Cost-effectiveness of professional-mode flash glucose monitoring in general practice among adults with type 2 diabetes: Evidence from the GP-OSMOTIC trial
Hua X., Catchpool M., Clarke P., Blackberry I., Chiang J., Holmes-Truscott E., Jenkins A., Khunti K., O'Neal D., Speight J., Furler J., Manski-Nankervis JA., Dalziel K., Best J., Liew D., Kennedy M., Audehm R., Thuraisingam S., De La Rue K., Ginnivan L., Hannam R., Clarke M., Lake A., Januszewski A.
Aim: To assess the cost-effectiveness of professional-mode flash glucose monitoring in adults with type 2 diabetes in general practice compared with usual clinical care. Methods: An economic evaluation was conducted as a component of the GP-OSMOTIC trial, a pragmatic multicentre 12-month randomised controlled trial enrolling 299 adults with type 2 diabetes in Victoria, Australia. The economic evaluation was conducted from an Australian healthcare sector perspective with a lifetime horizon. Health-related quality of life (EQ-5D) and total healthcare costs were compared between the intervention and the usual care group within the trial period. The 'UKPDS Outcomes Model 2' was used to simulate post-trial lifetime costs, life expectancy and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Results: No significant difference in health-related quality of life and costs was found between the two groups within the trial period. Professional-mode flash glucose monitoring yielded greater QALYs (0.03 [95% CI: 0.02, 0.04]) and a higher cost (A$3807 [95% CI: 3604, 4007]) compared with usual clinical care using a lifetime horizon under the trial-based monitoring frequency, considered not cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio = A$120,228). The intervention becomes cost-effective if sensor price is reduced to lower than 50%, or monitoring frequency is decreased to once per year while maintaining the same treatment effect on HbA1c. Conclusions: Including professional-mode flash glucose monitoring every 3 months as part of a management plan for people with type 2 diabetes in general practice is not cost-effective, but could be if the sensor price or monitoring frequency can be reduced.