Skip to main content
Search
Search
Advanced Search
Skip main navigation
Open access
Research Article
11 January 2024

Smart connected insulin dose monitoring technologies versus standard of care: a Canadian cost–effectiveness analysis

Authors: Katalina Chan https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0638-8352 [email protected], Kåre Hansen, Sergey Muratov https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4105-4609, Shoghag Khoudigian, and Mark LamotteAuthor Info & Affiliations
Volume 13, Number 3
https://doi.org/10.57264/cer-2023-0124
PDFFormats

Abstract

Aim: There is growing interest in novel insulin management systems that improve glycemic control. This study aimed to evaluate the cost–effectiveness of smart connected insulin re-usable pens or caps for disposable insulin pens versus pens without connected capabilities in the management of adult patients with Type 1 diabetes (T1DM) from a Canadian societal perspective. Materials & methods: The IQVIA Core Diabetes Model was utilized to conduct the analyses. Applying data from a non-interventional study, the connected insulin device arm was assumed to result in greater reductions (-0.67%) in glycated hemoglobin from baseline and fewer non-severe hypoglycemic events (-32.87 events/patient annually). Macro- and micro-vascular risks were predicted using the Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications study data. Direct and indirect costs and utilities were sourced from literature. Key model outcomes included life years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Both costs and effects were annually discounted at 1.5% over a 60-year time horizon. Uncertainty was explored in scenario and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA). Results: The connected insulin pen device was associated with lower mean discounted total costs (CAD221,943 vs 266,199; -CAD44,256), improvement in mean life expectancy (25.78 vs 24.29; +1.49 years) and gains in QALYs (18.48 vs 16.74; +1.75 QALYs) over the patient's lifetime. Most scenario analyses confirmed the base case results. The PSA showed dominance in 99.5% of cases. Conclusion: For adults with T1DM in Canada, a connected insulin pen device is likely to be a cost-effective treatment option associated with greater clinical benefits and lower costs relative to a standard re-usable or disposable pen.

Tweetable abstract

For adults with Type 1 diabetes mellitus in Canada, a connected insulin pen device is a cost-effective treatment option associated with greater clinical benefits and lower costs relative to a standard re-usable or disposable pen.

Plain language summary

What is this article about?

People with Type 1 diabetes have challenges with keeping their blood glucose level under control, and risk episodes when these levels drop very low. Connected insulin pen devices are a type of digital technology available in Canada that can help address that. This article explores whether connected insulin pen devices are good value for money compared with standard re-usable or disposable pens.

What were the results?

A cost–effectiveness analysis was done using a specially designed mathematical model that compared the benefits and costs of connected insulin pens with the standard treatment without connectivity technology. The modeling showed that use of connected insulin pens prolong life, improve its quality and save costs in the long run relative to standard re-usable or disposable pens.

What do the results of the study mean?

The results suggest that in Canada, connected insulin pens could be a cost-effective option and should be considered for public reimbursement.

Supplementary Material

File (supplementary materials.docx)

