. Improvement in A1C was similar in both groups (-0.4 +/- 0.8 vs. -0.5 +/- 0.8%; P = 0.09, NS) but with differences in the 7-point glucose profile. Detemir doses were lower (29 +/- 18 vs. 39 +/- 20 units/day, P < 0.001), but aspart doses were higher (34 +/- 17 vs. 26 +/- 14 IU/day, P < 0.001) with once-daily detemir. At 7 months, A1C decreased slightly in patients switched from once-daily to twice-daily administration (8.2 +/- 0.8 vs. 8.0 +/- 0.8%; P = 0.34, NS) in association with increased total insulin doses (P < 0.05), but A1C increased in those switched from twice-daily to once-daily administration (7.2 +/- 0.9 vs. 7.6 +/- 0.8%, P < 0.05) in association with decreased doses (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Although some individuals may benefit from twice-daily dosing, the most suitable routine starting schedule for detemir in a basal-bolus regimen for type 1 diabetes is once-daily injection.