Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2020-11
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of a Hybrid Closed-Loop System Versus Multiple Daily Injections and Capillary Glucose Testing for Adults with Type 1 Diabetes
Hybrid closed-loop systems may offer improved HbA1c levels, more time-in-range, and less hypoglycemia than alternative treatment strategies. However, it is unclear if glycemic improvements offset this technology's higher acquisition costs. Among adults with type 1 diabetes in Australia, we sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a hybrid closed-loop system in comparison with the current standard of care, comprising insulin injections and capillary glucose testing.
Methods:
Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using decision analysis in combination with a Markov model to simulate disease progression in a cohort of adults with type 1 diabetes and compare the downstream health and economic consequences of hybrid closed-loop therapy versus current standard of care. Transition probabilities and utilities were sourced from published studies. Costs were considered from the perspective of the Australian health care system. A lifetime horizon was considered, with annual discount rates of 5% applied to future costs and outcomes. Uncertainty was assessed with probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses.
Results:
Use of a hybrid closed-loop system resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of Australian dollars (AUD) 37,767 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. This is below the traditionally cited willingness to pay a threshold of $50,000 per QALY gained in the Australian setting. Sensitivity analyses that varied baseline glycemic control, treatment effects, technology costs, age, discount rates, and time horizon indicated the results to be robust.
Conclusions:
For adults with type 1 diabetes, hybrid closed-loop therapy is likely to be cost-effective compared with multiple daily injections and capillary glucose testing in Australia.
PowersAC, StaffordJM, RickelsMR. Diabetes Mellitus: Complications. In: Jameson J, Fauci AS, Kasper DL, Hauser SL, Longo DL, Loscalzo J. Eds. Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, 20e. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Available from: https://accessmedicine.mhmedical.com (accessed May11, 2020).
3.
Nathan DM for the DCCT/EDIC Research Group: The diabetes control and complications trial/epidemiology of diabetes interventions and complications study at 30 years: overview. Diabetes Care, 2014; 37:9–16.
4.
NathanDM, GenuthS, LachinJ, et al.: The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med, 1993; 329:977–986.
5.
NathanDM, ZinmanB, ClearyPA, et al.: Modern-day clinical course of type 1 diabetes mellitus after 30 years' duration: the diabetes control and complications trial/epidemiology of diabetes interventions and complications and Pittsburgh epidemiology of diabetes complications experience (1983–2005). Arch Intern Med, 2009; 169:1307–1316.
6.
KählerP, GrevstadB, AlmdalT, et al.: Targeting intensive versus conventional glycaemic control for type 1 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomised clinical trials. BMJ Open, 2014; 4:e004806.
7.
BekiariE, KitsiosK, ThabitH, et al.: Artificial pancreas treatment for outpatients with type 1 diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ, 2018; 361:k1310.
8.
American Diabetes Association: 7. Diabetes technology: standards of medical care in diabetes—2019. Diabetes Care, 2019; 42 (Supplement 1):S71–S80.
9.
ColagiuriS, BrnabicA, GomezM, et al.: DiabCo$t Australia type 1: assessing the burden of type 1 diabetes in Australia. Canberra: Diabetes Australia, 2009.
10.
TaoB, PietropaoloM, AtkinsonM, et al.: Estimating the cost of type 1 diabetes in the US: a propensity score matching method. PLoS One, 2010; 5:e11501.
11.
American Diabetes Association: Economic costs of diabetes in the U.S. in 2007. Diabetes Care, 2008; 31:596–615.
12.
DallTM, MannSE, ZhangY, et al.: Distinguishing the economic costs associated with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Popul Health Manag, 2009; 12:103–110.
13.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: Type 1 diabetes in adults: diagnosis and management. NICE guideline [NG17]. London: National Institute for Health and CareExcellence, 2015. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng17 (accessed May11, 2020).
14.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: Costing statement: type 1 diabetes in adults. Implementing the NICE guideline on type 1 diabetes in adults (NG17). London: National Institute for Health and CareExcellence, 2015. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng17/resources/costing-statement-pdf-435401533 (accessed May11, 2020).
15.
Diabetes Australia: Insulin pump therapy in Australia: the case for action. DiabetesAustralia, 2014. https://static.diabetesaustralia.com.au/s/fileassets/diabetes-australia/71ae321b-fc80-46ea-8cea-09940d3a6977.pdf (accessed January2, 2020).
16.
TanenbaumML, HanesSJ, MillerKM, et al.: Diabetes device use in adults with type 1 diabetes: barriers to uptake and potential intervention targets. Diabetes Care, 2017; 40:181–187.
17.
MesserLH: Why expectations will determine the future of artificial pancreas. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2018; 20(S2): S265–S268.
18.
CraigME, TwiggSM, DonaghueKC, et al.; for the Australian Type 1 Diabetes Guidelines Expert Advisory Group: National evidence-based clinical care guidelines for type 1 diabetes in children, adolescents and adults. Canberra: Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing, 2011.
19.
The Department of Health: Private health insurance: prostheses list partC–other. Australian Government Department ofHealth, 2017. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/health-privatehealth-prostheseslist.htm (accessed November15, 2019).
20.
The Department of Health: Access to subsidised continuous glucose monitoring products through the National Diabetes ServicesScheme. Australian Government Department ofHealth, 2019. https://www1.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/health-pbs-healthpro-cgm.htm (accessed January20, 2020).
21.
PeaseA, LoC, EarnestA, et al.: The efficacy of technology in type 1 diabetes: a systematic review, network meta-analysis, and narrative synthesis. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2020;22; DOI: 10.1089/dia.2019.0417.
22.
PeaseA, EarnestA, RanasinhaS, et al.: Burden of cardiovascular risk factors and disease among patients with type 1 diabetes: results of the Australian National Diabetes Audit (ANDA). Cardiovasc Diabetol, 2018; 17:77.
23.
GeddesJ, SchopmanJE, ZammittNN, et al.: Prevalence of impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia in adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabet Med, 2008; 25:501–504.
24.
Ratzki-LeewingA, HarrisSB, MequanintS, et al.: Real-world crude incidence of hypoglycemia in adults with diabetes: results of the InHypo-DM Study, Canada. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care, 2018; 6:e000503.
25.
GoldAE, MacLeodKM, FrierBM: Frequency of severe hypoglycemia in patients with type I diabetes with impaired awareness of hypoglycemia. Diabetes Care, 1994; 17:697–703.
26.
Pedersen-BjergaardU, PrammingS, HellerSR, et al.: Severe hypoglycaemia in 1076 adult patients with type 1 diabetes: influence of risk markers and selection. Diabetes Metab Res Rev, 2004; 20:479–486.
27.
ter BraakEW, AppelmanAM, van de LaakM, et al.: Clinical characteristics of type 1 diabetic patients with and without severe hypoglycemia. Diabetes Care, 2000; 23:1467–1471.
28.
ThabitH, TauschmannM, AllenJM, et al.: Home use of an artificial beta cell in type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med, 2015; 373:2129–2140.
29.
BenhamouP-Y, FrancS, ReznikY, et al.: Closed-loop insulin delivery in adults with type 1 diabetes in real-life conditions: a 12-week multicentre, open-label randomised controlled crossover trial. Lancet Digital Health, 2019; 1:e17–e25.
30.
VistisenD, AndersenGS, HansenCS, et al.: Prediction of first cardiovascular disease event in type 1 diabetes mellitus: the Steno Type 1 Risk Engine. Circulation, 2016; 133:1058–1066.
31.
HarrisS, MamdaniM, Galbo-JørgensenCB, et al.: The effect of hypoglycemia on health-related quality of life: Canadian results from a multinational time trade-off survey. Can J Diabetes, 2014; 38:45–52.
32.
HusereauD, DrummondM, PetrouS, et al.: Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. BMJ, 2013; 346:f1049.
33.
The Department of Health: The Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee Guidelines. Section 3A.1 Overview and rationale of the economic evaluation. Australian Government Department of Health. 2016. https://pbac.pbs.gov.au/section-3a/3a-1-overview-and-rationale-of-economic-evaluation.html (accessed October21, 2019).
34.
National Diabetes Services Scheme: Insulin pump consumables order form. 2019. https://www.ndss.com.au/products/ (accessed November25, 2019).
Officeworks: Batteries & Power Supplies. 2019. https://www.officeworks.com.au/shop/officeworks/c/technology/batteries-power-supplies (accessed May15, 2019).
37.
LyTT, BrnabicAJ, EgglestonA, et al.: A cost-effectiveness analysis of sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy and automated insulin suspension versus standard pump therapy for hypoglycemic unaware patients with type 1 diabetes. Value Health, 2014; 17:561–569.
38.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare: Death among people with diabetes in Australia, 2009–2014. Cat. no. CVD 79. Canberra: AIHW, 2017. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports-data/health-conditions-disability-deaths/diabetes/overview (accessed October21, 2019).
39.
CederholmJ, Eeg-OlofssonK, EliassonB, et al.: A new model for 5-year risk of cardiovascular disease in Type 1 diabetes; from the Swedish National Diabetes Register (NDR). Diabet Med, 2011; 28:1213–1220.
40.
DCCT/EDIC Study Research Group: Intensive diabetes treatment and cardiovascular outcomes in type 1 diabetes: The DCCT/EDIC study 30-year follow-up. Diabetes Care, 2016; 39:686–693.
41.
Australian Bureau of Statistics: 6401.0—Consumber Price Index, Australia Mar. Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2019. https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/6401.0Mar%202019?OpenDocument (accessed October3, 2019).
42.
KhuntiK, AlsifriS, AronsonR, et al.: Rates and predictors of hypoglycaemia in 27585 people from 24 countries with insulin-treated type 1 and type 2 diabetes: the global HAT study. Diabetes Obes Metab, 2016; 18:907–915.
43.
JendleJ, PohlmannJ, de PortuS, et al.: Cost-effectiveness Analysis of the MiniMed 670G hybrid closed-loop system versus continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion for treatment of type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2019; 21:110–118.
44.
NicolucciA, RossiMC, D'OstilioD, et al.: Cost-effectiveness of sensor-augmented pump therapy in two different patient populations with type 1 diabetes in Italy. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis, 2018; 28:707–715.
45.
JendleJ, Smith-PalmerJ, DelbaereA, et al.: Cost-effectiveness analysis of sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy with automated insulin suspension versus standard insulin pump therapy in patients with type 1 diabetes in Sweden. Diabetes Ther, 2017; 8:1015–1030.
46.
CongetI, Martín-VaqueroP, RozeS, et al.: Cost-effectiveness analysis of sensor-augmented pump therapy with low glucose-suspend in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus and high risk of hypoglycemia in Spain. Endocrinol Diabetes Nutr, 2018; 65:380–386.
47.
RozeS, Smith-PalmerJ, ValentineW, et al.: Cost-effectiveness of sensor-augmented pump therapy with low glucose suspend versus standard insulin pump therapy in two different patient populations with type 1 diabetes in France. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2016; 18:75–84.
48.
RozeS, Smith-PalmerJ, ValentineWJ, et al.: Long-term health economic benefits of sensor-augmented pump therapy vs continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion alone in type 1 diabetes: a UK perspective. J Med Econ, 2016; 19:236–242.
49.
RozeS, de PortuS, Smith-PalmerJ, et al.: Cost-effectiveness of sensor-augmented pump therapy versus standard insulin pump therapy in patients with type 1 diabetes in Denmark. Diabetes Res Clin Pract, 2017; 128:6–14.
50.
TauschmannM, ThabitH, BallyL, et al.: Closed-loop insulin delivery in suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes: a multicentre, 12-week randomised trial. Lancet, 2018; 392:1321–1329.
51.
BrownSA, KovatchevBP, RaghinaruD, et al.: Six-month randomized, multicenter trial of closed-loop control in type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med, 2019; 381:1707–1717.
52.
GargSK, WeinzimerSA, TamborlaneWV, et al.: Glucose outcomes with the in-home use of a hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery system in adolescents and adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2017; 19:155–163.
53.
BergenstalRM, GargS, WeinzimerSA, et al.: Safety of a hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery system in patients with type 1 diabetes. JAMA, 2016; 316:1407–1408.
54.
BallyL, ThabitH, KojzarH, et al.: Day-and-night glycaemic control with closed-loop insulin delivery versus conventional insulin pump therapy in free-living adults with well controlled type 1 diabetes: an open-label, randomised, crossover study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol, 2017; 5:261–270.
55.
AndersonSM, BuckinghamBA, BretonMD, et al.: Hybrid closed-loop control is safe and effective for people with type 1 diabetes who are at moderate to high risk for hypoglycemia. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2019; 21:356–363.
56.
PeaseA, ZomerE, LiewD, LoC, EarnestA, ZoungasS.Cost-effectiveness of health technologies in adults with type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and narrative synthesis. Syst Rev, 2020;9: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01373-y.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
