Abstract:Background: Reducing the risks of complications is a primary goal of diabetes management, with effective glycemic control a key factor. Glucose monitoring using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) technology is an important part of diabetes self-management, helping patients reach and maintain targeted glucose and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels. Although clinical guidelines recommended CGM use, coverage by Medicaid is limited, likely because of cost concerns. Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of FreeStyle Libre CGM systems, compared with capillary-based self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG), in US individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus using basal insulin. Methods: A patient-level microsimulation model was used to compare CGM with SMBG for a population of 10,000 patients. A 10-year horizon was used, with an annual discount rate of 3.0% for costs and utilities. Model population characteristics were based on US national epidemiology data. Patient outcomes were based on published clinical trials and real-world studies. Annual costs, reflective of 2023 values, included CGM and SMBG acquisition costs and the costs of treating diabetic ketoacidosis, severe hypoglycemia, and diabetes complications. The effect of CGM was modeled as a persistent 1.1% reduction in HbA1c relative to SMBG based on US real-world evidence. Disutilities were based on published clinical trials and other relevant literature. The primary outcome was cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the validity of the model results when accounting for a plausible variation of inputs. Results: In the base case analysis, CGM was dominant to SMBG, providing more QALYs (6.18 vs 5.97) at a lower cost ($70,137 vs $71,809) over the 10-year time horizon. A $10,456 increase in glucose monitoring costs was offset by a $12,127 reduction in treatment costs. Cost savings reflected avoidance of acute diabetic events (savings owing to reductions in severe hypoglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis were $271 and $2,159, respectively) and a reduced cumulative incidence of diabetes complications, particularly renal failure (saving $5,292), myocardial infarction (saving $1,996), and congestive heart failure (saving $1,061). Scenario analyses were consistent with the base case results, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for CGM vs SMBG ranged from dominant to cost-effective. In probabilistic analysis, CGM was 100% likely to be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY. Conclusions: CGM is cost-effective compared with SMBG for US patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus receiving basal insulin therapy. This suggests that state Medicaid programs could benefit from broader coverage of CGM.

The cost-effectiveness of an advanced hybrid closed loop system compared to standard management of type 1 diabetes in a Singapore setting

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

Cost-Effectiveness of a Home Telemonitoring System for Asian Adults with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Cost-effectiveness of Continuous Glucose Monitoring for Adults With Type 1 Diabetes Compared With Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose: The DIAMOND Randomized Trial

Simplified Meal Management in Adults Using an Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System

Evaluation of hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery system in type 1 diabetes in real-world clinical practice: One-year observational study

Continuous glucose monitoring for self-management of diabetes in people living with type 2 diabetes mellitus on basal insulin therapy: A microsimulation model and cost-effectiveness analysis from a US perspective with relevance to Medicaid

Advanced Hybrid Closed Loop in Adult Population With Type 1 Diabetes: A Substudy From the ADAPT Randomized Controlled Trial in Users of Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring

Reducing Diabetes Burden in Medtronic's Automated Insulin Delivery Systems

Improved Glycemic Outcomes With Medtronic MiniMed Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop Delivery: Results From a Randomized Crossover Trial Comparing Automated Insulin Delivery With Predictive Low Glucose Suspend in People With Type 1 Diabetes

Improved Satisfaction While Maintaining Safety and High Time in Range (TIR) With a Medtronic Investigational Enhanced Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System (e-AHCL)

Smart connected insulin dose monitoring technologies versus standard of care: a Canadian cost–effectiveness analysis

Safety Event Outcomes and Glycemic Control with a Hybrid Closed-Loop System Used by Chinese Adolescents and Adults with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus

Cost-effectiveness of the tandem t: Slim X2 with control-IQ technology automated insulin delivery system in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes in Sweden

141-LB: Cost-Effectiveness of Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring (rt-CGM) vs. Intermittent-Scanning Continuous Glucose Monitoring (is-CGM) from a U.S. Payer Perspective in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes on Multiple Daily Injections of Insulin (PwT2D on MDI)

Glucose and Psychosocial Outcomes 12 Months Following Transition from Multiple Daily Injections to Advanced Hybrid Closed Loop in Youth with Type 1 Diabetes and Suboptimal Glycemia

Evaluating optimal utilisation of technology in type 1 diabetes mellitus from a clinical and health economic perspective: protocol for a systematic review

Excellence in the management of Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop Systems: Lessons from the Polish cohort

A Comparison of Two Hybrid Closed-Loop Systems in Italian Children and Adults With Type 1 Diabetes

Six Months of Hybrid Closed-Loop Versus Manual Insulin Delivery With Fingerprick Blood Glucose Monitoring in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: A Randomized, Controlled Trial

12-month real-life efficacy of the Minimed 780G Advanced Closed Loop system in patients living with Type 1 diabetes: a French observational, retrospective, multicentric study