Cost effectiveness of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) for patients with type 2 diabetes and not on insulin
- First Online:
Canadian patients, healthcare providers and payers share interest in assessing the value of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) for individuals with type 2 diabetes but not on insulin. Using the UKPDS (UK Prospective Diabetes Study) model, the Canadian Optimal Prescribing and Utilization Service (COMPUS) conducted an SMBG cost-effectiveness analysis. Based on the results, COMPUS does not recommend routine strip use for most adults with type 2 diabetes who are not on insulin. Cost-effectiveness studies require many assumptions regarding cohort, clinical effect, complication costs, etc. The COMPUS evaluation included several conservative assumptions that negatively impacted SMBG cost effectiveness.
Current objectives were to (i) review key, impactful COMPUS assumptions; (ii) illustrate how alternative inputs can lead to more favourable results for SMBG cost effectiveness; and (iii) provide recommendations for assessing its long-term value.
A summary of COMPUS methods and results was followed by a review of assumptions (for trial-based glycosylated haemoglobin [HbA1c] effect, patient characteristics, costs, simulation pathway) and their potential impact. The UKPDS model was used for a 40-year cost-effectiveness analysis of SMBG (1.29 strips per day) versus no SMBG in the Canadian payer setting. COMPUS assumptions for patient characteristics (e.g. HbA1c 8.4%), SMBG HbA1c advantage (−0.25%) and costs were retained. As with the COMPUS analysis, UKPDS HbA1c decay curves were incorporated into SMBG and no-SMBG pathways. An important difference was that SMBG HbA1c benefits in the current study could extend beyond the initial simulation period. Sensitivity analyses examined SMBG HbA1c advantage, adherence, complication history and cost inputs. Outcomes (discounted at 5%) included QALYs, complication rates, total costs (year 2008 values) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).
The base-case ICER was $Can63 664 per QALY gained; approximately 56% of the COMPUS base-case ICER. SMBG was associated with modest risk reductions (0.10–0.70%) for six of seven complications. Assuming an SMBG advantage of −0.30% decreased the current base-case ICER by over $Can10 000 per QALY gained. With adherence of 66% and 87%, ICERs were (respectively) $Can39231 and $Can54349 per QALY gained. Incorporating a more representative complication history and 15% complication cost increase resulted in an ICER of $Can49 743 per QALY gained.
These results underscore the importance of modelling assumptions regarding the duration of HbA1c effect. The current study shares several COMPUS limitations relating to the UKPDS model being designed for newly diagnosed patients, and to randomized controlled trial monitoring rates. Neither study explicitly examined the impact of varying the duration of initial HbA1c effects, or of medication or other treatment changes. Because the COMPUS research will potentially influence clinical practice and reimbursement policy in Canada, understanding the impact of assumptions on cost-effectiveness results seems especially important. Demonstrating that COMPUS ICERs were greatly reduced through variations in a small number of inputs may encourage additional clinical research designed to measure SMBG effects within the context of optimal disease management. It may also encourage additional economic evaluations that incorporate lessons learned and best practices for assessing the overall value of SMBG for type 2 diabetes in insulin-naive patients.
