Long‐term health economic evaluation of automated insulin delivery system compared with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion pumps and CGM in a real‐world setting in Finnish paediatric and adult individuals with type 1 diabetes
Authors' conclusion
Based on the results of this first cost-effectiveness study conducted in Finland, a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 50 000 EUR per QALY gained suggests that AID is more cost-effective than CSII plus CGM for the treatment of T1DM in a real-world setting.
Study context
- Population
- Paediatric and adult individuals with T1D at Kuopio University Hospital, Finland; mean age 26.7 years (SD 15.9), mean diabetes duration 16.6 years
- Participants
- 336 participants
- Comparison
- Automated insulin delivery (AID) vs continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) plus CGM
- Outcome
- Long-term cost-effectiveness (quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), direct costs, ICER)
- Follow-up
- 50 years
Methodological detailsreal-world setting, IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model (v10.0), 50-year time horizon (base case), costs in 2023 Euros (EUR)
- Real-world setting
- IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model (v10.0)
- 50-year time horizon (base case)
- Costs in 2023 EUR
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Cost-effectiveness
QALY gain
2.3 QALYs
Cost-effectiveness
Direct cost difference
26 076 EUR
higher with AID
Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER)
11 184 EUR per QALY gained
Cost-effectiveness
Further findings
- HbA1c improvement — AID
- mean 12.1 (SD 11.7) mmol/mol
- HbA1c improvement: 3.3% ± 3.2%
Original publication
Long‐term health economic evaluation of automated insulin delivery system compared with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion pumps and CGM in a real‐world setting in Finnish paediatric and adult individuals with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab. Published 27 June 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →