Addition of continuous glucose monitoring to glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist treatment for type 2 diabetes mellitus - An economic evaluation.

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Eugene E Wright, Eden Miller, Anila Bindal, Yeesha Poon
{"title":"Addition of continuous glucose monitoring to glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist treatment for type 2 diabetes mellitus - An economic evaluation.","authors":"Eugene E Wright, Eden Miller, Anila Bindal, Yeesha Poon","doi":"10.18553/jmcp.2025.24253","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Both glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) have been shown to improve glycated hemoglobin A1c (A1c) levels among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Recently, a US real-world study found statistically significant improvements in A1c levels among patients using GLP-1 RA and a CGM device, compared with a matched cohort receiving only GLP-1 RA.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess the cost-effectiveness from a US payer perspective of initiating CGM (FreeStyle Libre Systems) in people living with T2DM using a GLP-1 RA therapy, compared with GLP-1 RA alone.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A patient-level microsimulation model was run for 10,000 patients over a lifetime horizon with 3.0% discounting for costs and utilities. Patient characteristics were based on the overall population of the US real-world study and the subgroup of patients not using intensive insulin. The effect of CGM was modeled as a persistent reduction in A1c compared with GLP-1 RA alone (overall = 0.37%; patients not using intensive insulin = 0.34%). Costs ($2,023) and disutilities were applied to diabetes complications and acute diabetic events. Outcomes were assessed as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (incremental costs/incremental QALYs) for GLP-1 RA plus CGM vs GLP-1 RA alone was $40,968/QALY in the overall cohort (cost = $484,180 vs $473,938; QALYs = 13.37 vs 13.12). Among patients not using intensive insulin, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $43,095/QALY. Scenario analysis showed that the model results were robust to changing assumptions. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that GLP-1 RA plus CGM had a 64% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>From a US payer perspective, CGM is cost-effective when added to GLP-1 RA therapies for the treatment of T2DM, including for patients not using intensive insulin.</p>","PeriodicalId":16170,"journal":{"name":"Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy","volume":" ","pages":"1-10"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2025.24253","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Both glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) have been shown to improve glycated hemoglobin A1c (A1c) levels among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Recently, a US real-world study found statistically significant improvements in A1c levels among patients using GLP-1 RA and a CGM device, compared with a matched cohort receiving only GLP-1 RA.

Objectives: To assess the cost-effectiveness from a US payer perspective of initiating CGM (FreeStyle Libre Systems) in people living with T2DM using a GLP-1 RA therapy, compared with GLP-1 RA alone.

Methods: A patient-level microsimulation model was run for 10,000 patients over a lifetime horizon with 3.0% discounting for costs and utilities. Patient characteristics were based on the overall population of the US real-world study and the subgroup of patients not using intensive insulin. The effect of CGM was modeled as a persistent reduction in A1c compared with GLP-1 RA alone (overall = 0.37%; patients not using intensive insulin = 0.34%). Costs ($2,023) and disutilities were applied to diabetes complications and acute diabetic events. Outcomes were assessed as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).

Results: The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (incremental costs/incremental QALYs) for GLP-1 RA plus CGM vs GLP-1 RA alone was $40,968/QALY in the overall cohort (cost = $484,180 vs $473,938; QALYs = 13.37 vs 13.12). Among patients not using intensive insulin, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $43,095/QALY. Scenario analysis showed that the model results were robust to changing assumptions. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that GLP-1 RA plus CGM had a 64% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY.

Conclusions: From a US payer perspective, CGM is cost-effective when added to GLP-1 RA therapies for the treatment of T2DM, including for patients not using intensive insulin.

在2型糖尿病胰高血糖素样肽1受体激动剂治疗中增加连续血糖监测-经济评价
背景:胰高血糖素样肽1受体激动剂(GLP-1 RAs)和连续血糖监测(CGM)均可改善2型糖尿病(T2DM)患者的糖化血红蛋白A1c水平。最近,一项美国真实世界的研究发现,与仅接受GLP-1 RA的匹配队列相比,使用GLP-1 RA和CGM装置的患者A1c水平有统计学上的显著改善。目的:从美国付款人的角度评估在T2DM患者中使用GLP-1 RA治疗启动CGM (FreeStyle Libre Systems)的成本效益,与单独使用GLP-1 RA相比。方法:对1万例患者进行患者层面的微观模拟模型,以3.0%的成本和水电费折现。患者特征基于美国真实世界研究的总体人群和未使用强化胰岛素的患者亚组。与单独GLP-1 RA相比,CGM的效果是A1c持续降低(总体= 0.37%;未使用强化胰岛素的患者= 0.34%)。糖尿病并发症和急性糖尿病事件的费用(2023美元)和费用减少。结果以质量调整生命年(QALYs)进行评估。结果:在整个队列中,GLP-1 RA加CGM与GLP-1 RA的基本病例增量成本-效果比(增量成本/增量QALY)为40,968美元/QALY(成本= 484,180美元vs 473,938美元;QALYs = 13.37 vs 13.12)。在未使用强化胰岛素的患者中,增量成本-效果比为43,095美元/QALY。情景分析表明,模型结果对变化的假设具有鲁棒性。概率敏感性分析显示,在每个QALY支付意愿阈值为100,000美元时,GLP-1 RA加CGM具有64%的成本效益概率。结论:从美国支付者的角度来看,CGM与GLP-1 RA治疗相结合治疗T2DM具有成本效益,包括不使用强化胰岛素的患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy
Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy Health Professions-Pharmacy
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
4.80%
发文量
131
期刊介绍: JMCP welcomes research studies conducted outside of the United States that are relevant to our readership. Our audience is primarily concerned with designing policies of formulary coverage, health benefit design, and pharmaceutical programs that are based on evidence from large populations of people. Studies of pharmacist interventions conducted outside the United States that have already been extensively studied within the United States and studies of small sample sizes in non-managed care environments outside of the United States (e.g., hospitals or community pharmacies) are generally of low interest to our readership. However, studies of health outcomes and costs assessed in large populations that provide evidence for formulary coverage, health benefit design, and pharmaceutical programs are of high interest to JMCP’s readership.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信