Fabrication of Cost effective Glucose Sensor for Continuous Glucose Monitoring

• Journal List
• Diabetes Care
• v.41(6); 2018 Jun
• PMC5961392

Diabetes Care. 2018 Jun; 41(6): 1227–1234.

Cost-effectiveness of Continuous Glucose Monitoring for Adults With Type 1 Diabetes Compared With Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose: The DIAMOND Randomized Trial

Wen Wan

¹Section of General Internal Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL

M. Reza Skandari

¹Section of General Internal Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL

Alexa Minc

¹Section of General Internal Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL

Aviva G. Nathan

¹Section of General Internal Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL

Aaron Winn

²School of Pharmacy, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI

Parmida Zarei

¹Section of General Internal Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL

Michael O'Grady

³National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL

Elbert S. Huang

¹Section of General Internal Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL

Received 2017 Aug 30; Accepted 2018 Feb 27.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated the societal cost-effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using multiple insulin injections.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In the Multiple Daily Injections and Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Diabetes (DIAMOND) trial, 158 patients with T1D and HbA_1c ≥7.5% were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to CGM or control. Participants were surveyed at baseline and 6 months. Within-trial and lifetime cost-effectiveness analyses were conducted. A modified Sheffield T1D policy model was used to simulate T1D complications. The main outcome was cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.

RESULTS

Within the 6-month trial, the CGM group had similar QALYs to the control group (0.462 ± 0.05 vs. 0.455 ± 0.06 years, P = 0.61). The total 6-month costs were $11,032 (CGM) vs. $7,236 (control). The CGM group experienced reductions in HbA_1c (0.60 ± 0.74% difference in difference [DiD]), P < 0.01), the daily rate of nonsevere hypoglycemia events (0.07 DiD, P = 0.013), and daily test strip use (0.55 ± 1.5 DiD, P = 0.04) compared with the control group. In the lifetime analysis, CGM was projected to reduce the risk of T1D complications and increase QALYs by 0.54. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $98,108 per QALY for the overall population. By extending sensor use from 7 to 10 days in a real-world scenario, the ICER was reduced to $33,459 per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

For adults with T1D using multiple insulin injections and still experiencing suboptimal glycemic control, CGM is cost-effective at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY, with improved glucose control and reductions in nonsevere hypoglycemia.

Introduction

Although the long-term health benefits of intensive glycemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) have been well established (1), many patients continue to have suboptimal glycemic control (2–4). Suboptimal glycemic control invariably increases the risk of long-term complications, including microvascular and macrovascular complications (2,3), which greatly increase the costs of diabetes care (1,5). A barrier to delivering intensive glycemic management is the increased risk of hypoglycemia (severe and nonsevere), which negatively affects quality of life (QoL) and further increases treatment costs (6,7).

Achieving optimal glycemic control with intensive therapy necessitates frequent blood glucose monitoring (8). Unfortunately, the capillary finger-stick measurement does not adequately prevent hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia (8). Patients with T1D who test blood glucose levels as frequently as 9 times/day have been found to experience 2 h/day of clinical hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dL) and 7 h/day of clinical hyperglycemia (>180 mg/dL) (8). The availability of insulin pumps and insulin analogs has improved but not eliminated hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia (4). Only 30% of adults with T1D age >30 years achieve HbA_1c <7.0% (4).

Newer continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) technologies help optimize glucose control by significant improvements in the precise and accurate measurement of glucose levels, resulting in better informed diabetes management decisions (9–11). In a recently completed randomized controlled trial, the Multiple Daily Injections and Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Diabetes (DIAMOND) study (12), Dexcom G4 CGM improved glucose control compared with self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in adult patients with T1D who had elevated HbA_1c levels while using multiple daily insulin injections.

The cost-effectiveness of CGM in populations with T1D with moderate to good glucose control was first reported in 2010 by the JDRF clinical trial. Insulin pump users comprised 80% of the patient population that was enrolled in the trial (13). However, >65% of patients with T1D use multiple daily injections of insulin rather than insulin pumps (3,14). The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of using a newer CGM technology for the population of T1D patients using multiple daily injections, based on the DIAMOND trial results.

Research Design and Methods

Study Design

In this unblinded multicenter trial, 158 patients with T1D and HbA_1c ≥7.5% using multiple insulin injections were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to CGM or SMBG, usual care (control), stratified by clinical site and HbA_1c level (<8.5% and ≥8.5%). Patients who were assigned to the CGM group initiated CGM use for 6 months. All patients were surveyed at baseline and at 6 months regarding their health-related QoL, health care services utilization outside of the study, medications, test strip use, work productivity if employed, and number of hours per day devoted to self-management diabetes care. Time devoted by trial personnel for training and counseling participants was also collected through staff surveys for both treatment groups. More details of the DIAMOND trial, including its design, study populations, and clinical results, can be found in Beck et al. (12).

