A European Cost–Utility Analysis of the MiniMed™ 780G Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System Versus Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring with Multiple Daily Insulin Injections in People Living with Type 1 Diabetes
Authors' conclusion
For people with T1D managed with is-CGM+MDI not achieving glycemic targets, initiation of the MM780G system was projected to improve long-term clinical outcomes; however, due to differences in health care costs between countries, the health economic outcomes differed. In all included countries, AHCL is likely to be cost-effective relative to is-CGM+MDI for people not achieving glycemic goals with is-CGM+MDI.
Study context
- Population
- People with T1D not achieving glycemic goals with isCGM+MDI, six European countries; modeled baseline HbA1c 9.04%
- Comparison
- MM780G advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) vs isCGM plus MDI
- Outcome
- Incremental quality-adjusted life expectancy and incremental cost-utility ratio
- Follow-up
- 40 years
Methodological detailspayer perspective, 40-year time horizon, annual discount rate 3%, six European countries, clinical inputs from ADAPT trial
- Payer perspective
- 40-year time horizon
- Annual discount rate 3%
- Six European countries
- Clinical inputs from ADAPT trial
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Incremental gain in quality-adjusted life expectancy
>2 QALYs
across all countries
Incremental cost-utility ratio
EUR 11,765 per QALY gained in Austria to EUR 43,963 per QALY gained in Italy
range across countries
Original publication
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →