Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Flash Glucose Monitoring System for People with Type 2 Diabetes Receiving Intensive Insulin Treatment.

Aims: For people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) on intensive insulin therapy, the use of flash continuous glucose monitoring ("flash monitoring") is associated with improved average glucose control and/or reduced hypoglycemic exposure. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of flash monitoring versus traditional blood glucose monitoring (BGM) in people with T2D using intensive insulin in the United Kingdom (UK).

Methods: The IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model (IQVIA CDM; v9.0) was used to analyze the impact of flash monitoring versus BGM over a 40-year time horizon from the UK payer perspective. Model inputs included baseline characteristics, intervention effects, resource utilization, costs, and utilities, based on recently published literature and national databases. UK National Health Service reimbursed costs of flash monitoring and BGM were used. An intervention-related health utility was obtained from a time trade-off study. Alternative scenarios were explored to assess the impact of key assumptions on base case results.

Results: In base-case analysis, flash monitoring compared with BGM resulted in an incremental cost of £5781 and an additional 0.47 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). This provides an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £12,309/QALY. HbA1c and the intervention-related health utility were the key drivers of differentiation. All scenario analyses, including different discount rates, time horizons, effects on HbA1c and on the intervention-related health utility, as well as glycemic emergencies, generated ICERs of less than £20,000 per QALY.

Conclusions: The consistent results across base case and a range of scenario analyses indicate that long-term flash glucose monitoring use is cost-effective compared with BGM in a UK population of T2D on intensive insulin therapy based on updated clinical effects and a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000-30,000 per QALY.