Cost-utility of real-time continuous glucose monitoring versus self-monitoring of blood glucose in people with insulin-treated Type II diabetes in France

Aim: Clinical trials and real-world data for Type II diabetes both show that glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels and hypoglycemia occurrence can be reduced by real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rt-CGM) versus self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). The present cost-utility study investigated the long-term health economic outcomes associated with using rt-CGM versus SMBG in people with insulin-treated Type II diabetes in France. Materials & methods: Effectiveness data were obtained from a real-world study, which showed rt-CGM reduced HbA1c by 0.56% (6.1 mmol/mol) versus sustained SMBG. Analyses were conducted using the IQVIA Core Diabetes Model. A French payer perspective was adopted over a lifetime horizon for a cohort aged 64.5 years with baseline HbA1c of 8.3% (67 mmol/mol). A willingness-to-pay threshold of €147,093 was used, and future costs and outcomes were discounted at 4% annually. Results: The analysis projected quality-adjusted life expectancy was 8.50 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for rt-CGM versus 8.03 QALYs for SMBG (difference: 0.47 QALYs), while total mean lifetime costs were €93,978 for rt-CGM versus €82,834 for SMBG (difference: €11,144). This yielded an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of €23,772 per QALY gained for rt-CGM versus SMBG. Results were particularly sensitive to changes in the treatment effect (i.e., change in HbA1c), annual price and quality of life benefit associated with rt-CGM, SMBG frequency, baseline patient age and complication costs. Conclusion: The use of rt-CGM is likely to be cost-effective versus SMBG for people with insulin-treated Type II diabetes in France

Cost-utility of real-time continuous glucose monitoring versus self-monitoring of blood glucose in people with insulin-treated Type 2 diabetes in Canada

Aim: Clinical trials and real-world data for Type 2 diabetes have shown that real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rt-CGM) lowers glycated hemoglobin (A1c) and reduces hypoglycemia relative to self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). This analysis examined the long-term health and economic outcomes associated with using rt-CGM versus SMBG in people with insulin-treated Type 2 diabetes in Canada. Materials & methods: Clinical data were sourced from a real-world study, inwhich rt-CGM reduced A1C by 0.56% versus continued SMBG. The analysis was performed using the IQVIA Core Diabetes Model, from a Canadian payer perspective over a lifetime horizon for a cohort aged 65 years with an A1C of 8.3% at baseline. Future costs and clinical outcomes were discounted at 1.5% annually. Results: Projected total mean lifetime costs were CAD 207,466 for rt-CGM versus CAD 189,863 for SMBG (difference: CAD 17,602) and projected mean quality-adjusted life expectancy was 9.97 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for rt-CGM versus 9.02 QALYs for SMBG (difference: 0.95 QALYs), resulting in an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of CAD 18,523 per QALY gained for rt-CGM versus SMBG. Findings were sensitive to changes in the A1C treatment effect, annual cost and quality of life benefit associated with using rt-CGM, SMBG frequency, and baseline age, but ICURs remained below CAD 50,000 per QALY in all analyses. Conclusion: For people in Canada with insulin-treated Type 2 diabetes and poor glycemic control, use of rt-CGM is likely to be cost-effective relative to SMBG

Supplementary materials: Cost-utility of real-time continuous glucose monitoring versus self-monitoring of bloodglucose in people with insulin-treated Type II diabetes in France

These are peer-reviewed supplementary tables for the article 'Cost-utility of real-time continuous glucose monitoring versus self-monitoring of blood glucose in people with insulin-treated Type II diabetes in France' published in the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research.Supplemental Table S1: Utility and disutility values for events/states.Supplemental Table S2: Costs per diabetes complication or event.Supplemental Table S3: Annual treatment and device costs.Supplemental Table S4: Projected diabetes complications for rt-CGM versus SMBGReferences: References for online-only supplementary material.Aim: Clinical trials and real-world data for Type II diabetes both show that glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c)levels and hypoglycemia occurrence can be reduced by real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rt-CGM)versus self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). The present cost-utility study investigated the long-termhealth economic outcomes associated with using rt-CGM versus SMBG in people with insulin-treated TypeII diabetes in France. Materials & methods: Effectiveness data were obtained from a real-world study,which showed rt-CGM reduced HbA1c by 0.56% (6.1 mmol/mol) versus sustained SMBG. Analyses wereconducted using the IQVIA Core Diabetes Model. A French payer perspective was adopted over a lifetimehorizon for a cohort aged 64.5 years with baseline HbA1c of 8.3% (67 mmol/mol). A willingness-to-paythreshold of €147,093 was used, and future costs and outcomes were discounted at 4% annually. Results:The analysis projected quality-adjusted life expectancy was 8.50 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for rt-CGM versus 8.03 QALYs for SMBG (difference: 0.47 QALYs), while total mean lifetime costs were €93,978for rt-CGM versus €82,834 for SMBG (difference: €11,144). This yielded an incremental cost-utility ratio(ICUR) of €23,772 per QALY gained for rt-CGM versus SMBG. Results were particularly sensitive to changesin the treatment effect (i.e., change in HbA1c), annual price and quality of life benefit associated withrt-CGM, SMBG frequency, baseline patient age and complication costs. Conclusion: The use of rt-CGM islikely to be cost-effective versus SMBG for people with insulin-treated Type II diabetes in France.</p

SARS-CoV-2 vaccination modelling for safe surgery to save lives: data from an international prospective cohort study

Background: Preoperative SARS-CoV-2 vaccination could support safer elective surgery. Vaccine numbers are limited so this study aimed to inform their prioritization by modelling. Methods: The primary outcome was the number needed to vaccinate (NNV) to prevent one COVID-19-related death in 1 year. NNVs were based on postoperative SARS-CoV-2 rates and mortality in an international cohort study (surgical patients), and community SARS-CoV-2 incidence and case fatality data (general population). NNV estimates were stratified by age (18-49, 50-69, 70 or more years) and type of surgery. Best- and worst-case scenarios were used to describe uncertainty. Results: NNVs were more favourable in surgical patients than the general population. The most favourable NNVs were in patients aged 70 years or more needing cancer surgery (351; best case 196, worst case 816) or non-cancer surgery (733; best case 407, worst case 1664). Both exceeded the NNV in the general population (1840; best case 1196, worst case 3066). NNVs for surgical patients remained favourable at a range of SARS-CoV-2 incidence rates in sensitivity analysis modelling. Globally, prioritizing preoperative vaccination of patients needing elective surgery ahead of the general population could prevent an additional 58 687 (best case 115 007, worst case 20 177) COVID-19-related deaths in 1 year. Conclusion: As global roll out of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination proceeds, patients needing elective surgery should be prioritized ahead of the general population