دورية أكاديمية
أعرض في EDS

Cost-utility analysis of a flash continuous glucose monitoring system in the management of people with type 2 diabetes mellitus on basal insulin therapy-An Italian healthcare system perspective.

التفاصيل البيبلوغرافية
العنوان: Cost-utility analysis of a flash continuous glucose monitoring system in the management of people with type 2 diabetes mellitus on basal insulin therapy-An Italian healthcare system perspective.
المؤلفون: Del Prato S; Interdisciplinary Research Center 'Health Science' of the Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy., Giorgino F; Department of Precision and Regenerative Medicine and Ionian Area, University of Bari Aldo Moro, Bari, Italy., Szafranski K; Eversana, Burlington, Ontario, Canada., Poon Y; Abbott Diabetes Care, Alameda, California, USA.
المصدر: Diabetes, obesity & metabolism [Diabetes Obes Metab] 2024 Jun 10. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Jun 10.
Publication Model: Ahead of Print
نوع المنشور: Journal Article
اللغة: English
بيانات الدورية: Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 100883645 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1463-1326 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 14628902 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Diabetes Obes Metab Subsets: MEDLINE
أسماء مطبوعة: Original Publication: Oxford : Wiley-Blackwell, c1999-
مستخلص: Aims: To assess the cost-utility of the FreeStyle Libre flash continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system from an Italian healthcare system perspective, when compared with self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in people living with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) receiving basal insulin.
Materials and Methods: A patient-level microsimulation model was run using Microsoft Excel for 10 000 patients over a lifetime horizon, with 3.0% discounting for costs and utilities. Inputs were based on clinical trials and real-world evidence, with patient characteristics reflecting Italian population data. The effect of flash CGM was modelled as a persistent 0.8% reduction in glycated haemoglobin versus SMBG. Costs (€ 2023) and disutilities were applied to glucose monitoring, diabetes complications, severe hypoglycaemia, and diabetic ketoacidosis. The health outcome was measured as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).
Results: Direct costs were €5338 higher with flash CGM than with SMBG. Flash CGM was associated with 0.51 more QALYs than SMBG, giving an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €10 556/QALY. Scenario analysis ICERs ranged from €3825/QALY to €26 737/QALY. In probabilistic analysis, flash CGM was 100% likely to be cost effective at willingness-to-pay thresholds > €20 000/QALY.
Conclusions: From an Italian healthcare system perspective, flash CGM is cost effective compared with SMBG for people living with T2DM on basal insulin.
(© 2024 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)
References: American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee. 6. Glycemic goals and hypoglycemia: standards of Care in Diabetes—2024. Diabetes Care. 2023;47(Supplement_1):S111‐S125.
Cannon A, Handelsman Y, Heile M, Shannon M. Burden of illness in type 2 diabetes mellitus. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2018;24(9‐a Suppl):S5‐S13.
Ong WM, Chua SS, Ng CJ. Barriers and facilitators to self‐monitoring of blood glucose in people with type 2 diabetes using insulin: a qualitative study. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2014;8:237‐246.
Ward JE, Stetson BA, Mokshagundam SP. Patient perspectives on self‐monitoring of blood glucose: perceived recommendations, behaviors and barriers in a clinic sample of adults with type 2 diabetes. J Diabetes Metab Disord. 2015;14:43.
Bergenstal RM, Ahmann AJ, Bailey T, et al. Recommendations for standardizing glucose reporting and analysis to optimize clinical decision making in diabetes: the ambulatory glucose profile. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2013;7(2):562‐578.
Rodbard D. Continuous glucose monitoring: a review of successes, challenges, and opportunities. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2016;18(Suppl 2):S3‐S13.
American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee. 9. Pharmacologic approaches to glycemic treatment: standards of Care in Diabetes—2024. Diabetes Care. 2023;47(Supplement_1):S158‐S178.
Machry RV, Rados DV, Gregório GR, Rodrigues TC. Self‐monitoring blood glucose improves glycemic control in type 2 diabetes without intensive treatment: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2018;142:173‐187.
Deshmukh H, Wilmot EG, Gregory R, et al. Effect of flash glucose monitoring on glycemic control, hypoglycemia, diabetes‐related distress, and resource utilization in the Association of British Clinical Diabetologists (ABCD) Nationwide audit. Diabetes Care. 2020;43(9):2153‐2160.
Haak T, Hanaire H, Ajjan R, Hermanns N, Riveline J, Rayman G. Flash glucose‐sensing technology as a replacement for blood glucose monitoring for the Management of Insulin‐Treated Type 2 diabetes: a multicenter, open‐label randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Ther. 2017;8(1):55‐73.