Our cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) included a within-trial CEA using observed trial data and a lifetime CEA using a modified Sheffield T1D policy model. We adopted the societal perspective for both of these analyses. All of the collected data were analyzed to determine the clinical factors that would potentially influence the CEAs. According to the recommendations of the Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine (15) and of the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) (16), we provide an impact inventory table and reporting checklist in Supplementary Tables 1 and 2.

Costs

All costs are expressed in 2015 U.S. dollars. Total costs included all direct costs associated with clinical care provided by trial personnel, CGM device use, health care services, test strip use, and medications and also indirect costs associated with patients' reduced work productivity and daily hours devoted to diabetes care. All cost assumptions are provided in Supplementary Tables 3 and 4.

Direct Clinical Personnel Costs

During the trial, clinical staff members (including physicians, advanced nurse practitioners, nurses, educators, and others) reported nonscheduled encounters with patients via phone, email, and/or clinic visit outside of the study-specific visits. We included staff time devoted to CGM training and counseling and excluded research time. The costs of staff time were calculated using the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics median hourly wage per job category.

CGM Costs

The CGM cost was estimated to be $15.20 per day, which includes the costs of its three components (i.e., G4 sensor, receiver, and transmitter). This price was the estimated average allowable price in the U.S. marketplace.

Non-CGM Medical Care Costs

Health care service utilizations included routine office visits, after-hour clinic visits (urgent care), 911 calls, ambulance use, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations, as well as average daily test strip use and glucose-lowering medications for the prior 6 months. To calculate the 6-month costs of utilization at baseline and 6 months, the median prices of each health care service were multiplied by the number of each service use in the past 6 months.

Indirect Costs

Patients were also surveyed at baseline and 6 months on the number of missed workdays due to diabetes and the number of workdays with underperformance (defined as <50% productivity) (13). A workday with underperformance was considered a half-day of missed work. The costs of missed work and time for self-diabetes care were calculated based on median hourly wage per job category of patients through well-established references (provided in Supplementary Table 3).

Measurements of QoL

The 5-Level EuroQol 5-Dimension (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire was used to measure health-related QoL. This QoL measure was converted into a utility score, ranging from 0.0 ("death") to 1.0 ("perfect life") (17). For the long-term CEA, we used previously published disutilities for microvascular and cardiovascular complications and for severe and nonsevere hypoglycemia. The utilities were then incorporated into a simulation model of long-term outcomes.

Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), a measure of health outcomes and disease burden, were calculated by the area under the curve method using the calculated utility scores. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated as the ratio of the difference in costs to the difference in QALYs between the two groups.

Nonsevere Hypoglycemic Events

Nonsevere hypoglycemic events (NSHEs), self-treated hypoglycemia (18), may be experienced by 24–85% of patients with diabetes, particularly among insulin users (18–20). Each patient in the DIAMOND trial was required to wear a blinded CGM device to record glucose concentration (invisible to the patients) for 2 weeks before randomization and for a week before the 12- and 24-week visits. NSHEs were defined as the detection of a glucose value <3.0 mmol/L (<54 mg/dL) for at least 20 consecutive minutes, considered to be clinically significant biochemical hypoglycemia according to the International Hypoglycemia Study Group recommendations (21). A daily rate of NSHE was obtained based on the number of NSHEs observed during each period of blinded CGM use. The numbers of NSHEs at 6 months were pooled from 12- to 24-week visits because the NSHE rates did not differ between the two visits (12).

Within-Trial CEAs

We followed the intent-to-treat principle in our analyses. A Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare the two groups in QALYs, utility, and other continuous outcomes. The Fisher exact test was used for each categorical outcome. An ANCOVA was performed to model the change from baseline in utility, HbA_1c, daily rate of NSHEs, and daily strip test use, and to compare the two groups, adjusting for their baseline effects. A repeated ANOVA via a linear mixed model (LMM) was also performed to test the effects of treatment, time, and their interaction. Age, sex, and duration of T1D were treated as potential covariates in each model, and site was considered as a random effect. A test of the interaction between the baseline outcome and treatment arm was also conducted through an ANCOVA or LMM to assess homogeneity of the treatment effect. Because ANCOVA and LMM produced similar results, we only present the ANCOVA results. All P values were two-sided, and P values <0.05 were considered significant. Analyses were conducted with SAS version 9.4 software.

Lifetime CEAs

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of CGM, we simulated the natural history of T1D over the projected lifetime of patients by extrapolating the within-trial findings. Among the existing T1D simulation models in the literature, we selected the patient-level Sheffield T1D policy model (22) based on the following features: the model was constructed solely using T1D studies and trials, it includes HbA_1c, a risk factor significantly modified by CGM, in most risk equations, it was validated against major T1D trial studies, and it is completely transparent and hence reproducible. The simulation model is characterized by the simultaneous progression of T1D through major microvascular and macrovascular complications as well as short-term complications (hypo- and hyperglycemia) and their associated costs and health utilities. The risk parameters for the microvascular- and macrovascular-related complications and mortalities of the Sheffield model were taken directly from Tables 1 and 2 in Thokala et al. (22).

We modified the Sheffield model with respect to severe and nonsevere hypoglycemic events. The original hypoglycemia module assumed that the risk of severe hypoglycemic events increases as the HbA_1c level decreases. This relationship is altered by CGM, as described in the systematic review and meta-analysis conducted on behalf of Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (11) and as we found in the DIAMOND trial: patients are able to achieve normoglycemia without an increased risk of hypoglycemia. As an alternative to the Sheffield hypoglycemia module, we used the observed hypoglycemia event rates from the DIAMOND trial. In the model, we also incorporated NSHEs and their QoL and costs effects, which were not considered in the original Sheffield model. All base-case model parameters, including clinical inputs, costs, and health utilities, are described in Supplementary Tables 5–7. A 3% annual discount rate was applied to costs and health utilities (23). We used bootstrapping of simulation samples to calculate 95% CIs for the key outcomes.

Projected CGM Effects

The simulation base-case model carried forward the CGM effects on HbA_1c reduction and NSHEs rate found in the trial through the lifetime of patients (Supplementary Table 5). Other risk factors, such as systolic blood pressure, HDL cholesterol, and total cholesterol, which were only measured at the baseline in the trial, were assumed not to change over time in the simulations (Supplementary Table 5). Similar modeling assumptions have been used in prior CEAs of new interventions for diabetes, including CGM (13).

One-Way Sensitivity and Subgroup Analyses

We performed subgroup analyses per baseline HbA_1c with a cutoff of 8.5%. We also conducted one-way sensitivity analyses on selected model parameters. Several scenarios were considered, including changes in CGM effects and costs and reflecting CGM technology advancements such as Dexcom's G5 CGM. The Dexcom G5 CGM was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to allow for replacement of finger-stick blood glucose testing (24). In the G5 scenarios, we assumed that patients use as few as 2.8 test strips per day (25). Because smartphones can be used as a G5 receiver (26), we assumed that 50% of the CGM patients use their phones as the receiver from the 2nd year of obtaining CGM onwards (the U.S. Food and Drug Administration requires that a CGM receiver should be included in the CGM package). Because the lifetime of device sensors can be prolonged from the recommended 7 days to 10 days (27) without compromising safety (28), we also conducted sensitivity analyses for the real-world use of G4 and G5 CGMs (see Supplementary Table 4). Details of all subgroup and sensitivity analyses scenarios are provided in Supplementary Table 8.

In the base-case analysis, we assumed that patients continued to use and benefit from CGM over their lifetime. In clinical practice, patients may in fact discontinue use of CGM over time. To account for this phenomenon, we considered alternative assumptions and evaluated scenarios where CGM was used for different periods of 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 years. In each scenario, patients accrued the benefits and the costs of CGM only during periods of use.

Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis

To examine the combined effects of model parameter uncertainty, we performed a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) by varying multiple parameters simultaneously. All input parameters in the base-case model, including costs, utilities, and parameters in risk equations, were sampled using distributions described in the Sheffield model (22). A total of 200 PSA scenarios were generated, and the same simulation method as in the base-case analysis was performed for each scenario. The simulation results were summarized in a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC).

Results

The 6-month visit for outcome collection was completed by 102 participants (97%) in the CGM group and all 53 participants (100%) in the control group. The CGM group was younger than the control group (mean ± SD: 45.7 ± 13.6 vs. 51.4 ± 10.9, P < 0.01) (Table 1). No other significant differences were found for the other baseline characteristics.

Table 1

Baseline characteristics of the study populations

	Control (n = 53)	CGM (n = 105)	P value
Demographic characteristics
Female sex, n (%)	23 (43)	47 (45)	1
Race, n (%)			0.5
White	50 (94)	95 (90)
Black	3 (6)	6 (6)
Other	0 (0)	4 (4)
Age (years)			<0.01
Mean ± SD	51.4 ± 10.9	45.7 ± 13.6
Range	25–73	25–72
T1D duration (years)			0.1
Mean ± SD	23.1 ± 14.5	19.6 ± 13.1
Range	4–56	2–56
Clinical outcomes at baseline
HbA1c (%)			0.6
Mean ± SD	8.6 ± 0.6	8.6 ± 0.7
Range	7.5–9.9	7.5–9.9
Daily strip tests (n)			0.4
Mean ± SD	4.1 ± 1.6	3.9 ± 1.3
Range	1–9	1–7
Insulin (units)			0.4
Mean ± SD	60.2 ± 32.7	66.0 ± 36.7
Range	12–185	24–155
Daily event rate of NSHEs			0.5
Mean ± SD	0.35 ± 0.33	0.30 ± 0.29
Range	0–1.34	1–1.33
Utility			0.6
Mean ± SD	0.91 ± 0.13	0.93 ± 0.10
Range	0.26–1.0	0.38–1.0
BMI (kg/m2)			0.2
Mean ± SD	26.8 ± 4.6	27.9 ± 5.9
Range	18.2–38.4	16.9–62.6
Patients using noninsulin glucose–lowering medication, n (%)	8 (8)	4 (8)	1.0
Patients having severe hypoglycemia in previous 12 months, n (%)	8 (8)	9 (17)	0.1
Patients having severe hyperglycemia in previous 12 months, n (%)	1 (2)	1 (<1)	1.0

Within-Trial CEA

During the trial, the two groups had similar utility ratings (mean ± SD: control: 0.91 ± 0.12 vs. CGM: 0.92 ± 0.10, P = 0.78) and QALYs (control: 0.46 ± 0.06 vs. CGM: 0.46 ± 0.05), both close to 0.5, the maximum QALY attainable in a half-year (Table 2). From a societal perspective, the average 6-month total costs were $11,032 for the CGM group and $7,236 for the control group (P < 0.01). The difference in total costs was primarily attributable to CGM device costs of $2,554. We found no other difference between the groups in other major cost categories such as direct personnel costs, non-CGM medical care costs, and all indirect costs associated with work productivity (all P > 0.4). CGM reduced daily strip use (0.55 ± 1.5 difference in difference [DiD], P = 0.04), resulting in a reduction in costs of strip use (CGM: $612; control: $750). CGM patients had no significant difference from control patients in their frequency of interactions with trial personnel or other forms of health care utilization (Supplementary Table 9), even though they were granted one additional visit at week 1 to review CGM use instructions. No within-trial ICER was calculated due to the lack of difference in QALYs. CGM was dominated by control in the within-trial CEA.

Table 2

Within-trial cost-effectiveness results

	Control (n = 53)		CGM (n = 103)
	Mean (SD)	Median (range or IQR)	Mean (SD)	Median (range or IQR)
Utility and QALYs					P valueb
Utility change from baseline	0.0 (0.08)	0 (−0.27, 0.26)	−0.01 (0.09)	0 (−0.33, 0.32)	0.78
QALYs	0.46 (0.06)	0.47 (0.13, 0.50)	0.46 (0.05)	0.47 (0.24, 0.50)	0.61
Costs, $					P valueb
Total direct costs	3,118 (3,120)	2,565 (1,928, 3,277)	5,336 (3,070)	5,092 (4,485, 5,726)	<0.01
Direct trial personnel	96 (205)	47 (0, 94)	60 (77)	47 (0, 94)	0.41
Medical care	3,022 (3,088)	2,478 (1,880, 3,122)	2,921 (3,065)	2,509 (1,909, 3,095)	0.86
CGM	0 (0)	0	2,554 (0)	2,554	<0.01
Total indirect costsa	36 (121)	0 (0, 0)	54 (314)	0 (0, 0)	0.85
Missed work	26 (101)	0 (0, 0)	36 (307)	0 (0, 0)	0.65
Poor performance	10 (40)	0 (0, 0)	18 (70)	0 (0, 0)	0.63
Self-management	4,012 (5,529)	2,829 (0, 5,610)	5,473 (10,300)	2,829 (2,259, 5,658)	0.86
Total costs	7,236 (6,097)	5,287 (4,586, 8,223)	11,200 (11,300)	8,178 (6,864, 10,300)	<0.01
Total costsa	3,154 (3,122)	2,565 (1,999, 3,513)	5,593 (3,083)	5,105 (4,496, 5,780)	<0.01
Clinical outcomes: reduction from baseline					P valueb
HbA1c	−0.39 (0.70)	−0.30 (−3.20, 0.90)	−0.99 (0.77)	−1.00 (−3.00, 0.70)	<0.01
Daily strip tests	0.1 (1.5)	0 (−4, 3)	−0.5 (1.5)	0 (−5, 3)	0.04
Insulin dose	1.0 (11)	1 (−23, 25)	−2.3 (22)	0 (−145, 52)	0.31
Daily rate of NSHEs	−0.06 (0.27)	0 (−0.93, 0.47)	−0.12 (0.29)	−0.08 (−1.07, 0.63)	0.02 c
BMI	0.27 (1.07)	0.15 (−2.22, 2.80)	0.59 (1.38)	0.56 (−3.42, 5.28)	0.16
Patients having severe hyperglycemic events, n (%)	1 (2)		0 (0)		0.34
Patients having severe hypoglycemic events, n (%)	2 (4)		2 (2)		0.6
Subgroup analyses: reduction from baseline					P valuec
In the subgroup with high baseline HbA1c (≥8.5%)
HbA1c	−0.53 (0.60)	−0.50 (−1.5, 0.8)	−1.29 (0.77)	−1.30 (−3, 0.3)	0.02
Daily rate of NSHEs	−0.10 (0.29)	−0.07 (−0.93, 0.47)	−0.08 (0.27)	−0.07 (−1.03, 0.63)	0.27
In the subgroup with low baseline HbA1c (<8.5%)
HbA1c	−0.22 (0.78)	−0.10 (−3.20, 0.90)	−0.63 (0.59)	−0.60 (−1.80, 0.70)	0.01
Daily rate of NSHEs	−0.02 (0.25)	0.01 (−0.86, 0.32)	−0.17 (0.32)	−0.14 (−1.07, 0.44)	0.03

In addition to the key CEA results, a number of clinical outcomes were evaluated. CGM lowered HbA_1c (reduction from baseline: CGM: −1.0 ± 0.8% vs. control: −0.4 ± 0.7%) and the daily rate of NSHEs (CGM: −0.12 ± 0.29 vs. control: −0.06 ± 0.27, P = 0.02). In the subgroup with high baseline HbA_1c (≥8.5%), CGM reduced HbA_1c (0.76% DiD, P < 0.01), with no change in the daily rate of NSHEs (P = 0.27) compared with the control group (Table 2). In the subgroup with low baseline HbA_1c (<8.5%), CGM reduced HbA_1c (0.41% DiD, P < 0.01) and the daily rate of NSHEs (0.15 DiD from raw means, 0.125 DiD from adjusted means; P = 0.03). There were no significant differences in insulin dosing, BMI, number of severe hypoglycemic events, and number of patients who changed noninsulin glucose–lowering medicines. With the exception of one CGM patient who stopped using metformin during the trial, all the other patients remained on the same glucose-lowering medicines as at baseline. Age was not significantly associated with any of the clinical outcomes (results not shown).

Long-Term CEA

Base-Case Analyses

The results of the lifetime analysis indicate that CGM is expected to reduce the average incidence rates of all major T1D complications (Table 3). In particular, the use of CGM may lead to reductions in the lifetime risks of end-stage microvascular complications, including blindness (1.9 → 1.8%), end-stage renal disease (11.7 → 10.1%), and amputation (8.1 → 7.1%). Similarly, CGM reduced the lifetime risk of macrovascular complications, including myocardial infarction (37.8 → 37.0%), stroke (7.2 → 7.0%), and heart failure (11.1 → 10.7%). Further, life expectancy improved by 0.72 years on average under CGM (24.29 → 25.01). The improvement in quality-adjusted life expectancy was 0.54 QALYs. The ICER in the base-case was estimated at $98,108 per QALY, and its 95% CI was $90,298–$105,144 per QALY.

Table 3

Results of base-case lifetime CEA

	Control	CGM
Lifetime probability of
Diabetic retinopathy, %
Background	33.5	27.3
Proliferative	28.9	24.6
Macular edema, %	8.4	6.4
Blindness, %	1.9	1.8
Macroalbuminuria, %	19.7	17.2
End-stage renal disease, %	11.7	10.1
Neuropathy, %	33.2	27.3
Amputation, %	8.1	7.1
Myocardial infarction, %	37.8	37.0
Stroke, %	7.2	7.0
Angina, %	20.6	20.6
Heart failure, %	11.1	10.7
Expected life–years	24.29	25.01
Difference in expected life-years	0.72
Discounted QALYs, means	12.78	13.32
Difference in QALYs, mean	0.54
Discounted total costs, mean	305,278	360,486
Difference in costs, mean	55,208
ICER, mean (95% CI*)	98,108 (90,298–105,144)

One-Way Sensitivity and Subgroup Analyses

Figure 1 shows ICER values for one-way sensitivity and subgroup analyses. The most notable changes in ICER were influenced by the price of CGM. In the real-world scenarios with extended use of CGM components (price justification provided in Supplementary Table 4), the ICERs were $33,459 per QALY for G4 and $41,464 per QALY for G5, whereas a 25% increase in the CGM price increased the ICER to $159,679 per QALY. The second key factor was HbA_1c reduction produced by CGM. If the HbA_1c reduction observed during the trial was 50% higher, the ICER would be $61,586 per QALY, whereas a 50% reduction of the glycemic benefit would increase the ICER to $177,268 per QALY. Assumptions regarding the QoL effects of NSHEs also had a substantial effect on the ICERs. The major reason behind this observation is that the frequencies of NSHEs are very high (annual rates observed in the trial: CGM: 85.9 vs. control: 131.4 in patients with low baseline HbA_1c). As a result, any small change in the per-episode QoL disutility can lead to large changes in the annual NSHE-related QoL disutilities. For example, by multiplying the per-episode disutility of −0.00045 in the base-case model with the annual frequencies of NSHEs, the annual NSHE disutilities are −0.0387 (CGM) and −0.0591 (control), causing a difference of +0.02 in annual utilities.

Results of subgroup and one-way sensitivity analyses.

Sensitivity Analysis on Duration of CGM Use

Prolonged use of CGM increased the differences between CGM and control in lifetime costs, life expectancy, and QALYs (Supplementary Table 10). Because costs increased at a higher rate than QALYs, ICERs also increased with longer CGM use. The key CEA outcomes at 25 years of CGM use approach those under the base-case assumption, demonstrating the consistency of our base-case analysis.

PSA

The CEAC (in Supplementary Fig. 1) revealed the consistency of our base-case results. For example, in ∼90% of the PSA scenarios, CGM use was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY.

Conclusions

We assessed the cost-effectiveness of CGM use compared with usual care with SMBG in adults with T1D with elevated HbA_1c levels (≥7.5%). Within the trial, CGM increased costs without immediately improving QoL as measured by the EQ-5D. However, CGM reduced HbA_1c (0.6% DiD), daily strip test use (201 strips/year DiD), and NSHEs (25 episodes/year DiD). When these clinical benefits were extrapolated over a lifetime, CGM emerged as a cost-effective intervention with an ICER of $98,108 per QALY, with patients gaining 0.54 QALYs. This base-case result was robust to most of the sensitivity analyses. Most of the incremental cost was attributable to the CGM costs ($5,548 per annum). With reasonable extended use of CGM components, the annual cost of CGM could be reduced to $3,271, and the ICER would decrease to $33,459 per QALY. Similarly, the ICER for G5 declines from $96,376 per QALY to $41,464 per QALY with real-world use of components. The base-case ICER for this device is below acceptable ICER thresholds ($109,000 and $297,000 per QALY), which are estimated from existing coverage decisions for medical services by U.S. insurance plans, reflecting the societal preferences in the U.S. (29).

Our findings are consistent with the results of prior CEA studies of CGM in patients with T1D. In the JDRF trial, the ICER of CGM versus usual care in the trial adults with HbA_1c ≥7.0% (80% insulin pump users) was $98,679 per QALY (13). The incremental cost was solely due to CGM and not to the pump. Building on the original JDRF trial results, a subsequent CEA study found that the ICER of CGM use versus SMBG in the broader T1D adult population with a full range of HbA_1c was $45,033 per QALY (30). CGM has also been evaluated as a combined intervention with the insulin pump. A CEA study of sensor-augmented pump therapy (CGM + continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion [CSII]) versus CSII in Danish patients with a mean HbA_1c of 8.1% found that the ICER was $24,751 per QALY (31). In a study of sensor-augmented pump therapy versus usual care in adults with inadequately controlled glucose, the ICER was $168,104 per QALY (32). In a similar study in the Swedish health care setting, the ICER of CGM+ CSII versus usual care was $41,000 per QALY (23). A meta-analysis study (33) concluded that CGM was likely to be cost-effective in patients with T1D, particularly in those with poor glucose control.

From a policy perspective, because the total cost of diabetes care for the U.S. population has been steadily rising in an unsustainable fashion, carefully evaluating the clinical and economic values of new glucose-control technologies is critically important. From 2007 to 2012, the total cost of diabetes care in the U.S. rose from $174 billion to $245 billion, a 41% increase (5). Newer CGM technology has been found to significantly improve the precise and accurate measurement of glucose levels and to help optimize glucose control. As such, CGM can be a useful clinical and lifestyle aid for patients with T1D (9,10). Our study provides an important expanded view on the contemporary economic value of CGM in T1D. The prior JDRF trial and its economic study did not have substantial representation by patients with T1D using multiple daily injections of insulin (13). Our study based on the DIAMOND trial confirms that CGM is equally valuable in this large and important segment of the population with T1D.

An important strength of our study is that we selected and modified the Sheffield model (22), one of the most rigorous and thoroughly reported T1D models (34). The Sheffield model is the only model that features all the following properties: ability to account for all major complications, estimation of model parameters solely based on T1D trial data, HbA_1c as a predictor in most risk equations, validation with major T1D studies, capable of sensitivity analysis, and full transparency. Based on the trial findings, we modified the Sheffield model by removing the interdependency between rates of severe hypoglycemic events and HbA_1c levels.

Another strength of this study is that we were able to capture and model NSHEs in our economic model. The cost of a NSHE episode used in the study was $20.32, including $11.09 in direct medical costs and $9.23 in indirect costs (35,36). Lowering NSHEs not only reduces the risk of subsequent severe hypoglycemia (37) but also improves QoL, including psychological well-being, adherence to treatment regimens, work productivity, and quality and quantity of sleep (6,18,19).

Our study has some limitations. The disutility value of a NSHE was difficult to ascertain due to diverse definitions of NSHEs within a limited literature. Prior studies of the QoL effects of NSHE (38,39) were based on life with and without symptomatic hypoglycemia or on the experience of a single symptomatic hypoglycemic event. These patient-reported definitions are distinct from the new international definition of <54 mg/dL for ≥20 successive minutes (21), attainable by CGM device, which has a higher frequency than those based on past definitions and is frequently asymptomatic. The EQ-5D is widely accepted and regularly used for indirect utility assessment in clinical trials but may not be sensitive enough to reflect changes in QoL that are caused by reductions in NSHEs (40). Future work should pursue translating the QoL effects of NSHEs into health state utilities. Although the trial found that CGM reduced the daily rate of NSHEs, most of the CGM patients still experienced NSHEs. This indicates that reducing NSHEs should be an important goal of future interventions. Whether a 6-month treatment effect will be sustained over a person's lifetime is not clear. Our other study limitation is related to the possible inaccuracy of number of missed workdays, number of workdays with <50% productivity, and daily hours devoted to self-management diabetes care. Because patients were surveyed at baseline and 6 months, a 6-month recall period may be too long to recall this information accurately.

Despite higher within-trial costs, for adults with T1D multiple insulin injections and suboptimal glycemic control, CGM is cost-effective at the $100,000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold with improved glucose control and reductions in nonsevere hypoglycemia. With real-world use, CGM can be highly cost-effective.

Supplementary Material

Article Information

Funding. This study was funded by a grant from Dexcom and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Chicago Center for Diabetes Translation Research (P30-DK-092949). A.W. was supported by the Royster Society of Fellows at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. E.S.H. was supported by a National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Midcareer Investigator Award in Patient-Oriented Research (K24-DK-105340).

Duality of Interest. No potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

Author Contributions. W.W. and M.R.S. contributed to statistical analysis. W.W., M.R.S., A.M., A.G.N., A.W., P.Z., M.O., and E.S.H. contributed to administrative, technical, or material support. W.W., M.R.S., and E.S.H. drafted the manuscript. All authors contributed to study supervision and to critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. E.S.H. obtained funding. W.W., M.R.S., and E.S.H. are the guarantors of this work and, as such, had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Prior Presentation. Parts of this study were presented in abstract form at the 39th Annual Meeting of the Society for Medical Decision Making, Pittsburgh, PA, 22–25 October 2017.

Footnotes

References

1. Nathan DM; DCCT/EDIC Research Group . The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications study at 30 years: overview. Diabetes Care 2014;37:9–16 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

2. Kibirige D, Akabwai GP, Kampiire L, Kiggundu DS, Lumu W. Frequency and predictors of suboptimal glycemic control in an African diabetic population. Int J Gen Med 2017;10:33–38 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

3. American Diabetes Association Approaches to glycemic treatment. Sec 7. In Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes–2015. Diabetes Care 2015;38(Suppl. 1):S41–S48 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

4. Miller KM, Foster NC, Beck RW, et al..; T1D Exchange Clinic Network . Current state of type 1 diabetes treatment in the U.S.: updated data from the T1D Exchange Clinic registry. Diabetes Care 2015;38:971–978 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

5. American Diabetes Association Economic costs of diabetes in the U.S. in 2012. Diabetes Care 2013;36:1033–1046 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

6. Fulcher G, Singer J, Castañeda R, et al.. The psychosocial and financial impact of non-severe hypoglycemic events on people with diabetes: two international surveys. J Med Econ 2014;17:751–761 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

7. Heller SR, Frier BM, Hersløv ML, Gundgaard J, Gough SC. Severe hypoglycaemia in adults with insulin-treated diabetes: impact on healthcare resources. Diabet Med 2016;33:471–477 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

8. Bode BW, Schwartz S, Stubbs HA, Block JE. Glycemic characteristics in continuously monitored patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes: normative values. Diabetes Care 2005;28:2361–2366 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

9. Schnell O, Barnard K, Bergenstal R, et al.. Role of continuous glucose monitoring in clinical trials: recommendations on reporting. Diabetes Technol Ther 2017;19:391–399 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

10. Walker MS, Fonda SJ, Salkind S, Vigersky RA. Advantages and disadvantages of realtime continuous glucose monitoring in people with type 2 diabetes. US Endocrinol 2012;8:22–26 [Google Scholar]

11. Yeh HC, Brown TT, Maruthur N, et al.. Comparative effectiveness and safety of methods of insulin delivery and glucose monitoring for diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 2012;157:336–347 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

12. Beck RW, Riddlesworth T, Ruedy K, et al..; DIAMOND Study Group . Effect of continuous glucose monitoring on glycemic control in adults with type 1 diabetes using insulin injections: the DIAMOND randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2017;317:371–378 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

13. Huang ES, O'Grady M, Basu A, et al..; Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Continuous Glucose Monitoring Study Group . The cost-effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2010;33:1269–1274 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

14. Hirsch IB. The first hybrid closed-loop insulin pump: will it meet its potential? Diabetes Technol Ther 2017;19:140–141 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

15. Sanders GD, Neumann PJ, Basu A, et al.. Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses: Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA 2016;316:1093–1103 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

16. Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, et al..; CHEERS Task Force . Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. Value Health 2013;16:e1–e5 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

17. Devlin NJ, Shah KK, Feng Y, Mulhern B, van Hout B. Valuing health-related quality of life: an EQ-5D-5L value set for England. Health Econ 2018;1:7–22 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

18. Brod M, Højbjerre L, Bushnell DM, Hansen CT. Assessing the impact of non-severe hypoglycemic events and treatment in adults: development of the Treatment-Related Impact Measure-Non-severe Hypoglycemic Events (TRIM-HYPO). Qual Life Res 2015;24:2971–2984 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

