Cost-effectiveness of sensor-augmented pump therapy in two different patient populations with type 1 diabetes in Italy

The Health Economics of Automated Insulin Delivery Systems and the Potential Use of Time in Range in Diabetes Modeling: A Narrative Review

Intensive therapy with exogenous insulin is the treatment of choice for individuals living with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and some with type 2 diabetes, alongside regular glucose monitoring. The development of systems allowing (semi-)automated insulin delivery (AID), by connecting glucose sensors with insulin pumps and algorithms, has revolutionized insulin therapy. Indeed, AID systems have demonstrated a proven impact on overall glucose control, as indicated by effects on glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), risk of severe hypoglycemia, and quality of life measures. An alternative endpoint for glucose control that has arisen from the use of sensor-based continuous glucose monitoring is the time in range (TIR) measure, which offers an indication of overall glucose control, while adding information on the quality of control with regard to blood glucose level stability. A review of literature on the health-economic value of AID systems was conducted, with a focus placed on the growing place of TIR as an endpoint in studies involving AID systems. Results showed that the majority of economic evaluations of AID systems focused on individuals with T1D and found AID systems to be cost-effective. Most studies incorporated HbA1c, rather than TIR, as a clinical endpoint to determine treatment effects on glucose control and subsequent quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains. Likely reasons for the choice of HbA1c as the chosen endpoint is the use of this metric in most validated and established economic models, as well as the limited publicly available evidence on appropriate methodologies for TIR data incorporation within conventional economic evaluations. Future studies could include the novel TIR metric in health-economic evaluations as an additional measure of treatment effects and subsequent QALY gains, to facilitate a holistic representation of the impact of AID systems on glycemic control. This would provide decision makers with robust evidence to inform future recommendations for health care interventions.

Pediatric unit spending in the North of Italy during the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

During the COVID-19 pandemic, accesses to pediatric health care services decreased, as well as the consumption of traditional drugs, while the median cost per patient at the emergency department slightly increased and the cost of pediatric COVID-19 admissions to the pediatric ward too. Overall spending of a secondary level Pediatric Unit in the last two years has not been previously reported.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study conducted by the Pediatric Unit of S. Chiara Hospital of Trento, North of Italy. We collected data on consumption and spending before and during the COVID-19 pandemic (between January 2018 and December 2022).

RESULTS

The total spending ranged from 2.141.220 to 2.483.931 euros between 2018 and 2022. COVID-19 spending accounted only for 5-8% of the overall budget, while two macro-areas of spending were identified: (i) biologic drugs for inherited metabolic diseases (IMDs), that impacted for 35.4-41.3%, and (ii) technology devices for type 1 diabetes (T1D), that accounted for 41.6-32.8% of the overall budget, in 2021 and 2022, respectively. Analysis of costs along with the different health care services revealed that: (i) the spending for COVID-19 antigen tests and personal protective equipment had a major impact on the Emergency room budget (from 54 to 68% in the two years); (ii) biological drugs accounted mainly on the Pediatric Ward (for 57%), Day Hospital (for 74%) and rare disease center budget (for 95% of the spending); (iii) the cost for T1D devices was mainly due to continuous glucose monitoring, and impacted for the 97% of the outpatient clinic budget.

CONCLUSIONS

The main impact on the budget was not due to COVID-19 pandemic related costs, but to the costs for biologic drugs and T1D devices. Therefore, cost savings could be mainly achieved through generic and biosimilars introduction and with inter-regionals calls for technology devices. We emphasize how the control of spending in pediatric hospital care has probably moved from the bedside (savings on traditional drugs as antibiotics) to the bench of national or inter-regional round tables, to obtain discounts on the costs of biologic drugs and medical devices. Here we provide for the first-time in literature, data for bench-marking between secondary level Pediatric Units before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

A systematic review: Cost-effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring compared to self-monitoring of blood glucose in type 1 diabetes

