Diabetes care · 2022
Nationally Subsidized Continuous Glucose Monitoring: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Pease Anthony J, Zoungas Sophia, Callander Emily, Jones Timothy W, Johnson Stephanie R, Holmes-Walker D Jane, Bloom David E, Davis Elizabeth A, Zomer Ella
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) Initiative recently introduced universal subsidized CGM funding for people with type 1 diabetes under 21 years of age in Australia. We thus aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this CGM Initiative based on national implementation data and project the economic impact of extending the subsidy to all age-groups.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We used a patient-level Markov model to simulate disease progression for young people with type 1 diabetes and compared government-subsidized access to CGM with the previous user-funded system. Three years of real-world clinical input data were sourced from analysis of the Australasian Diabetes Data Network and National Diabetes Services Scheme registries. Costs were considered from the Australian health care system's perspective. An annual discount rate of 5% was applied to future costs and outcomes. Uncertainty was evaluated with probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses.
RESULTS: Government-subsidized CGM funding for young people with type 1 diabetes compared with a completely user-funded model resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of AUD 39,518 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Most simulations (85%) were below the commonly accepted willingness-to-pay threshold of AUD 50,000 per QALY gained in Australia. Sensitivity analyses indicated that base-case results were robust, though strongly impacted by the cost of CGM devices. Extending the CGM Initiative throughout adulthood resulted in an ICER of AUD 34,890 per QALY gained.
CONCLUSIONS: Providing subsidized access to CGM for people with type 1 diabetes was found to be cost-effective compared with a completely user-funded model in Australia.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We used a patient-level Markov model to simulate disease progression for young people with type 1 diabetes and compared government-subsidized access to CGM with the previous user-funded system. Three years of real-world clinical input data were sourced from analysis of the Australasian Diabetes Data Network and National Diabetes Services Scheme registries. Costs were considered from the Australian health care system's perspective. An annual discount rate of 5% was applied to future costs and outcomes. Uncertainty was evaluated with probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses.
RESULTS: Government-subsidized CGM funding for young people with type 1 diabetes compared with a completely user-funded model resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of AUD 39,518 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Most simulations (85%) were below the commonly accepted willingness-to-pay threshold of AUD 50,000 per QALY gained in Australia. Sensitivity analyses indicated that base-case results were robust, though strongly impacted by the cost of CGM devices. Extending the CGM Initiative throughout adulthood resulted in an ICER of AUD 34,890 per QALY gained.
CONCLUSIONS: Providing subsidized access to CGM for people with type 1 diabetes was found to be cost-effective compared with a completely user-funded model in Australia.