{"title":"Flash Glucose Monitoring System for People with Type 1 or Type 2 Diabetes: A Health Technology Assessment.","authors":"","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>People with diabetes manage their condition by monitoring the amount of glucose (a type of sugar) in their blood, typically using a method called self-monitoring of blood glucose. Flash glucose monitoring is another method of assessing glucose levels; it uses a sensor placed under the skin and a separate touchscreen reader device. We conducted a health technology assessment of flash glucose monitoring for people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, which included an evaluation of effectiveness and safety, the budget impact of publicly funding flash glucose monitoring, and patient preferences and values.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence. We assessed the risk of bias of each included study using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized controlled trials and the Cochrane ROBINS-I tool for nonrandomized studies, and we assessed the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We performed a systematic economic literature search, and we analyzed the net budget impact of publicly funding flash glucose monitoring in Ontario for people with type 1 diabetes and for people with type 2 diabetes requiring intensive insulin therapy who are eligible for coverage under the Ontario Drug Benefit program. To contextualize the potential value of flash glucose monitoring, we spoke with adults with diabetes and parents of children with diabetes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Six publications met the eligibility criteria for the clinical evidence review. Compared with self-monitoring of blood glucose, people who used flash glucose monitoring spent on average 1 hour more in the target glucose range (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41-1.59) and 0.37 hours (22 minutes) less in a high glucose range (95% CI -0.69 to -0.05) (GRADE: Moderate). Among adults with well-controlled type 1 diabetes, flash glucose monitoring was more effective than self-monitoring of blood glucose in reducing glucose variability (GRADE: Moderate). Flash glucose monitoring was more effective than self-monitoring of blood glucose in reducing the average time spent in hypoglycemia (-0.47 h [95% CI -0.73 to -0.21]) and the average number of hypoglycemia events (-0.16 [95% CI -0.29 to -0.03]) among adults with type 2 diabetes requiring intensive insulin therapy (GRADE: Moderate). Our certainty in the evidence for the effectiveness of flash glucose monitoring for other clinical outcomes, such as quality of life and severe hypoglycemia events, is low or very low. We identified no studies on flash glucose monitoring that included pregnant people, people with diabetes who did not use insulin, or children younger than 13 years of age.We identified two studies for the economic evidence review: one cost analysis and one cost-utility analysis. The cost analysis study, conducted from the perspective of United Kingdom's National Health Service, found that flash glucose monitoring reduced costs when self-monitoring of blood glucose was performed 10 times daily but was more expensive when self-monitoring of blood glucose was performed 5.6 times daily. The cost-utility analysis had methodological limitations and was not applicable to the context of Ontario's health care system.Our 5-year budget impact analysis found that flash glucose monitoring may lead to a net budget increase ranging from $14.6 million ($2.9 million for type 1 diabetes and $11.7 million for type 2 diabetes) in year 1, at an uptake rate of 15%, to $38.6 million ($7.7 million for type 1 diabetes and $30.9 million for type 2 diabetes) in year 5, at an uptake rate of 35%. In this analysis, we assumed that people with type 1 diabetes who self-monitor their blood glucose levels would perform six blood glucose tests daily and that people with type 2 diabetes would perform four blood glucose tests daily. For people switching from self-monitoring of blood glucose using the maximum number of blood glucose test strips for reimbursement (3,000 strips yearly) to flash glucose monitoring, the net budget impact of using flash glucose monitoring is likely to be small.Adults with diabetes and parents of children with diabetes with whom we spoke reported positively on their experiences with flash glucose monitoring, reporting they believed that flash glucose monitoring helped them control their blood glucose levels, resulting in physical, social, and emotional benefits. The cost of flash glucose monitoring was the largest barrier to its use.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Based on an assessment of several glycemic outcomes, moderate-quality evidence shows that flash glucose monitoring improves diabetes management among adults with well-controlled type 1 diabetes and adults with type 2 diabetes requiring intensive insulin therapy. We estimate that publicly funding flash glucose monitoring in Ontario for people with type 1 diabetes and for people with type 2 diabetes requiring intensive insulin therapy who are eligible for coverage under the Ontario Drug Benefit program would result in additional costs of between $14.6 million and $38.6 million annually over the next 5 years. Adults with diabetes and parents of children with diabetes with whom we spoke reported that flash glucose monitoring helped them or their children control their blood glucose levels, resulting in physical, social, and emotional benefits.</p>","PeriodicalId":39160,"journal":{"name":"Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series","volume":"19 8","pages":"1-108"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6939983/pdf/ohtas-19-1.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: People with diabetes manage their condition by monitoring the amount of glucose (a type of sugar) in their blood, typically using a method called self-monitoring of blood glucose. Flash glucose monitoring is another method of assessing glucose levels; it uses a sensor placed under the skin and a separate touchscreen reader device. We conducted a health technology assessment of flash glucose monitoring for people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, which included an evaluation of effectiveness and safety, the budget impact of publicly funding flash glucose monitoring, and patient preferences and values.
Methods: We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence. We assessed the risk of bias of each included study using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized controlled trials and the Cochrane ROBINS-I tool for nonrandomized studies, and we assessed the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We performed a systematic economic literature search, and we analyzed the net budget impact of publicly funding flash glucose monitoring in Ontario for people with type 1 diabetes and for people with type 2 diabetes requiring intensive insulin therapy who are eligible for coverage under the Ontario Drug Benefit program. To contextualize the potential value of flash glucose monitoring, we spoke with adults with diabetes and parents of children with diabetes.
Results: Six publications met the eligibility criteria for the clinical evidence review. Compared with self-monitoring of blood glucose, people who used flash glucose monitoring spent on average 1 hour more in the target glucose range (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41-1.59) and 0.37 hours (22 minutes) less in a high glucose range (95% CI -0.69 to -0.05) (GRADE: Moderate). Among adults with well-controlled type 1 diabetes, flash glucose monitoring was more effective than self-monitoring of blood glucose in reducing glucose variability (GRADE: Moderate). Flash glucose monitoring was more effective than self-monitoring of blood glucose in reducing the average time spent in hypoglycemia (-0.47 h [95% CI -0.73 to -0.21]) and the average number of hypoglycemia events (-0.16 [95% CI -0.29 to -0.03]) among adults with type 2 diabetes requiring intensive insulin therapy (GRADE: Moderate). Our certainty in the evidence for the effectiveness of flash glucose monitoring for other clinical outcomes, such as quality of life and severe hypoglycemia events, is low or very low. We identified no studies on flash glucose monitoring that included pregnant people, people with diabetes who did not use insulin, or children younger than 13 years of age.We identified two studies for the economic evidence review: one cost analysis and one cost-utility analysis. The cost analysis study, conducted from the perspective of United Kingdom's National Health Service, found that flash glucose monitoring reduced costs when self-monitoring of blood glucose was performed 10 times daily but was more expensive when self-monitoring of blood glucose was performed 5.6 times daily. The cost-utility analysis had methodological limitations and was not applicable to the context of Ontario's health care system.Our 5-year budget impact analysis found that flash glucose monitoring may lead to a net budget increase ranging from $14.6 million ($2.9 million for type 1 diabetes and $11.7 million for type 2 diabetes) in year 1, at an uptake rate of 15%, to $38.6 million ($7.7 million for type 1 diabetes and $30.9 million for type 2 diabetes) in year 5, at an uptake rate of 35%. In this analysis, we assumed that people with type 1 diabetes who self-monitor their blood glucose levels would perform six blood glucose tests daily and that people with type 2 diabetes would perform four blood glucose tests daily. For people switching from self-monitoring of blood glucose using the maximum number of blood glucose test strips for reimbursement (3,000 strips yearly) to flash glucose monitoring, the net budget impact of using flash glucose monitoring is likely to be small.Adults with diabetes and parents of children with diabetes with whom we spoke reported positively on their experiences with flash glucose monitoring, reporting they believed that flash glucose monitoring helped them control their blood glucose levels, resulting in physical, social, and emotional benefits. The cost of flash glucose monitoring was the largest barrier to its use.