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is rapidly becoming a vital tool in the management of type 1 diabetes. Its use has been shown to improve glycaemic management and reduce the risk of hypoglycaemic events. The cost of CGM remains a barrier to its widespread application. We aimed to identify and synthesize evidence about the cost-effectiveness of utilizing CGM in patients with type 1 diabetes. Studies were identified from MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library from January 2010 to February 2022. Those that assessed the cost-effectiveness of CGM compared to self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) in patients with type 1 diabetes and reported lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were included. Studies on critically ill or pregnant patients were excluded. Nineteen studies were identified. Most studies compared continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion and SMBG to a sensor-augmented pump (SAP). The estimated ICER range was [$18,734-$99,941] and the quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gain range was [0.76-2.99]. Use in patients with suboptimal management or greater hypoglycaemic risk revealed more homogenous results and lower ICERs. Limited studies assessed CGM in the context of multiple daily injections (MDI) (n = 4), MDI and SMBG versus SAP (n = 2) and three studies included hybrid closed-loop systems. Most studies (n = 17) concluded that CGM is a cost-effective tool. This systematic review suggests that CGM appears to be a cost-effective tool for individuals with type 1 diabetes. Cost-effectiveness is driven by reducing short- and long-term complications. Use in patients with suboptimal management or at risk of severe hypoglycaemia is most cost-effective.

American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline: The Use of Advanced Technology in the Management of Persons With Diabetes Mellitus

OBJECTIVE

To provide evidence-based recommendations regarding the use of advanced technology in the management of persons with diabetes mellitus to clinicians, diabetes-care teams, health care professionals, and other stakeholders.

METHODS

The American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE) conducted literature searches for relevant articles published from 2012 to 2021. A task force of medical experts developed evidence-based guideline recommendations based on a review of clinical evidence, expertise, and informal consensus, according to established AACE protocol for guideline development.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcomes of interest included hemoglobin A1C, rates and severity of hypoglycemia, time in range, time above range, and time below range.

RESULTS

This guideline includes 37 evidence-based clinical practice recommendations for advanced diabetes technology and contains 357 citations that inform the evidence base.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Evidence-based recommendations were developed regarding the efficacy and safety of devices for the management of persons with diabetes mellitus, metrics used to aide with the assessment of advanced diabetes technology, and standards for the implementation of this technology.

CONCLUSIONS

Advanced diabetes technology can assist persons with diabetes to safely and effectively achieve glycemic targets, improve quality of life, add greater convenience, potentially reduce burden of care, and offer a personalized approach to self-management. Furthermore, diabetes technology can improve the efficiency and effectiveness of clinical decision-making. Successful integration of these technologies into care requires knowledge about the functionality of devices in this rapidly changing field. This information will allow health care professionals to provide necessary education and training to persons accessing these treatments and have the required expertise to interpret data and make appropriate treatment adjustments.

Advances, Challenges, and Cost Associated with Continuous Glucose Monitor Use in Adolescents and Young Adults with Type 1 Diabetes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Continuous glucose monitors (CGM) are transforming diabetes management, yet adolescents and young adults (AYA) with type 1 diabetes (T1D) do not experience the same benefits seen with CGM use in adults. The purpose of this review is to explore advances, challenges, and the financial impact of CGM use in AYA with T1D.

RECENT FINDINGS

CGM studies in young adults highlight challenges and suggest unique barriers to CGM use in this population. Recent studies also demonstrate differences in CGM use related to race and ethnicity, raising questions about potential bias and emphasizing the importance of patient-provider communication. Cost of these devices remains a significant barrier, especially in countries without nationalized reimbursement of CGM. More research is needed to understand and address the differences in CGM utilization and to increase the accessibility of CGM therapy given the significant potential benefits of CGM in this high-risk group.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of a Hybrid Closed-Loop System Versus Multiple Daily Injections and Capillary Glucose Testing for Adults with Type 1 Diabetes