References

2.
Houlden RL. Clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and management of diabetes in Canada: introduction. Can. J. Diabetes 42, S1–S5 (2018).
PubMed
Google Scholar
3.
Laing SP, Swerdlow AJ, Slater SD et al. Mortality from heart disease in a cohort of 23,000 patients with insulin-treated diabetes. Diabetologia 46, 760–765 (2003).
PubMed
Google Scholar
4.
Livingstone SJ, Looker HC, Hothersall EJ et al. Risk of cardiovascular disease and total mortality in adults with Type 1 diabetes: Scottish Registry Linkage Study. PLoS Med. 9, e1001321 (2012).
PubMed
Google Scholar
5.
Rosella LC, Lebenbaum M, Fitzpatrick T et al. Impact of diabetes on healthcare costs in a population-based cohort: a cost analysis. Diabet. Med. 33, 395–403 (2016).
PubMed
Google Scholar
6.
Diabetes Canada. New Data Shows Diabetes Rates And Economic Burden On Families Continue To Rise In Ontario (2019). https://www.diabetes.ca/media-room/press-releases/new-data-shows-diabetes-rates-and-economic-burden-on-families-continue-to-rise-in-ontario--
Google Scholar
7.
McGibbon A, Adams L, Ingersoll K, Kader T, Tugwell B. Glycemic management in adults with Type 1 diabetes. Can. J. Diabetes 42(Suppl. 1), S80–S87 (2018).
PubMed
Google Scholar
8.
Aronson R, Brown RE, Abitbol A et al. The Canadian LMC Diabetes Registry: a profile of the demographics, management, and outcomes of individuals with Type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol. Ther. 23, 31–40 (2021).
PubMed
Google Scholar
9.
CADTH. Hybrid Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery Systems for People with Type 1 Diabetes (2020). https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/ou-tr/de0104-hcl-insulin-scoping-brief-final.pdf
Google Scholar
10.
Foster NC, Beck RW, Miller KM et al. State of Type 1 diabetes management and outcomes from the T1D Exchange in 2016–2018. Diabetes Technol. Ther. 21, 66–72 (2019).
PubMed
Google Scholar
11.
Fagherazzi G, Ravaud P. Digital diabetes: perspectives for diabetes prevention, management and research. Diabetes Metab. 45, 322–329 (2019).
PubMed
Google Scholar
12.
Hou C, Carter B, Hewitt J, Francisa T, Mayor S. Do mobile phone applications improve glycemic control (HbA1c) in the self-management of diabetes? A systematic review, meta-analysis, and GRADE of 14 randomized trials. Diabetes Care 39, 2089–2095 (2016).
PubMed
Google Scholar
13.
Grady M, Cameron H, Bhatiker A, Holt E, Schnell O. Real-world evidence of improved glycemic control in people with diabetes using a bluetooth-connected blood glucose meter with a mobile diabetes management app. Diabetes Technol. Ther. 24(10), 770–778 (2022).
PubMed
Google Scholar
14.
Maiorino MI, Signoriello S, Maio A et al. Effects of continuous glucose monitoring on metrics of glycemic control in diabetes: a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Diabetes Care 43, 1146–1156 (2020).
PubMed
Google Scholar
15.
Greenwood DA, Gee PM, Fatkin KJ, Peeples M. A systematic review of reviews evaluating technology-enabled diabetes self-management education and support. J. Diabetes Sci. Technol. 11, 1015–1027 (2017).
PubMed
Google Scholar
16.
Adolfsson P, Hartvig NV, Kaas A, Møller JB, Hellman J. Increased time in range and fewer missed bolus injections after introduction of a smart connected insulin pen. Diabetes Technol. Ther. 22, 709–718 (2020).
PubMed
Google Scholar
17.
Makroum MA, Adda M, Bouzouane A, Ibrahim H. Machine learning and smart devices for diabetes management: systematic review. Sensors (Basel) 22(5), 1843 (2022).
PubMed
Google Scholar
18.
American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2022. Diabetes Care 45, S97–S112 (2021).
Google Scholar
19.
Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. Management of diabetes: a national clinical guideline (2017). https://www.sign.ac.uk/assets/sign116.pdf
Google Scholar
20.
Sparre T, Hansen N-AB, Wernersson AS, Guarraia M. Development of an insulin pen is a patient-centric multidisciplinary undertaking: a commentary. J. Diabetes Sci. Technol. 16, 617–622 (2021).
PubMed
Google Scholar
21.
Pease A, Zomer E, Liew D et al. cost–effectiveness of health technologies in adults with Type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and narrative synthesis. Syst. Rev. 9, 171 (2020).
PubMed
Google Scholar
22.
McEwan P, Foos V, Palmer JL et al. Validation of the IMS CORE diabetes model. Value Health 17, 714–724 (2014).
PubMed
Google Scholar
