Cost‐effectiveness of a Novel Hypoglycaemia Programme: The ‘HARPdoc vs BGAT’ RCT
Primary result · Incremental net benefitResult — go to the resultMean INB £1521 per participantAuthors' conclusion
Addressing health cognitions in people with treatment-resistant hypoglycaemia achieved cost-effectiveness compared to an alternative approach through improved QoL and reduced need for medical services, including hospital admissions. Compared to BGAT, HARPdoc offers a cost-effective adjunct to educational and technological solutions for problematic hypoglycaemia.
Study context
- Population
- Adults with T1D and treatment-resistant problematic hypoglycaemia
- Comparison
- HARPdoc vs BGAT
- Primary endpoint
- INB of HARPdoc vs BGAT (cost-utility analysis using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs))
- Follow-up
- 24 months
Methodological detailscost-utility analysis
- Cost-utility analysis
Primary result
Incremental net benefit
Mean incremental net benefit (INB)
£1521 per participant
As reported in the abstract
Further findings
| Outcome | Estimate |
|---|---|
| Mean total cost per participant · 24 monthsLower with HARPdoc | difference £194 (95% CI -£2498 to £1942) |
| QALYs · 24 months post-randomisationEquivalent to 24 days in full health | mean incremental gain 0.067 QALYs/participant |
Original publication
Cost‐effectiveness of a Novel Hypoglycaemia Programme: The ‘HARPdoc vs BGAT’ RCT. Diabet Med. Published 29 February 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →