Long‐term cost‐effectiveness of Dexcom G6 real‐time continuous glucose monitoring system in people with type 1 diabetes in Australia. Issue 7 (25th March 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Isitt, J. J.; Roze, S.; Tilden, D.; Arora, N.; Palmer, A. J.; Jones, T.; Rentoul, D.; Lynch, P.
• Is Part Of: Diabetic medicine. Volume 39:Issue 7(2022)
• Page Start: n/a
• Page End: n/a
• Publication Date: 2022-03-25
• Subjects: Australia -- cost‐effectiveness -- real‐time continuous glucose monitoring -- rt‐CGM -- type 1 diabetes; Diabetes -- Periodicals; 616.462
• DOI: 10.1111/dme.14831
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0742-3071

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: Real‐time continuous glucose monitoring (rt‐CGM) allows patients with diabetes to adjust insulin dosing, potentially improving glucose control. This study aimed to compare the long‐term cost‐effectiveness of the Dexcom G6 rt‐CGM device versus self‐monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) and flash glucose monitoring (FGM) in Australia in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Methods: Long‐term costs and clinical outcomes were estimated using the CORE Diabetes Model. Clinical input data for the analysis of rt‐CGM versus SMBG and FGM were sourced from the DIAMOND study and a network meta‐analysis, respectively. Rt‐CGM and FGM were associated with quality of life (QoL) benefits due to reduced fear of hypoglycaemia (FoH) and fingerstick testing. Analyses were performed over a lifetime time horizon from an Australian healthcare payer perspective, including direct costs from published data. Future costs and clinical outcomes were discounted at 5% per annum. Results: Rt‐CGM was associated with an increased quality‐adjusted life expectancy of 1.199 quality‐adjusted life years (QALYs), increased mean total lifetime costs of AUD 21, 596 and an incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) of AUD 18, 020 per QALY gained compared with SMBG. Compared with FGM, rt‐CGM was associated with an increased quality‐adjusted life expectancy of 0.569 QALYs, increased mean total lifetime costs of AUD 11, 064 and an ICER of AUD 19, 455 per QALY gained. Key drivers of outcomes included HbA1c benefits and QoL benefits associated with reduced FoH and fingerstick testing. Conclusions: Due to improved clinical outcomes and QoL gains rt‐CGM is highly cost‐effective compared with SMBG and FGM in people with T1D in Australia.