Cost‐utility of real‐time continuous glucose monitoring versus self‐monitoring of blood glucose and intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring in people with type 1 diabetes receiving multiple daily insulin injections in Denmark
Hamza Alshannaq, Greg Cogswell, Richard F. Pollock, Waqas Ahmed, Gregory J. Norman, Peter Lynch, Stéphane Roze
Abstract
AIMS: To determine the cost-effectiveness of the Dexcom G6 real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rt-CGM) system compared with both the self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) and the Abbott FreeStyle Libre 1 and 2 intermittently scanned CGM (is-CGM) devices in people with type 1 diabetes receiving multiple daily insulin injections in Denmark. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The analysis was performed using the IQVIA Core Diabetes Model, which associates rt-CGM use with glycated haemoglobin reductions of 0.6% and 0.36% based on data from the DIAMOND and ALERTT1 trials, respectively, compared with SMBG and is-CGM use. The analysis was performed from the payer perspective over a 50-year time horizon; future costs and clinical outcomes were discounted at 4% per annum. RESULTS: The use of rt-CGM was associated with an incremental gain of 1.37 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) versus SMBG. Total mean lifetime costs were Danish Krone (DKK) 894 535 for rt-CGM and DKK 823 474 for SMBG, resulting in an incremental cost-utility ratio of DKK 51 918 per QALY gained versus SMBG. Compared with is-CGM, the use of rt-CGM led to a gain of 0.87 QALYs and higher mean lifetime costs resulting in an incremental cost-utility ratio of DKK 40 879 to DKK 34 367 per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: In Denmark, the rt-CGM was projected to be highly cost-effective versus both SMBG and is-CGM, based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of 1× per capita gross domestic product per QALY gained. These findings may help inform future policies to address regional disparities in access to rt-CGM.