Evans M, Welsh Z, Ells S, Seibold A. The impact of flash glucose monitoring on Glycaemic control as measured by HbA1c: a meta‐analysis of clinical trials and real‐world observational studies. Diabetes Ther. 2020;11(1):83‐95.
Wada E, Onoue T, Kobayashi T, et al. Flash glucose monitoring helps achieve better glycemic control than conventional self‐monitoring of blood glucose in non‐insulin‐treated type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2020;8(1):e001115.
Carlson AL, Daniel TD, DeSantis A, et al. Flash glucose monitoring in type 2 diabetes managed with basal insulin in the USA: a retrospective real‐world chart review study and meta‐analysis. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2022;10(1):e002590.
Davies MJ, Aroda VR, Collins BS, et al. Management of Hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes, 2022. A consensus report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of diabetes (EASD). Diabetes Care. 2022;45(11):2753‐2786.
American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee. 7. Diabetes technology: standards of Care in Diabetes—2024. Diabetes Care. 2023;47(Supplement_1):S126‐S144.
Mannucci E, Candido R, Monache LD, et al. Italian guidelines for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Acta Diabetol. 2022;59(5):579‐622.
Marcellusi A, Viti R, Sciattella P, et al. Economic aspects in the management of diabetes in Italy. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care. 2016;4(1):e000197.
Kanavos P, Aardweg S, Schurer W. Diabetes expenditure, burden of disease and management in 5 EU countries. 2012 https://www.lse.ac.uk/business/consulting/assets/documents/diabetes-expenditure-burden-of-disease-and-management-in-5-eu-countries.pdf Accessed 21 November 2023.
Marcellusi A, Viti R, Mecozzi A, Mennini FS. The direct and indirect cost of diabetes in Italy: a prevalence probabilistic approach. Eur J Health Econ. 2016;17(2):139‐147.
Grimaccia F, Kanavos P. Cost, outcomes, treatment pathways and challenges for diabetes care in Italy. Glob Health. 2014;10(1):58.
Szafranski K, De Pouvourville G, Greenberg D, et al. The DEDUCE model, a cost‐utility tool using patient‐level microsimulation to evaluate sensor‐based glucose monitoring Systems in Type 1 and type 2 diabetes: comparative validation. Value Health. 2024;27:500‐507. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2024.01.010.
Basu S, Sussman JB, Berkowitz SA, Hayward RA, Yudkin JS. Development and validation of risk equations for complications of type 2 diabetes (RECODe) using individual participant data from randomised trials. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2017;5(10):788‐798.
The Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes Study Group, Gerstein HC, Miller ME, et al. Effects of intensive glucose lowering in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(24):2545‐2559.
Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco. Linee Guida Per la Compilazione del Dossier a Supporto Della Domanda di Rimborsabilita e Prezzo di un Medicinale. 2020 https://www.aifa.gov.it/en/web/guest/linea-guida-capitolo-9 Accessed 21 November 2023.
Associazione Medici Diabetologi. Le Monografie Degli Annali AMD 2020: Indicatori di inerzia clinica nel DM2. 2020; 1–45 https://aemmedi.it/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Monografia-inerzia-clinica_2020-web-prot-1.pdf Accessed 21 November 2023.Available at.
Associazione Medici Diabetologi. Le Monde Annali AMD 2021: Diabete di Tipo 2. 2022; 1–95 https://aemmedi.it/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/AMD-diabete-tipo-2-2022-prot.pdf Accessed 21 November 2023.Available at.
Societa Italiana di Medicina Generale e Delle Cure Primarie. Epidemiologia e caratterizzazione della popolazione con diabete mellito di tipo 2 in terapia insulinica con schema multi‐iniettivo e con SOLA basale. 2020.
Malanda UL, Welschen LM, Riphagen II, Dekker JM, Nijpels G, Bot SD. Self‐monitoring of blood glucose in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who are not using insulin. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;1:CD005060.
Guerci B, Roussel R, Levrat‐Guillen F, et al. Important decrease in hospitalizations for acute diabetes events following FreeStyle libre system initiation in people with type 2 diabetes on basal insulin therapy in France. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2023;25(1):20‐30.
Sagy I, Zimhony‐Nissim N, Brandstaetter E, et al. Outcomes of diabetic ketoacidosis in a tertiary centre with restricted intensive care unit bed capacity. Intern Med J. 2021;51(6):948‐954.
Edridge CL, Dunkley AJ, Bodicoat DH, et al. Prevalence and incidence of Hypoglycaemia in 532,542 people with type 2 diabetes on Oral therapies and insulin: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of population based studies. PLoS One. 2015;10(6):e0126427.
Bergenstal RM, Kerr MSD, Roberts GJ, Souto D, Nabutovsky Y, Hirsch IB. Flash CGM is associated with reduced diabetes events and hospitalizations in insulin‐treated type 2 diabetes. J Endocr Soc. 2021;5(4):bvab013.
Association of Diabetologists and Italian Society for Diabetes (Associazione Medici Diabetologici & Società Italiana di Diabetologia). Italian standards for treatment of diabetes mellitus [Standard Italiani per la cura del diabete mellito]. 2018 https://aemmedi.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/AMD-Standard-unico1.pdf Accessed 21 November 2023.
Haldrup S, Lapolla A, Gundgaard J, Wolden ML. Cost‐effectiveness of switching to insulin degludec from other basal insulins in real‐world clinical practice in Italy. J Med Econ. 2020;23(3):271‐279.
Laxy M, Becker J, Kähm K, et al. Utility decrements associated with diabetes and related complications: estimates from a population‐based study in Germany. Value Health. 2021;24(2):274‐280.
Bilir SP, Hellmund R, Wehler B, Li H, Munakata J, Lamotte M. Cost‐effectiveness analysis of a flash glucose monitoring system for patients with type 1 diabetes receiving intensive insulin treatment in Sweden. Eur Endocrinol. 2018;14(2):73‐79.
CADTH. New Drugs for Type 2 Diabetes: Second‐Line Therapy – Science Report. 2017 https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/pdf/TR0012_T2D_Science_Report.pdf Accessed 21 November 2023.
Jorissen W, Annemans L, Louis N, Nilsson A, Willis M. Health economic modelling of diabetic kidney disease in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with Canagliflozin in Belgium. Acta Clin Belg. 2022;77(6):945‐954.
Shao H, Yang S, Fonseca V, Stoecker C, Shi L. Estimating quality of life decrements due to diabetes complications in the United States: the health utility index (HUI) diabetes complication equation. PharmacoEconomics. 2019;37(7):921‐929.
Matza LS, Stewart KD, Davies EW, Hellmund R, Polonsky WH, Kerr D. Health state utilities associated with glucose monitoring devices. Value Health. 2017;20(3):507‐511.
Currie CJ, Morgan CL, Poole CD, Sharplin P, Lammert M, McEwan P. Multivariate models of health‐related utility and the fear of hypoglycaemia in people with diabetes. Curr Med Res Opin. 2006;22(8):1523‐1534.
Conti M, Massari G, Meneghini E, et al. Effectiveness and safety of the intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring system FreeStyle libre 2 in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin or Oral antidiabetic drugs: an observational, retrospective real‐world study. J Clin Med. 2024;13(3):642.
Russo P, Zanuzzi M, Carletto A, Sammarco A, Romano F, Manca A. Role of economic evaluations on pricing of medicines reimbursed by the Italian National Health Service. PharmacoEconomics. 2023;41(1):107‐117.
Kongnakorn T, Eckmann C, Bassetti M, et al. Cost‐effectiveness analysis comparing ceftazidime/avibactam (CAZ‐AVI) as empirical treatment comparing to ceftolozane/tazobactam and to meropenem for complicated intra‐abdominal infection (cIAI). Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2019;8:204.
Di Minno G, Ravasio R. Analisi costo‐efficacia di caplacizumab nel nuovo standard of care della porpora trombotica trombocitopenica immune in Italia. Glob Reg Health Technol Assess. 2021;8:43‐52.
Jendle J, Eeg‐Olofsson K, Svensson AM, Franzen S, Lamotte M, Levrat‐Guillen F. Cost‐effectiveness of the FreeStyle libre(®) system versus blood glucose self‐monitoring in individuals with type 2 diabetes on insulin treatment in Sweden. Diabetes Ther. 2021;12(12):3137‐3152.
Ajjan R, Bilir SP, Hellmund R, Souto D. Cost‐effectiveness analysis of flash glucose monitoring system for people with type 2 diabetes receiving intensive insulin treatment. Diabetes Ther. 2022;13(11–12):1933‐1945.
Johnston AR, Poll JB, Hays EM, Jones CW. Perceived impact of continuous glucose monitor use on quality of life and self‐care for patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Epidemiol Manag. 2022;6:100068.
فهرسة مساهمة: Keywords: basal insulin; cost‐effectiveness; glycaemic control; health economics
تواريخ الأحداث: Date Created: 20240610 Latest Revision: 20240610
رمز التحديث: 20240610
DOI: 10.1111/dom.15703
PMID: 38853717
قاعدة البيانات: MEDLINE
الوصف
تدمد:1463-1326
DOI:10.1111/dom.15703