Costs Analysis Of Novel Flash Glucose Monitoring Technology In Adults With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) Under Insulin Treatment In Spain

• Published in: Value in health 2017-10, Vol.20 (9), p.A579
• Main Authors: Khan-Mirón, A, Sánchez-Iriso, E, Cabases-Hita, JM
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Autoimmune diseases; Blood; Blood glucose; Diabetes; Diabetes mellitus; Diabetes mellitus (non-insulin dependent); Disease management; Glucose; Glucose monitoring; Glycemic control; Hypoglycemia; Innovations; Insulin; Meaning; Medical treatment; Patients; Selfmonitoring; Technology; Type 2 diabetes mellitus
• ISSN: 1098-3015; 1524-4733
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2017.08.1025

OBJECTIVES: Among patients with diabetes, frequent glucose testing is one of the major barriers to achieve optimal glycemic control. The current standard of care is self-monitoring blood glucose (SMBG) involving finger pricking. Flash Glucose Monitoring (FGM) is a novel, sensor based, technology that continuously measures glucose levels and patients obtain their values by sensor scanning. The aim of this analysis is to estimate the costs associated with FGM as a replacement for routine SMBG in patients with T2DM under insulin treatment in Spain. METHODS: REPLACE Study showed an average of 3.8 tests a day. Patients using a FGM system spent less time in hypoglycemia when compared to patients using SMBG, but no reduction in the number of hypoglycemic events was shown. Unit costs for SMBG were 0.04t per lancet, 0.24€ per strip, 25.20f per meter and 19.52*' per lancing device. Unit costs for FGM were 59.90t per FGM reader and 59.90T per sensor. RESULTS: Annual cost of 3.8 SMBG test/day is 433f per patient compared with 1592C per patient using FGM. Meaning that with the cost of each FGM reimbursed patient, more than 3 SMBG patients could be afforded. If all patients with T2DM under insulin treatment in Spain (12% of the patients with T2DM) were switched from SMBG to FGM, 12% of the patients (FGM) would concentrate 31% of the glucose measuring resources, while 88% of the patients (SMBG) would take the remaining 69%. In Spain, the cost of SMBG Test Strips equals 2% of the annual Diabetes Budget, if patients withT2DM under insulin treatment were switched to FGM, the amount would raise to 3% of the budget. CONCLUSIONS: While FGM is a great innovation that simplifies daily diabetes management and patient adherence to testing frequency, the costs associated with this technology are still a major barrier for patient access.