19. Davis RE, Morrissey M, Peters JR, Wittrup-Jensen K, Kennedy-Martin T, Currie CJ. Impact of hypoglycaemia on quality of life and productivity in type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Curr Med Res Opin 2005;21:1477–1483 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

20. Cariou B, Fontaine P, Eschwege E, et al.. Frequency and predictors of confirmed hypoglycaemia in type 1 and insulin-treated type 2 diabetes mellitus patients in a real-life setting: results from the DIALOG study. Diabetes Metab 2015;41:116–125 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

21. International Hypoglycaemia Study Group Erratum to: glucose concentrations of less than 3.0 mmol/l (54 mg/dl) should be reported in clinical trials: a joint position statement of the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes [published correction appears in Diabetologia 2017;60:3–6]. Diabetologia 2017;60:377. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

22. Thokala P, Kruger J, Brennan A, et al.. Assessing the cost-effectiveness of type 1 diabetes interventions: the Sheffield type 1 diabetes policy model. Diabet Med 2014;31:477–486 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

23. Roze S, Saunders R, Brandt AS, de Portu S, Papo NL, Jendle J. Health-economic analysis of real-time continuous glucose monitoring in people with Type 1 diabetes. Diabet Med 2015;32:618–626 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

25. Aleppo G, Ruedy KJ, Riddlesworth TD, et al..; REPLACE-BG Study Group . REPLACE-BG: a randomized trial comparing continuous glucose monitoring with and without routine blood glucose monitoring in adults with well-controlled type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2017;40:538–545 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

27. Vaddiraju S, Burgess DJ, Tomazos I, Jain FC, Papadimitrakopoulos F. Technologies for continuous glucose monitoring: current problems and future promises. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2010;4:1540–1562 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

28. Garg SK, Voelmle MK, Gottlieb P. Feasibility of 10-day use of a continuous glucose-monitoring system in adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2009;32:436–438 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

29. Braithwaite RS, Meltzer DO, King JT Jr, Leslie D, Roberts MS. What does the value of modern medicine say about the $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year decision rule? Med Care 2008;46:349–356 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

30. McQueen RB, Ellis SL, Campbell JD, Nair KV, Sullivan PW. Cost-effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring and intensive insulin therapy for type 1 diabetes. Cost Eff Resour Alloc 2011;9:13. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

31. Roze S, de Portu S, Smith-Palmer J, Delbaere A, Valentine W, Ridderstråle M. Cost-effectiveness of sensor-augmented pump therapy versus standard insulin pump therapy in patients with type 1 diabetes in Denmark. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2017;128:6–14 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

32. Kamble S, Schulman KA, Reed SD. Cost-effectiveness of sensor-augmented pump therapy in adults with type 1 diabetes in the United States. Value Health 2012;15:632–638 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

33. Pickup JC, Freeman SC, Sutton AJ. Glycaemic control in type 1 diabetes during real time continuous glucose monitoring compared with self monitoring of blood glucose: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials using individual patient data. BMJ 2011;343:d3805. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

34. Henriksson M, Jindal R, Sternhufvud C, Bergenheim K, Sörstadius E, Willis M. A systematic review of cost-effectiveness models in type 1 diabetes mellitus. Pharmacoeconomics 2016;34:569–585 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

35. Foos V, Varol N, Curtis BH, et al.. Economic impact of severe and non-severe hypoglycemia in patients with Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes in the United States. J Med Econ 2015;18:420–432 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

36. Parekh WA, Ashley D, Chubb B, Gillies H, Evans M. Approach to assessing the economic impact of insulin-related hypoglycaemia using the novel Local Impact of Hypoglycaemia Tool. Diabet Med 2015;32:1156–1166 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

37. Fiallo-Scharer R, Cheng J, Beck RW, et al..; Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Continuous Glucose Monitoring Study Group . Factors predictive of severe hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetes: analysis from the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation continuous glucose monitoring randomized control trial dataset. Diabetes Care 2011;34:586–590 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

38. Harris S, Mamdani M, Galbo-Jørgensen CB, Bøgelund M, Gundgaard J, Groleau D. The effect of hypoglycemia on health-related quality of life: Canadian results from a multinational time trade-off survey. Can J Diabetes 2014;38:45–52 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

39. Currie CJ, Poole CD, Woehl A, et al.. The health-related utility and health-related quality of life of hospital-treated subjects with type 1 or type 2 diabetes with particular reference to differing severity of peripheral neuropathy. Diabetologia 2006;49:2272–2280 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

40. Polonsky WH, Hessler D, Ruedy KJ, Beck RW; DIAMOND Study Group . The impact of continuous glucose monitoring on markers of quality of life in adults with type 1 diabetes: further findings from the DIAMOND randomized clinical trial. Diabetes Care 2017;40:736–741 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

---

Articles from Diabetes Care are provided here courtesy of American Diabetes Association

---

andujarthwary.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5961392/

Share this post