Real-time continuous glucose monitoring vs self-monitoring of blood glucose in distinct multi-ethnic cohorts of patients living with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes in the United States: A cost-utility analysis from a Medicare perspective.

IF 2.9 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Hamza Alshannaq, Jessica Matuoka, Richard F Pollock, Waqas Ahmed, Peter Lynch, Gregory J Norman
{"title":"Real-time continuous glucose monitoring vs self-monitoring of blood glucose in distinct multi-ethnic cohorts of patients living with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes in the United States: A cost-utility analysis from a Medicare perspective.","authors":"Hamza Alshannaq, Jessica Matuoka, Richard F Pollock, Waqas Ahmed, Peter Lynch, Gregory J Norman","doi":"10.18553/jmcp.2025.31.8.752","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>For individuals living with type 2 diabetes (T2D) requiring insulin therapy, the use of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rt-CGM) yields significant clinical benefits relative to self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG).</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine the cost-utility of rt-CGM vs SMBG in a US setting, for a simulated cohort of individuals with T2D receiving insulin therapy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model version 10 was employed for this analysis, which was conducted over a remaining lifetime horizon. Clinical effectiveness data were sourced from a large-scale, retrospective cohort study set in the United States. Direct medical costs were obtained from a range of published studies for the Medicare setting and by using relevant Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System codes for Medicare. A willingness- to-pay (WTP) threshold of $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) was used, with future effects and costs discounted at 3% per annum. The base case was conducted from a Medicare perspective. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From a Medicare perspective, the use of rt-CGM yielded mean total direct medical costs of $107,215, alongside 7.584 QALYs over a time horizon of 50 years. Comparatively, SMBG was associated with lower mean total direct medical costs of $100,116 while yielding only 6.818 QALYs. The final incremental cost-utility ratio was $9,265 per QALY gained, showing that at a WTP threshold of $50,000 per QALY gained, rt-CGM was cost-effective relative to SMBG. Results from the 1-way sensitivity analysis showed rt-CGM to be dominant when a commercial plan perspective was adopted and more cost-effective for 100% Black, Native American, and Hispanic cohorts when compared with a 100% White cohort.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In a simulated cohort representative of individuals living with T2D and receiving insulin therapy, rt-CGM may be cost-effective compared with SMBG from a Medicare perspective. Therefore, rt-CGM plausibly possesses the potential to address existing racial and ethnic disparities in diabetes-related outcomes for patients within the United States.</p>","PeriodicalId":16170,"journal":{"name":"Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy","volume":"31 8","pages":"752-763"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12288725/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2025.31.8.752","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: For individuals living with type 2 diabetes (T2D) requiring insulin therapy, the use of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rt-CGM) yields significant clinical benefits relative to self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG).

Objective: To determine the cost-utility of rt-CGM vs SMBG in a US setting, for a simulated cohort of individuals with T2D receiving insulin therapy.

Methods: The IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model version 10 was employed for this analysis, which was conducted over a remaining lifetime horizon. Clinical effectiveness data were sourced from a large-scale, retrospective cohort study set in the United States. Direct medical costs were obtained from a range of published studies for the Medicare setting and by using relevant Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System codes for Medicare. A willingness- to-pay (WTP) threshold of $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) was used, with future effects and costs discounted at 3% per annum. The base case was conducted from a Medicare perspective. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results: From a Medicare perspective, the use of rt-CGM yielded mean total direct medical costs of $107,215, alongside 7.584 QALYs over a time horizon of 50 years. Comparatively, SMBG was associated with lower mean total direct medical costs of $100,116 while yielding only 6.818 QALYs. The final incremental cost-utility ratio was $9,265 per QALY gained, showing that at a WTP threshold of $50,000 per QALY gained, rt-CGM was cost-effective relative to SMBG. Results from the 1-way sensitivity analysis showed rt-CGM to be dominant when a commercial plan perspective was adopted and more cost-effective for 100% Black, Native American, and Hispanic cohorts when compared with a 100% White cohort.

Conclusions: In a simulated cohort representative of individuals living with T2D and receiving insulin therapy, rt-CGM may be cost-effective compared with SMBG from a Medicare perspective. Therefore, rt-CGM plausibly possesses the potential to address existing racial and ethnic disparities in diabetes-related outcomes for patients within the United States.

实时连续血糖监测与自我血糖监测在美国不同的多种族胰岛素治疗2型糖尿病患者队列:从医疗保险角度的成本效用分析
背景:对于需要胰岛素治疗的2型糖尿病(T2D)患者,使用实时连续血糖监测(rt-CGM)相对于自我血糖监测(SMBG)具有显著的临床益处。目的:在美国模拟t2dm患者接受胰岛素治疗的队列中,确定rt-CGM与SMBG的成本-效用。方法:采用IQVIA CORE糖尿病模型第10版进行分析,该分析在剩余的生命周期内进行。临床疗效数据来源于美国的一项大规模回顾性队列研究。直接医疗费用从一系列已发表的关于医疗保险设置的研究中获得,并使用医疗保险的相关医疗保健通用程序编码系统代码。每个质量调整生命年(QALY)的支付意愿(WTP)阈值为50,000美元,未来效果和成本以每年3%的折扣计算。基本案例是从医疗保险的角度进行的。进行了单向和概率敏感性分析。结果:从医疗保险的角度来看,在50年的时间范围内,rt-CGM的使用产生了平均总直接医疗费用107,215美元,以及7.584个qaly。相比之下,SMBG与较低的平均总直接医疗费用相关,为100,116美元,而仅产生6.818个qaly。最终的增量成本-效用比为9265美元/ QALY,表明在WTP阈值为5万美元/ QALY的情况下,相对于SMBG, t- cgm更具成本效益。单向敏感性分析的结果显示,当采用商业计划视角时,rt-CGM占主导地位,并且与100%白人队列相比,100%黑人、美洲原住民和西班牙裔队列更具成本效益。结论:在T2D患者接受胰岛素治疗的模拟队列中,从Medicare的角度来看,与SMBG相比,rt-CGM可能更具成本效益。因此,rt-CGM似乎具有解决美国患者糖尿病相关结局中存在的种族差异的潜力。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信