Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background/Objective:

The main objective of this study is to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) of the Cambridge hybrid closed-loop automated insulin delivery (AID) algorithm versus usual care for children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

Methods:

This multicenter, binational, parallel-controlled trial randomized 133 insulin pump using participants aged 6 to 18 years to either AID (n = 65) or usual care (n = 68) for 6 months. Both within-trial and lifetime cost-effectiveness were analyzed. Analysis focused on the treatment subgroup (n = 21) who received the much more reliable CamAPS FX hardware iteration and their contemporaneous control group (n = 24). Lifetime complications and costs were simulated via an updated Sheffield T1D policy model.

Results:

Within-trial, both groups had indistinguishable and statistically unchanged health-related quality of life, and statistically similar hypoglycemia, severe hypoglycemia, and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) event rates. Total health care utilization was higher in the treatment group. Both the overall treatment group and CamAPS FX subgroup exhibited improved HbA_1C (−0.32%, 95% CI: −0.59 to −0.04; P = .02, and −1.05%, 95% CI: −1.43 to −0.67; P < .001, respectively). Modeling projected increased expected lifespan of 5.36 years and discounted quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 1.16 (U.K. tariffs) and 1.52 (U.S. tariffs) in the CamAPS FX subgroup. Estimated ICERs for the subgroup were £19 324/QALY (United Kingdom) and −$3917/QALY (United States). For subgroup patients already using continuous glucose monitors (CGM), ICERs were £10 096/QALY (United Kingdom) and −$33 616/QALY (United States). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis generated mean ICERs of £19 342/QALY (95% CI: £15 903/QALY to £22 929/QALY) (United Kingdom) and −$28 283/QALY (95% CI: −$59 607/QALY to $1858/QALY) (United States).

Conclusions:

For children and adolescents with T1D on insulin pump therapy, AID using the Cambridge algorithm appears cost-effective below a £20 000/QALY threshold (United Kingdom) and cost saving (United States).

Keywords

Cambridge algorithm cost-effectiveness closed-loop automated insulin delivery type 1 diabetes United Kingdom United States

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

National Paediatric Diabetes Audit. Annual Report 2018-2019: Care Processes and Outcomes. London, England: Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health; 2020.

Foster

Beck

Miller

, et al. State of type 1 diabetes management and outcomes from the T1D exchange in 2016-2018. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019;21(2):66-72.

Hermann

Miller

Hofer

, et al. The Transatlantic HbA1c gap: differences in glycaemic control across the lifespan between people included in the US T1D Exchange Registry and those included in the German/Austrian DPV registry. Diabet Med. 2020;37(5):848-855.

Leelarathna

Choudhary

Wilmot

, et al. Hybrid D-loop therapy: where are we in 2021? Diabetes, Obesity Metabolism. 2020;23(3):655-660.

Nathan

Bayless

Cleary

, et al. Diabetes control and complications trial/epidemiology of diabetes interventions and complications study at 30 years: advances and contributions. Diabetes. 2013;62(12):3976-3986.

Bergenstal

Nimri

Beck

, et al. A comparison of two hybrid closed-loop systems in adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes (FLAIR): a multicentre, randomised, crossover trial. Lancet. 2021;397(10270):208-219.

Breton

Kanapka

Beck

, et al. A randomized trial of closed-loop control in children with type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(9):836-845.

Brown

Kovatchev

Raghinaru

, et al. Six-month randomized, multicenter trial of closed-loop control in type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(18):1707-1717.

Tauschmann

Bally

HTL

Allen

, et al. Closed-loop insulin delivery in suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes: a multicentre, 12-week randomised trial. Yearbook of Paediatric Endocrinology. Lancet. 2019;392:1321-1329.

10.

Lal

Basina

Maahs

Hood

Buckingham

Wilson

DM.

One year clinical experience of the first commercial hybrid closed-loop system. Diabetes Care. 2019;42(12):2190-2196.

11.

Messer

Berget

Vigers

, et al. Real world hybrid closed-loop discontinuation: predictors and perceptions of youth discontinuing the 670G system in the first 6 months. Pediatr Diabetes. 2020;21(2):319-327.

12.

