Back to Search
Start Over
Personalizing the Use of a Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring Device in Individuals With Type 1 Diabetes: A Cost-Effectiveness Perspective in the Netherlands (FLARE-NL 9).
Personalizing the Use of a Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring Device in Individuals With Type 1 Diabetes: A Cost-Effectiveness Perspective in the Netherlands (FLARE-NL 9).
- Source :
-
Journal of diabetes science and technology [J Diabetes Sci Technol] 2024 Jan; Vol. 18 (1), pp. 135-142. Date of Electronic Publication: 2022 Jul 09. - Publication Year :
- 2024
-
Abstract
- Aims: Intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) is a method to monitor glucose concentrations without using a finger prick. Among persons with type 1 diabetes (T1D), isCGM results in improved glycemic control, less disease burden and improved health-related quality of life (HRQoL). However, it is not clear for which subgroups of patients isCGM is cost-effective. We aimed to provide a real-world cost-effectiveness perspective.<br />Methods: We used clinical data from a 1-year nationwide Dutch prospective observational study (N = 381) and linked these to insurance records. Health-related quality of life was assessed with the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire. Individuals were categorized into 4 subgroups: (1) frequent hypoglycemic events (58%), (2) HbA1c > 70 mmol/mol (8.5%) (19%), (3) occupation that requires avoiding finger pricks and/or hypoglycemia (5%), and (4) multiple indications (18%). Comparing costs and outcomes 12 months before and after isCGM initiation, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for the total cohort and each subgroup from a societal perspective (including healthcare and productivity loss costs) at the willingness to pay of €50,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained.<br />Results: From a societal perspective, isCGM was dominant in all subgroups (ie higher HRQoL gain with lower costs) except for subgroup 1. From a healthcare payer perspective, the probabilities of isCGM being cost-effective were 16%, 9%, 30%, 98%, and 65% for the total cohort and subgroup 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Most sensitivity analyses confirmed these findings.<br />Conclusions: Comparing subgroups of isCGM users allows to prioritize them based on cost-effectiveness. The most cost-effective subgroup was occupation-related indications, followed by multiple indications, high HbA1c and the frequent hypoglycemic events subgroups. However, controlled studies with larger sample size are needed to draw definitive conclusions.<br />Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The views presented here are those of Onno van der Galien and not necessarily those of Achmea. Other authors have no conflict of interest related to this article.
Details
- Language :
- English
- ISSN :
- 1932-2968
- Volume :
- 18
- Issue :
- 1
- Database :
- MEDLINE
- Journal :
- Journal of diabetes science and technology
- Publication Type :
- Academic Journal
- Accession number :
- 35815617
- Full Text :
- https://doi.org/10.1177/19322968221109841