Background: Hybrid closed-loop systems may offer improved HbA1c levels, more time-in-range, and less hypoglycemia than alternative treatment strategies. However, it is unclear if glycemic improvements offset this technology's higher acquisition costs. Among adults with type 1 diabetes in Australia, we sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a hybrid closed-loop system in comparison with the current standard of care, comprising insulin injections and capillary glucose testing. Methods: Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using decision analysis in combination with a Markov model to simulate disease progression in a cohort of adults with type 1 diabetes and compare the downstream health and economic consequences of hybrid closed-loop therapy versus current standard of care. Transition probabilities and utilities were sourced from published studies. Costs were considered from the perspective of the Australian health care system. A lifetime horizon was considered, with annual discount rates of 5% applied to future costs and outcomes. Uncertainty was assessed with probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses. Results: Use of a hybrid closed-loop system resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of Australian dollars (AUD) 37,767 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. This is below the traditionally cited willingness to pay a threshold of $50,000 per QALY gained in the Australian setting. Sensitivity analyses that varied baseline glycemic control, treatment effects, technology costs, age, discount rates, and time horizon indicated the results to be robust. Conclusions: For adults with type 1 diabetes, hybrid closed-loop therapy is likely to be cost-effective compared with multiple daily injections and capillary glucose testing in Australia.

Cost-effectiveness of health technologies in adults with type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and narrative synthesis

BACKGROUND

With the rapid development of technologies for type 1 diabetes, economic evaluations are integral in guiding cost-effective clinical and policy decisions. We therefore aimed to review and synthesise the current economic literature for available diabetes management technologies and outline key determinants of cost-effectiveness.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in April 2019 that focused on modelling or trial based economic evaluations. Searched databases included Medline, Medline in-process and other non-indexed citations, EMBASE, PubMed, All Evidenced Based Medicine Reviews, EconLit, Cost-effectiveness analysis Registry, Research Papers in Economics, Web of Science, PsycInfo, CINAHL, and PROSPERO from inception. We assessed quality of included studies with the Questionnaire to Assess Relevance and Credibility of Modeling Studies for Informing Health Care Decision Making an ISPOR-AMCP-NPC good practice task force report. Screening of abstracts and full-texts, appraisal, and extraction were performed by two independent researches.

RESULTS

We identified 16,772 publications, of which 35 were analysed and included 11 health technologies. Despite a lack of consensus, most studies reported that insulin pumps (56%) or interstitial glucose sensors (62%) were cost-effective, although incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged widely ($14,266-$2,997,832 USD). Cost-effectiveness for combined insulin pumps and glucose sensors was less clear. Determinants of cost-effectiveness included treatment effects on glycosylated haemoglobin and hypoglycaemia, costing of technologies and complications, and measures of utility.

CONCLUSIONS

Insulin pumps or glucose sensors appeared cost-effective, particularly in populations with higher HbA1c levels and rates of hypoglycaemia. However, cost-effectiveness for combined insulin pumps and glucose sensors was less clear.

REGISTRATION

The study was registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42017077221.

Cost-Effectiveness of Sensor-Augmented Insulin Pump Therapy Versus Continuous Insulin Infusion in Patients with Type 1 Diabetes in Turkey

Background and Aims: Sensor-augmented pump therapy (SAP) combines continuous glucose monitoring with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII). SAP is costlier than CSII but provides additional clinical benefits relative to CSII alone. A long-term cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to determine whether SAP is cost-effective relative to CSII in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in Turkey. Methods: Analyses were performed in two different patient cohorts, one with poor glycemic control at baseline (mean glycated hemoglobin 9.0% [75 mmol/mol]) and a second cohort considered to be at increased risk of hypoglycemic events. Clinical input data and direct medical costs were sourced from published literature. The analysis was performed from a third-party payer perspective over patient lifetimes and future costs and clinical outcomes were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Results: In both patient cohorts, SAP was associated with a gain in quality-adjusted life expectancy but higher costs relative to CSII (incremental gain of 1.40 quality-adjusted life years [QALYs] in patients with poor baseline glycemic control and 1.73 QALYs in patients at increased risk of hypoglycemic events). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for SAP versus CSII were TRY 76,971 (EUR 11,612) per QALY gained for patients with poor baseline glycemic control and TRY 69,534 (EUR 10,490) per QALY gained for patients at increased risk for hypoglycemia. Conclusions: SAP is associated with improved long-term clinical outcomes versus CSII, and in Turkey, SAP is likely to represent good value for money compared with CSII in T1D patients with poor glycemic control and/or with frequent severe hypoglycemic events.