Cost-utility analysis of Dexcom G6 real-time continuous glucose monitoring versus FreeStyle Libre 1 intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes in Belgium.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of Dexcom G6 real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) with alert functionality compared with FreeStyle Libre 1 intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) without alerts in adults with type 1 diabetes in Belgium. METHODS: The IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model was used to estimate cost-effectiveness. Input data for the simulated baseline cohort were sourced from the randomised ALERTT1 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov. REGISTRATION NO: NCT03772600). The age of the participants was 42.9 ± 14.1 years (mean ± SD), and the baseline HbA1c was 57.8 ± 9.5 mmol/mol (7.4 ± 0.9%). Participants using rtCGM showed a reduction in HbA1c of 3.6 mmol/mol (0.36 percentage points) based on the 6-month mean between-group difference. In the base case, both rtCGM and isCGM were priced at €3.92/day (excluding value-added tax [VAT]) according to the Belgian reimbursement system. The analysis was performed from a Belgian healthcare payer perspective over a lifetime time horizon. Health outcomes were expressed as quality-adjusted life years. Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses were used to account for parameter uncertainty. RESULTS: In the base case, rtCGM dominated isCGM, resulting in lower diabetes-related complication costs and better health outcomes. The associated main drivers favouring rtCGM were lower HbA1c, fewer severe hypoglycaemic events and reduced fear of hypoglycaemia. The results were robust under a wide range of one-way sensitivity analyses. In models where the price of rtCGM is €5.11/day (a price increase of 30.4%) or €12.34/day (a price increase of 214.8%), rtCGM was cost-neutral or reached an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €40,000 per quality-adjusted life year, respectively. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: When priced similarly, Dexcom G6 rtCGM with alert functionality has both economic and clinical benefits compared with FreeStyle Libre 1 isCGM without alerts in adults with type 1 diabetes in Belgium, and appears to be a cost-effective glucose monitoring modality. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03772600.

Economic Evaluation of Medically Assisted Reproduction: A Methodological Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Medically assisted reproduction (MAR) is a challenging application area for health economic evaluations, entailing a broad range of costs and outcomes, stretching out long-term and accruing to several parties. PURPOSE: To systematically review which costs and outcomes are included in published economic evaluations of MAR and to compare these with health technology assessment (HTA) prescriptions about which cost and outcomes should be considered for different evaluation objectives. DATA SOURCES: HTA guidelines and systematic searches of PubMed Central, Embase, WOS CC, CINAHL, Cochrane (CENTRAL), HTA, and NHS EED. STUDY SELECTION: All economic evaluations of MAR published from 2010 to 2022. DATA EXTRACTION: A predetermined data collection form summarized study characteristics. Essential costs and outcomes of MAR were listed based on HTA and treatment guidelines for different evaluation objectives. For each study, included costs and outcomes were reviewed. DATA SYNTHESIS: The review identified 93 cost-effectiveness estimates, of which 57% were expressed as cost-per-(healthy)-live-birth, 19% as cost-per-pregnancy, and 47% adopted a clinic perspective. Few adopted societal perspectives and only 2% used quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Broader evaluations omitted various relevant costs and outcomes related to MAR. There are several cost and outcome categories for which available HTA guidelines do not provide conclusive directions regarding inclusion or exclusion. LIMITATIONS: Studies published before 2010 and of interventions not clearly labeled as MAR were excluded. We focus on methods rather than which MAR treatments are cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Economic evaluations of MAR typically calculate a short-term cost-per-live-birth from a clinic perspective. Broader analyses, using cost-per-QALY or BCRs from societal perspectives, considering the full scope of reproduction-related costs and outcomes, are scarce and often incomplete. We provide a summary of costs and outcomes for future research guidance and identify areas requiring HTA methodological development. HIGHLIGHTS: The cost-effectiveness of MAR procedures can be exceptionally complex to estimate as there is a broad range of costs and outcomes involved, in principle stretching out over multiple generations and over many stakeholders.We list 21 key areas of costs and outcomes of MAR. Which of these needs to be accounted for alters for different evaluation objectives (determined by the type of economic evaluation, time horizon considered, and perspective).Published studies mostly investigate cost-effectiveness in the very short-term, from a clinic perspective, expressed as cost-per-live-birth. There is a lack of comprehensive economic evaluations that adopt a broader perspective with a longer time horizon. The broader the evaluation objective, the more relevant costs and outcomes were excluded.For several costs and outcomes, particularly those relevant for broader, societal evaluations of MAR, the inclusion or exclusion is theoretically ambiguous, and HTA guidelines do not offer sufficient guidance.