Cost-effectiveness of Initiating an Insulin Pump in T1D Adults Using Continuous Glucose Monitoring Compared with Multiple Daily Insulin Injections: The DIAMOND Randomized Trial
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online November, 2018
Cost-effectiveness of Initiating an Insulin Pump in T1D Adults Using Continuous Glucose Monitoring Compared with Multiple Daily Insulin Injections: The DIAMOND Randomized Trial
Background. The economic impact of both continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and insulin pumps (continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion [CSII]) in type 1 diabetes (T1D) have been evaluated separately. However, the cost-effectiveness of adding CSII to existing CGM users has not yet been assessed. Objective. The aim of this study was to evaluate the societal cost-effectiveness of CSII versus continuing multiple daily injections (MDI) in adults with T1D already using CGM. Methods. In the second phase of the DIAMOND trial, 75 adults using CGM were randomized to either CGM+CSII or CGM+MDI (control) and surveyed at baseline and 28 weeks. We performed within-trial and lifetime cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) and estimated lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) via a modified Sheffield T1D model. Results. Within the trial, the CGM+CSII group had a significant reduction in quality of life from baseline (−0.02 ± 0.05 difference in difference [DiD]) compared with controls. Total per-person 28-week costs were $8,272 (CGM+CSII) versus $5,623 (CGM+MDI); the difference in costs was primarily attributable to pump use ($2,644). Pump users reduced insulin intake (−12.8 units DiD) but increased the use of daily number of test strips (+1.2 DiD). Pump users also increased time with glucose in range of 70 to 180 mg/dL but had a higher HbA1c (+0.13 DiD) and more nonsevere hypoglycemic events. In the lifetime CEA, CGM+CSII would increase total costs by $112,045 DiD, decrease QALYs by 0.71, and decrease life expectancy by 0.48 years. Conclusions. Based on this single trial, initiating an insulin pump in adults with T1D already using CGM was associated with higher costs and reduced quality of life. Additional evidence regarding the clinical effects of adopting combinations of new technologies from trials and real-world populations is needed to confirm these findings.
NathanDMGroupDER. The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications study at 30 years: overview. Diabetes Care. 2014;37(1):9–16.
2.
Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. 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(14):977–86.
3.
American Diabetes Association. (7) Approaches to glycemic treatment. Diabetes Care. 2015;38(Suppl):S41–8.
4.
MillerKMFosterNCBeckRWet al. Current state of type 1 diabetes treatment in the U.S.: updated data from the T1D Exchange clinic registry. Diabetes Care. 2015;38(6):971–8.
5.
SelvinEParrinelloCMSacksDBCoreshJ. Trends in prevalence and control of diabetes in the United States, 1988-1994 and 1999-2010. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160(8):517–25.
6.
YehHCBrownTTMaruthurNet al. Comparative effectiveness and safety of methods of insulin delivery and glucose monitoring for diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157(5):336–47.
7.
GoldenSHBrownTYehHCet al. Methods for Insulin Delivery and Glucose Monitoring: Comparative Effectiveness. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2012.
8.
GoldenSHSapirT. Methods for insulin delivery and glucose monitoring in diabetes: summary of a comparative effectiveness review. J Manag Care Pharm. 2012;18(6 Suppl):S1–17.
9.
BenkhadraKAlahdabFTamhaneSUMcCoyRGProkopLJMuradMH. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus multiple daily injections in individuals with type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endocrine. 2017;55(1):77–84.
10.
FloydBChandraPHallSet al. Comparative analysis of the efficacy of continuous glucose monitoring and self-monitoring of blood glucose in type 1 diabetes mellitus. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2012;6(5):1094–102.
11.
HuangESO’GradyMBasuAet al. The cost-effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2010;33(6):1269–74.
12.
HirschIB. The first hybrid closed-loop insulin pump: will it meet its potential?Diabetes Technol Ther. 2017;19(3):140–1.
13.
GargSKHirschIB. Self-monitoring of blood glucose. Int J Clin Pract Suppl. 2011(170):1–9.
14.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Dexcom G5 Mobile Continuous Glucose Monitoring System. P120005/S041. 2016.
15.
BeckRWRiddlesworthTDRuedyKJet al. Effect of initiating use of an insulin pump in adults with type 1 diabetes using multiple daily insulin injections and continuous glucose monitoring (DIAMOND): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2017;5(9):700–8.
16.
SandersGDNeumannPJBasuAet al. Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses: second panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA. 2016;316(10):1093–103.
17.
HusereauDDrummondMPetrouSet al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. Value Health. 2013;16(2):e1–5.
18.
DevlinNShahKFengYMulhernBvan HoutB. Valuing health-related quality of life: an EQ-5D-5L value set for England. Health Econ. 2018:27(1):7–22.
19.
International Hypoglycaemia Study Group. Erratum to: Glucose concentrations of less than 3.0 mmol/l (54 mg/dl) should be reported in clinical trials: a joint position statement of the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Diabetologia. 2017;60(2):377.
20.
MancaAHawkinsNSculpherMJ. Estimating mean QALYs in trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis: the importance of controlling for baseline utility. Health Econ. 2005;14(5):487–96.
21.
RubinD. Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1987.
22.
ThokalaPKrugerJBrennanAet al. Assessing the cost-effectiveness of type 1 diabetes interventions: the Sheffield type 1 diabetes policy model. Diabet Med. 2014;31(4):477–86.
23.
HenrikssonMJindalRSternhufvudCBergenheimKSorstadiusEWillisM. A systematic review of cost-effectiveness models in type 1 diabetes mellitus. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34(6):569–85.
24.
WolowaczSPearsonIShannonPet al. Development and validation of a cost-utility model for Type 1 diabetes mellitus. Diabet Med. 2015;32(8):1023–35.
25.
BeckwithJNymanJAFlanaganBSchroverRSchuurmanHJ. A health economic analysis of clinical islet transplantation. Clin Transplant. 2012;26(1):23–33.
26.
McQueenRBEllisSLCampbellJDNairKVSullivanPW. Cost-effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring and intensive insulin therapy for type 1 diabetes. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2011;9:13.
27.
AiroldiMBevanGMortonAOliveiraMSmithJ. Requisite models for strategic commissioning: the example of type 1 diabetes. Health Care Manag Sci. 2008;11(2):89–110.
28.
McEwanPPooleCTetlowTHolmesPCurrieC. Evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of insulin glargine versus NPH insulin for the treatment of type 1 diabetes in the UK. Curr Med Res Opin2007;23(1):S7–19.
29.
GrimaDTThompsonMFSauriolL. Modelling cost effectiveness of insulin glargine for the treatment of type 1 and 2 diabetes in Canada. Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25(3):253–66.
30.
MuellerEMaxion-BergemannSGultyaevDet al. Development and validation of the Economic Assessment of Glycemic Control and Long-Term Effects of diabetes (EAGLE) model. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2006;8(2):219–36.
31.
PalmerAJRozeSValentineWJet al. The CORE Diabetes Model: projecting long-term clinical outcomes, costs and cost-effectiveness of interventions in diabetes mellitus (types 1 and 2) to support clinical and reimbursement decision-making. Curr Med Res Opin. 2004;20(Suppl 1):S5–26.
32.
ShearerABagustASandersonDHellerSRobertsS. Cost-effectiveness of flexible intensive insulin management to enable dietary freedom in people with type 1 diabetes in the UK. Diabet Med. 2004;21(5):460–7.
33.
ScuffhamPCarrL. The cost-effectiveness of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion compared with multiple daily injections for the management of diabetes. Diabet Med. 2003;20(7):586–93.
34.
EddyDMSchlessingerL. Archimedes: a trial-validated model of diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2003;26(11):3093–101.
35.
TomarRHLeeSWuSYet al. Disease progression and cost of insulin dependent diabetes mellitus: development and application of a simulation model. J Soc Health Syst. 1998;5(4):24–37.
36.
LungTWClarkePMHayesAJStevensRJFarmerA. Simulating lifetime outcomes associated with complications for people with type 1 diabetes. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31(6):509–18.
37.
The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. Lifetime benefits and costs of intensive therapy as practiced in the diabetes control and complications trial. JAMA. 1996;276(17):1409–15.
38.
GimenezMTannenAJReddyMMoscardoVCongetIOliverN. Revisiting the relationships between measures of glycemic control and hypoglycemia in continuous glucose monitoring data sets. Diabetes Care. 2018;41(2):326–32.
39.
FulcherGSingerJCastanedaRet al. The psychosocial and financial impact of non-severe hypoglycemic events on people with diabetes: two international surveys. J Med Econ. 2014;17(10):751–61.
40.
HellerSRFrierBMHerslovMLGundgaardJGoughSC. Severe hypoglycaemia in adults with insulin-treated diabetes: impact on healthcare resources. Diabet Med. 2016;33(4):471–7.
41.
MissoMLEgbertsKJPageMO’ConnorDShawJ. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) versus multiple insulin injections for type 1 diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010(1):CD005103.
BeckRWRiddlesworthTRuedyKet al. Effect of continuous glucose monitoring on glycemic control in adults with type 1 diabetes using insulin injections: the DIAMOND randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2017;317(4):371–8.
44.
BattelinoTCongetIOlsenBet al. The use and efficacy of continuous glucose monitoring in type 1 diabetes treated with insulin pump therapy: a randomised controlled trial. Diabetologia. 2012;55(12):3155–62.
45.
SoupalJPetruzelkovaLFlekacMet al. Comparison of different treatment modalities for type 1 diabetes, including sensor-augmented insulin regimens, in 52 weeks of follow-up: a COMISAIR study. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2016;18(9):532–8.
46.
HellerSWhiteDLeeEet al. A cluster randomised trial, cost-effectiveness analysis and psychosocial evaluation of insulin pump therapy compared with multiple injections during flexible intensive insulin therapy for type 1 diabetes: the REPOSE Trial. Health Technol Assess. 2017;21(20):1–278.
47.
AckermannRTWalliaAKangRet al. Comparative effectiveness and costs of insulin pump therapy for diabetes. Am J Manag Care. 2017;23(6):353–9.
48.
St CharlesMLynchPGrahamCMinshallME. A cost-effectiveness analysis of continuous subcutaneous insulin injection versus multiple daily injections in type 1 diabetes patients: a third-party US payer perspective. Value Health. 2009;12(5):674–86.
49.
RozeSValentineWJZakrzewskaKEPalmerAJ. Health-economic comparison of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion with multiple daily injection for the treatment of type 1 diabetes in the UK. Diabet Med. 2005;22(9):1239–45.
50.
St CharlesMESadriHMinshallMETunisSL. Health economic comparison between continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion and multiple daily injections of insulin for the treatment of adult type 1 diabetes in Canada. Clin Ther. 2009;31(3):657–67.
51.
Weissberg-BenchellJAntisdel-LomaglioJSeshadriR. Insulin pump therapy: a meta-analysis. Diabetes Care. 2003;26(4):1079–87.
52.
HoergerTJSegelJEGreggEWSaaddineJB. Is glycemic control improving in U.S. adults?Diabetes Care. 2008;31(1):81–6.
53.
WanWSkandariMMincAet al. Cost-effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring for adults with type 1 diabetes compared with self-monitoring of blood glucose: the DIAMOND randomized trial. Diabetes Care. 2018;41(6):1227–34.
54.
RozeSSaundersRBrandtASde PortuSPapoNLJendleJ. Health-economic analysis of real-time continuous glucose monitoring in people with Type 1 diabetes. Diabet Med. 2015;32(5):618–26.
55.
GomezAMAlfonso-CristanchoROrozcoJJet al. Clinical and economic benefits of integrated pump/CGM technology therapy in patients with type 1 diabetes in Colombia. Endocrinol Nutr. 2016;63(9):466–74.
56.
HarrisSMamdaniMGalbo-JorgensenCBBogelundMGundgaardJGroleauD. The effect of hypoglycemia on health-related quality of life: Canadian results from a multinational time trade-off survey. Can J Diabetes. 2014;38(1):45–52.
57.
VexiauPMavrosPKrishnarajahGLyuRYinD. Hypoglycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with a combination of metformin and sulphonylurea therapy in France. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2008;10(Suppl 1):16–24.
58.
MarrettEStargardtTMavrosPAlexanderCM. Patient-reported outcomes in a survey of patients treated with oral antihyperglycaemic medications: associations with hypoglycaemia and weight gain. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2009;11(12):1138–44.
MehrotraALiuHAdamsJLet al. Comparing costs and quality of care at retail clinics with that of other medical settings for 3 common illnesses. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(5):321–8.
TaubmanSLAllenHLWrightBJBaickerKFinkelsteinAN. Medicaid increases emergency-department use: evidence from Oregon’s Health Insurance Experiment. Science. 2014;343(6168):263–8.
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.