Kovatchev

Anderson

Raghinaru

, et al. Erratum. Randomized controlled trial of mobile closed-loop control. Diabetes Care 2020;43:607-615. Diabetes Care. 2020;43(6):1366.

13.

Musolino

Allen

Hartnell

, et al. Assessing the efficacy, safety and utility of 6-month day-and-night automated closed-loop insulin delivery under free-living conditions compared with insulin pump therapy in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes: an open-label, multicentre, multinational, single-period, randomised, parallel group study protocol. BMJ Open. 2019;9(6):e027856.

14.

Ware

Boughton

Allen

, et al. Cambridge hybrid closed-loop algorithm in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes: a multicentre 6-month randomised controlled trial. Lancet Digit Health. 2022;4(4):e245-e255.

15.

Thokala

Kruger

Brennan

, et al. Assessing the cost-effectiveness of Type 1 diabetes interventions: the Sheffield Type 1 Diabetes Policy Model. Diabet Med. 2014;31(4):477-486.

16.

Sanders

Neumann

Basu

, et al. Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses. JAMA. 2016;316(10):1093.

17.

Husereau

Drummond

Petrou

, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. Euro J Health Economic. 2013;14(3):367-372.

18.

Stevens

Valuation of the child health utility 9D Index. Pharmacoeconomics. 2012;30(8):729-747.

19.

EuroQol Group. EuroQol—a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16(3):199-208.

20.

Group

EQ-5D-Y User Guide: How to apply, score, and present results from the EQ-5D-Y; 2020. https://www.unmc.edu/centric/_documents/EQ-5D-5L.pdf

21.

Retra

JGA

Essers

BAB

Joore

Evers

SMAA

Dirksen

. Age dependency of EQ-5D-Youth health states valuations on a visual analogue scale. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2020;18(1):386.

22.

Biskupiak

Ramos

Levy

, et al. Cost-effectiveness of the tubeless automated insulin delivery system vs standard of care in the management of type 1 diabetes in the United States. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2023;29(7):807-817.

23.

Serné

Roze

Buompensiere

Valentine

De Portu

de Valk

HW.

Cost-effectiveness of hybrid closed loop insulin pumps versus multiple daily injections plus intermittently scanned glucose monitoring in people with type 1 diabetes in the Netherlands. Adv Ther. 2022;39(4):1844-1856.

24.

Pease

Callander

Zomer

, et al. The cost of control: cost-effectiveness analysis of hybrid closed-loop therapy in youth. Diabetes Care. 2022;45(9):1971-1980.

25.

Jendle

Pöhlmann

de Portu

Smith-Palmer

Roze

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(3):110-118.

26.

Roze

Buompensiere

Ozdemir

de Portu

Cohen

Cost-effectiveness of a novel hybrid closed-loop system compared with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in people with type 1 diabetes in the UK. J Med Econ. 2021;24(1):883-890.

27.

Jendle

Buompensiere

Ozdemir Saltik

, et al. 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. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2023;25(12):864-876.

28.

Roze

Isitt

Smith-Palmer

Javanbakht

Lynch

. Long-term cost-effectiveness of Dexcom G6 real-time continuous glucose monitoring versus self-monitoring of blood glucose in patients with type 1 diabetes in the U.K. Diabetes Care. 2020;43(10):2411-2417.

29.

Hellmund

Weitgasser

Blissett

Cost calculation for a flash glucose monitoring system for UK adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus receiving intensive insulin treatment. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2018;138:193-200.

30.

Berget

Messer

Vigers

, et al. Six months of hybrid closed loop in the real-world: an evaluation of children and young adults using the 670G system. Pediatr Diabetes. 2020;21(2):310-318.

31.

Nathan

, 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(1):9-16.

32.

Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) / Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (EDIC) Study Research Group. Mortality in type 1 diabetes in the DCCT/EDIC versus the general population. Diabetes Care. 2016;39(8):1378-1383.

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.

0.00 MB

0.06 MB

Cost-Effectiveness of Closed-Loop Automated Insulin Delivery Using the Cambridge Hybrid Algorithm in Children and Adolescents With Type 1 Diabetes: Results from a Multicenter 6-Month Randomized Trial

Abstract

Background/Objective:

Methods:

Results:

Conclusions:

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material