- 1.Canadian Diabetes Association (CDA). Diabetes: Canada at the tipping point. Charting a new path [online]. Available from URL: http://www.diabetes.ca/advocacy/reports-and-information/diabetes-canada-at-the-tipping-point/ [Accessed 2011 Apr 2]
- 2.Canadian Diabetes Association (CDA). The harsh reality: diabetes is a global pandemic [online]. Available from URL: http://www.diabetes.ca/research/specialpopulations/ [Accessed 2010 Sep 15]
- 7.Canadian Optimal Medication Prescribing and Utilization Service (COMPUS). Cost-effectiveness of blood glucose test strips in the management of adult patients with diabetes mellitus. Ottawa (ON): Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) Optimal Therapy Report 2009; 3(3) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cadth.ca/media/pdf/BGTS_Consolidated_Economic_Report.pdf [Accessed 2010 Aug 6]Google Scholar
- 19.Canadian Diabetes Association (CDA). 2008 clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and management of diabetes in Canada. Can J Diabetes 2008; 32Suppl. 1: i–201Google Scholar
- 20.American Diabetes Association (ADA). 2010 clinical practice recommendations. Diabetes Care 2010; 33Suppl. 1: 1–96Google Scholar
- 24.Farmer AJ, Wade AN, French DP, et al. Blood glucose self-monitoring in type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. Health Technol Assess 2009; 13: 13–23Google Scholar
- 26.Tunis SL, Willis WD, Foos V. Self-monitoring of blood glucose for type 2 diabetes patients on oral anti-diabetes drugs: cost-effectiveness in France, Germany, Italy, and Spain. Curr Med Res Opin 2010; 26: 162–75Google Scholar
- 28.Clar C, Barnard K, Royle P, et al. Self-monitoring of blood glucose in type 2 diabetes: systematic review. Health Technol Assess 2010; 14: 1–140Google Scholar
- 29.Dean HJ. Self-monitoring of blood glucose levels in persons with type 2 diabetes not requiring insulin: routine use is not recommended. Can J Diabetes 2011; 35: 19–20Google Scholar
- 31.Canadian Optimal Medication Prescribing and Utilization Service (COMPUS). Optimal therapy recommendations for the prescribing and use of blood glucose test strips [CADTH Optimal Therapy Report]. Ottawa (ON): Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), July 2009; 3 (6) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cadth.ca/media/pdf/compus_BGTS_OT_Rec_e.pdf [Accessed 2010 Oct 4]Google Scholar
- 32.O’Reilly D, Hopkins R, Blackhouse G, et al. Development of an Ontario diabetes economic model (ODEM) and application to a multidisciplinary primary care diabetes management program. Hamilton (ON): Program for Assessment of Technology in Health (PATH), 2006 NovGoogle Scholar
- 34.Barnett AH, Krentz AJ, Strojek K, et al. The efficacy of self-monitoring of blood glucose in the management of patients with type 2 diabetes treated with a gliclazide modified release-based regimen: a multicentre, randomized, parallel-group, 6-month evaluation (DINAMIC 1 study). Diabetes Obes Metab 2008; 10: 1239–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 40.Canadian Optimal Medication Prescribing and Utilization Service (COMPUS). Systematic review of use of blood glucose test strips for the management of diabetes mellitus [CADTH Optimal Therapy Report]. Ottawa (ON): Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) 2009; 3 (2) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cadth.ca/media/pdf/BGTS_SR_Report_of_Clinical_Outcomes.pdf [Accessed 2010 Jun 14]Google Scholar
- 41.Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. Methodology checklist 2: randomized controlled trials. In SIGN 50: a guideline developers’ handbook. Edinburgh: The Network, 2004Google Scholar
- 43.International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ispor.org/PEguidelines/source/HTAGuidelinesfortheEconomicEvaluationofHealthTechnologies-Canada.pdf [Accessed 2010 Oct 15]
- 49.Poolsup N, Suksomboon N, Jiamsathit W. Systematic review of the benefits of self-monitoring of blood glucose on glycemic control in type 2 diabetes patients. Diabetes Technol Ther 2008; 10Suppl. 1: 51–66Google Scholar
- 52.Tunis SL. Randomized clinical trial (RCT) design and analytic issues impacting assumed clinical effects and results of cost-effectiveness analyses: illustration from a recent Canadian report on the cost-effectiveness of blood glucose test strips for type 2 diabetes [poster]. 15th Annual International Meeting of ISPOR; Atlanta (GA); 2010 May 15-19Google Scholar
- 53.Polonsky WH, Fisher L, Schikman CH, et al. The value of episodic, intensive blood glucose monitoring in non-insulin treated persons with type 2 diabetes: design of the structured testing program (STeP) study, a cluster-randomised, clinical trial. BMC Fam Pract 2010; 11: 37–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 56.The National Collaborating Centre for Chronic Conditions. Type 2 diabetes national clinical guidelines for management in primary and secondary care (update). London: Royal College of Physicians for National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), 2008 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/11983/40803/40803.pdf [Accessed 2010 Sep 4]Google Scholar
- 58.UKPDS Outcomes Model User Manual, version 1.2.1.June3, 2009. Oxford: ISIS Innovation Ltd, University of Oxford Diabetes Trials Unit (DTU) and Health Economics Research Centre (HERC), 2010 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.dtu.ox.ac.uk/outcomesmodel/ [Accessed 2010 Oct3]
- 66.Latter C, McLean-Veysey P, Dunbar P, et al. Self-monitoring of blood glucose: what are healthcare professionals recommending? Can J Diabetes 2011; 35: 31–8Google Scholar