Estimating the cost-effectiveness of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes in England.

OBJECTIVE: We previously showed that intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) reduces HbA1c at 24 weeks compared with self-monitoring of blood glucose with finger pricking (SMBG) in adults with type 1 diabetes and high HbA1c levels (58-97 mmol/mol [7.5%-11%]). We aim to assess the economic impact of isCGM compared with SMBG. METHODS: Participant-level baseline and follow-up health status (EQ-5D-5L) and within-trial healthcare resource-use data were collected. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were derived at 24 weeks, adjusting for baseline EQ-5D-5L. Participant-level costs were generated. Using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model, economic analysis was performed from the National Health Service perspective over a lifetime horizon, discounted at 3.5%. RESULTS: Within-trial EQ-5D-5L showed non-significant adjusted incremental QALY gain of 0.006 (95% CI: -0.007 to 0.019) for isCGM compared with SMBG and an adjusted cost increase of £548 (95% CI: 381-714) per participant. The lifetime projected incremental cost (95% CI) of isCGM was £1954 (-5108 to 8904) with an incremental QALY (95% CI) gain of 0.436 (0.195-0.652) resulting in an incremental cost-per-QALY of £4477. In all subgroups, isCGM had an incremental cost-per-QALY better than £20,000 compared with SMBG; for people with baseline HbA1c >75 mmol/mol (9.0%), it was cost-saving. Sensitivity analysis suggested that isCGM remains cost-effective if its effectiveness lasts for at least 7 years. CONCLUSION: While isCGM is associated with increased short-term costs, compared with SMBG, its benefits in lowering HbA1c will lead to sufficient long-term health-gains and cost-savings to justify costs, so long as the effect lasts into the medium term.

FreeStyle Libre Flash Glucose Monitoring system for people with type 1 diabetes in the UK: a budget impact analysis.

INTRODUCTION: This study aims to estimate the budget impact of increased uptake of the FreeStyle Libre Flash Glucose Monitoring system in people with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) in the UK. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A budget impact model was developed, applying real-world data collected in the Association of British Clinical Diabetologists (ABCD) FreeStyle Libre Nationwide Audit. Costs of diabetes glucose monitoring in a T1DM population (n=1790) using self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) or the FreeStyle Libre system were compared with a scenario with increased use of the FreeStyle Libre system. RESULTS: The ABCD audit demonstrates FreeStyle Libre system use reduces diabetes-related resource utilization. The cost analysis found that higher acquisition costs are offset by healthcare costs avoided (difference £168 per patient per year (PPPY)). Total costs were £1116 PPPY with FreeStyle Libre system compared with £948 PPPY with SMBG. In an average-sized UK local health economy, increasing FreeStyle Libre system uptake from 30% to 50% increased costs by 3.4% (£1 787 345-£1 847 618) and when increased to 70% increased by a further 3.3%. CONCLUSION: Increased uptake of the FreeStyle Libre system in the T1DM population marginally increases the cost to UK health economies and offers many system benefits.

Reducing sedentary time in adults at risk of type 2 diabetes: process evaluation of the STAND (Sedentary Time ANd Diabetes) RCT.

BACKGROUND: Reducing sedentary behaviour may have important health implications. This study evaluated the potential enablers and barriers for outcomes of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) designed to evaluate a pragmatic education based intervention designed to reduce sedentary (sitting) behaviour in young adults at high risk of type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Data were collected from participants in the intervention group immediately after an educational workshop addressing sedentary time and diabetes risk (n = 71), through phone interviews 6 weeks (n = 45) after the workshop, and at the conclusion of the 12-month trial (n = 10). The two education session facilitators were also interviewed about the intervention. RESULTS: The RCT showed no difference in sedentary time at 12 months between intervention and control arms. The lack of behaviour change appeared not to be attributed to the workshops, which were well led and very favourably received according to feedback. However, factors contributing to this lack of behaviour change include lack of perceived health risk from baseline measures feedback; the preference to adopt physically active behaviours rather than to sit less; certain barriers to sitting less; motivational drift after the 3-month follow-up measurements where participants had no contact for a further 9 months; and, for some, unreliability of the self-monitoring tool. CONCLUSIONS: The workshop was well led and well received by the attendees but future interventions need to consider more contact with participants, discuss any specific benefits around simply standing to reduce sitting time, address the barriers to sitting less, and provide a more user-friendly and reliable self-monitoring tool. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current controlled trials ISRCTN08434554 , MRC project 91409. Registered retrospectively on 22 February 2011.

A Randomised Controlled Trial to Reduce Sedentary Time in Young Adults at Risk of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Project STAND (Sedentary Time ANd Diabetes).

AIMS: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), a serious and prevalent chronic disease, is traditionally associated with older age. However, due to the rising rates of obesity and sedentary lifestyles, it is increasingly being diagnosed in the younger population. Sedentary (sitting) behaviour has been shown to be associated with greater risk of cardio-metabolic health outcomes, including T2DM. Little is known about effective interventions to reduce sedentary behaviour in younger adults at risk of T2DM. We aimed to investigate, through a randomised controlled trial (RCT) design, whether a group-based structured education workshop focused on sitting reduction, with self-monitoring, reduced sitting time. METHODS: Adults aged 18-40 years who were either overweight (with an additional risk factor for T2DM) or obese were recruited for the Sedentary Time ANd Diabetes (STAND) RCT. The intervention programme comprised of a 3-hour group-based structured education workshop, use of a self-monitoring tool, and follow-up motivational phone call. Data were collected at three time points: baseline, 3 and 12 months after baseline. The primary outcome measure was accelerometer-assessed sedentary behaviour after 12 months. Secondary outcomes included other objective (activPAL) and self-reported measures of sedentary behaviour and physical activity, and biochemical, anthropometric, and psycho-social variables. RESULTS: 187 individuals (69% female; mean age 33 years; mean BMI 35 kg/m2) were randomised to intervention and control groups. 12 month data, when analysed using intention-to-treat analysis (ITT) and per-protocol analyses, showed no significant difference in the primary outcome variable, nor in the majority of the secondary outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: A structured education intervention designed to reduce sitting in young adults at risk of T2DM was not successful in changing behaviour at 12 months. Lack of change may be due to the brief nature of such an intervention and lack of focus on environmental change. Moreover, some participants reported a focus on physical activity rather than reductions in sitting per se. The habitual nature of sedentary behaviour means that behaviour change is challenging. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Controlled-Trials.com ISRCTN08434554.

One-third of doctors completing specialist training in diabetes fail to secure a substantive consultant post: young Diabetologists' Forum Survey 2010.

Reports have highlighted a shortage of consultant diabetologist posts in the UK. The number of doctors completing specialist training in diabetes has increased in recent years, but little is known about their employment after they receive their certificate of completion of training. An online survey was sent to all doctors who completed specialist diabetes training from January 2008 to September 2010. Of the 95 eligible respondents, 69 (73%) completed the survey (61% men; median age 36 years). Forty-three (62%) respondents secured substantive NHS consultant posts, and of those who gave their job breakdown, 48/51 (94%) were contributing to specialist diabetes care. Five (7%) respondents held substantive academic positions, while 11 (16%) were locum consultants. Seven (9%) respondents worked abroad, with half of these attributing their emigration to lack of opportunities in the UK. When asked about alternative choices, 39% of respondents were likely to seek 'general physician' roles, which equalled the number who would consider emigrating. Overall, only two-thirds of doctors who complete specialist training in diabetes secure substantive NHS consultant positions, which suggests a failure in workforce planning and a lack of expansion of the number of consultant posts despite progression of the diabetes epidemic.