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
Authors' conclusion
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.
Study context
- Population
- People with T1D receiving MDI in Denmark
- Comparison
- rtCGM vs self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) and vs isCGM
- Outcome
- Cost-effectiveness (QALYs, lifetime costs, incremental cost-utility ratio)
- Follow-up
- 50-year time horizon
Methodological detailsIQVIA Core Diabetes Model, payer perspective, 50-year time horizon, discounting 4% per annum, Model assumed HbA1c reductions with rtCGM of 0.6% vs SMBG (DIAMOND) and 0.36% vs isCGM (ALERTT1)
- IQVIA Core Diabetes Model
- Payer perspective
- 50-year time horizon
- Discounting 4% per annum
- Model assumed HbA1c reductions with rtCGM of 0.6% vs SMBG (DIAMOND) and 0.36% vs isCGM (ALERTT1)
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
QALYs, lifetime costs and incremental cost-utility ratio · mean lifetime
- Real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rt-CGM) vs SMBG
- incremental QALY gain 1.37 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)
- rt-CGM vs SMBG
- incremental cost-utility ratio 51 918 DKK per QALY gained
- rt-CGM vs intermittently scanned CGM (is-CGM) · higher mean lifetime costs with rt-CGM
- QALY gain 0.87 QALYs
- rt-CGM vs is-CGM
- incremental cost-utility ratio 40 879 to 34 367 DKK per QALY gained
Original publication
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. Diabetes Obes Metab. Published 19 June 2023. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →