Cost-utility of real-time continuous glucose monitoring versus self-monitoring of blood glucose in people with insulin-treated Type 2 diabetes in Canada

Abstract

Aim: Clinical trials and real-world data for Type 2 diabetes have shown that real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rt-CGM) lowers glycated hemoglobin (A1c) and reduces hypoglycemia relative to self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). This analysis examined the long-term health and economic outcomes associated with using rt-CGM versus SMBG in people with insulin-treated Type 2 diabetes in Canada. Materials & methods: Clinical data were sourced from a real-world study, in which rt-CGM reduced A1C by 0.56% versus continued SMBG. The analysis was performed using the IQVIA Core Diabetes Model, from a Canadian payer perspective over a lifetime horizon for a cohort aged 65 years with an A1C of 8.3% at baseline. Future costs and clinical outcomes were discounted at 1.5% annually. Results: Projected total mean lifetime costs were CAD 207,466 for rt-CGM versus CAD 189,863 for SMBG (difference: CAD 17,602) and projected mean quality-adjusted life expectancy was 9.97 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for rt-CGM versus 9.02 QALYs for SMBG (difference: 0.95 QALYs), resulting in an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of CAD 18,523 per QALY gained for rt-CGM versus SMBG. Findings were sensitive to changes in the A1C treatment effect, annual cost and quality of life benefit associated with using rt-CGM, SMBG frequency, and baseline age, but ICURs remained below CAD 50,000 per QALY in all analyses. Conclusion: For people in Canada with insulin-treated Type 2 diabetes and poor glycemic control, use of rt-CGM is likely to be cost-effective relative to SMBG.

Keywords: Canada; SMBG; Type 2 diabetes; cost-utility analysis; rt-CGM.

Figure 1.. Cost-effectiveness scatterplot showing incremental costs and quality-adjusted life expectancy from the probabilistic sensitivity analysis of real-time continuous glucose monitoring versus self-monitoring of blood glucose.

Figure 2.. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curve showing the likelihood of real-time continuous glucose monitoring being cost-effective versus self-monitoring of blood glucose over a range of willingness-to-pay thresholds.