23.
Palmer AJ, Roze S, Valentine WJ et 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. 20(Suppl. 1), S5–S26 (2004).
PubMed
Google Scholar
24.
NICE. Technology appraisal: empagliflozin in combination therapy for treating Type 2 diabetes (2015). https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta336/chapter/3-The-companys-submission#cost–effectiveness
Google Scholar
25.
IQVIA. CORE Diabetes Model: publications (2023). https://www.core-diabetes.com/Index.aspx?Page=Publications
Google Scholar
26.
Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies (2017). https://www.cadth.ca/dv/guidelines-economic-evaluation-health-technologies-canada-4th-edition
Google Scholar
27.
Eeg-Olofsson K, Cederholm J, Nilsson PM et al. Glycemic control and cardiovascular disease in 7,454 patients with Type 1 diabetes: an observational study from the Swedish National Diabetes Register (NDR). Diabetes Care 33, 1640–1646 (2010).
PubMed
Google Scholar
28.
Jendle J, Ericsson Å, Gundgaard J et al. Smart insulin pens are associated with improved clinical outcomes at lower cost versus standard-of-care treatment of Type 1 diabetes in Sweden: a cost–effectiveness analysis. Diabetes Ther. 12, 373–388 (2021).
PubMed
Google Scholar
29.
Health Canada. Canadian Tobacco, Alcohol and Drugs Survey (CTADS): summary of results (2017). https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/canadian-alcohol-drugs-survey/2017-summary.html
Google Scholar
30.
World Health Organization (WHO). Global status report on alcohol and healthGlobal status report on alcohol and health (2018). https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241565639
Google Scholar
31.
Vigersky RA, McMahon C. The relationship of hemoglobin A1C to time-in-range in patients with diabetes. Diabetes Technol. Ther. 21, 81–85 (2019).
PubMed
Google Scholar
32.
Wilson PW, Evans JC. Coronary artery disease prediction. Am. J. Hypertens. 6, 309S–313S (1993).
PubMed
Google Scholar
33.
Nathan DM. The diabetes control and complications trial/epidemiology of diabetes interventions and complications study at 30 years: overview. Diabetes Care 37, 9–16 (2014).
PubMed
Google Scholar
34.
Government of Ontario. Ontario Drug Benefit Formualry (2022). https://www.formulary.health.gov.on.ca/formulary/
Google Scholar
35.
Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care (MHLTC). Schedule of benefits for Physician Services Under the Health Insurance Act (2022). http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/pro/programs/ohip/sob/sob_mn.html
Google Scholar
36.
Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI). Patient Cost Estimator (2019). https://www.cihi.ca/en/patient-cost-estimator
Google Scholar
37.
CADTH. New drugs for Type 2 diabetes: second-line therapy – science report (2017). https://cadth.ca/sites/default/files/pdf/TR0012_T2D_Science_Report.pdf
Google Scholar
38.
Statistics Canada. Table 18-10-0004-01 Consumer Price Index, monthly, not seasonally adjusted (2021). https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1810000401
Google Scholar
39.
Peasgood T, Brennan A, Mansell P et al. The impact of diabetes-related complications on preference-based measures of health-related quality of life in adults with Type 1 diabetes. Med. Decis. Making 36, 1020–1033 (2016).
PubMed
Google Scholar
40.
Beaudet A, Palmer JL, Timlin L et al. Cost-utility of exenatide once weekly compared with insulin glargine in patients with Type 2 diabetes in the UK. J. Med. Econ. 14, 357–366 (2011).
PubMed
Google Scholar
41.
Statistics Canada. Table 13-10-0392-01 Deaths and age-specific mortality rates, by selected grouped causes (2019, July 2021). https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1310039201
Google Scholar
42.
Statistics Canada. Table 13-10-0837-01 Life expectancy and other elements of the complete life table, single-year estimates, Quebec (2019). https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/cv.action?pid=1310083701
Google Scholar
43.
Binder L, Ghadban M, Sit C, Barnard K. Health technology assessment process for oncology drugs: impact of CADTH changes on public payer reimbursement recommendations. Curr. Oncol. 29, 1514–1526 (2022).
PubMed
Google Scholar
44.
Oortwijn W, Determann D, Schiffers K, Tan SS, van der Tuin J. Towards integrated health technology assessment for improving decision making in selected countries. Value Health 20, 1121–1130 (2017).
PubMed
Google Scholar
|