Conclusions: Based on an assessment of several glycemic outcomes, moderate-quality evidence shows that flash glucose monitoring improves diabetes management among adults with well-controlled type 1 diabetes and adults with type 2 diabetes requiring intensive insulin therapy. We estimate that publicly funding flash glucose monitoring in Ontario for people with type 1 diabetes and for people with type 2 diabetes requiring intensive insulin therapy who are eligible for coverage under the Ontario Drug Benefit program would result in additional costs of between $14.6 million and $38.6 million annually over the next 5 years. Adults with diabetes and parents of children with diabetes with whom we spoke reported that flash glucose monitoring helped them or their children control their blood glucose levels, resulting in physical, social, and emotional benefits.
背景:糖尿病患者通过监测血液中葡萄糖(一种糖)的含量来控制病情,通常使用一种称为自我血糖监测的方法。快速血糖监测是另一种评估血糖水平的方法;它使用放置在皮肤下的传感器和一个单独的触摸屏阅读器设备。我们对1型或2型糖尿病患者的瞬时血糖监测进行了健康技术评估,包括对有效性和安全性的评估,对公共资助的瞬时血糖监测的预算影响,以及患者的偏好和价值。方法:对临床证据进行系统的文献检索。我们使用Cochrane随机对照试验的偏倚风险评估工具和Cochrane ROBINS-I非随机研究的偏倚风险评估工具来评估每个纳入研究的偏倚风险,并根据建议评估、发展和评价分级(GRADE)工作组标准评估证据体的质量。我们进行了系统的经济文献检索,并分析了安大略省为1型糖尿病患者和需要强化胰岛素治疗的2型糖尿病患者提供公共资助的快速血糖监测的净预算影响,这些患者符合安大略省药物福利计划的覆盖范围。为了了解瞬时血糖监测的潜在价值,我们与糖尿病成人和糖尿病儿童的父母进行了交谈。结果:6篇出版物符合临床证据审查的资格标准。与自我血糖监测相比,使用瞬时血糖监测的人在目标血糖范围内平均多花1小时(95%置信区间[CI] 0.41-1.59),在高血糖范围内平均少花0.37小时(22分钟)(95% CI -0.69至-0.05)(GRADE: Moderate)。在控制良好的成人1型糖尿病患者中,在降低血糖变异性方面,瞬时血糖监测比自我血糖监测更有效(GRADE: Moderate)。在需要强化胰岛素治疗的成人2型糖尿病患者(GRADE: Moderate)中,在减少低血糖平均时间(-0.47 h [95% CI -0.73至-0.21])和平均低血糖事件数(-0.16 [95% CI -0.29至-0.03])方面,瞬时血糖监测比自我血糖监测更有效。我们对其他临床结果(如生活质量和严重低血糖事件)的快速血糖监测有效性证据的确定性很低或非常低。我们没有发现对孕妇、未使用胰岛素的糖尿病患者或13岁以下儿童进行瞬时血糖监测的研究。我们为经济证据审查确定了两项研究:一项成本分析和一项成本效用分析。从英国国民健康服务的角度进行的成本分析研究发现,当每天进行10次自我血糖监测时,快速血糖监测降低了成本,但当每天进行5.6次自我血糖监测时,成本更高。成本效用分析有方法上的局限性,并不适用于安大略省的卫生保健系统。我们的5年预算影响分析发现,快速血糖监测可能导致第一年的净预算增加1460万美元(1型糖尿病290万美元,2型糖尿病1170万美元),吸收率为15%,到第五年的3860万美元(1型糖尿病770万美元,2型糖尿病3090万美元),吸收率为35%。在这个分析中,我们假设自我监测血糖水平的1型糖尿病患者每天要做6次血糖测试,2型糖尿病患者每天要做4次血糖测试。对于那些从使用可报销的最大血糖试纸条数(每年3000条)的自我血糖监测转换为快速血糖监测的人来说,使用快速血糖监测的净预算影响可能很小。与我们交谈过的糖尿病成人和糖尿病儿童的父母都积极地报告了他们使用瞬时血糖监测的经历,报告说他们相信瞬时血糖监测有助于他们控制血糖水平,从而在身体、社会和情感上都有好处。快速血糖监测的成本是其使用的最大障碍。结论:基于几种血糖结局的评估,中等质量的证据表明,快速血糖监测改善了控制良好的1型糖尿病成人和需要强化胰岛素治疗的2型糖尿病成人的糖尿病管理。