Cost-Effectiveness of Closed-Loop Automated Insulin Delivery Using the Cambridge Hybrid Algorithm in Children and Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes: Results from a Multicenter 6-Month Randomized Trial

Overview

Journal J Diabetes Sci Technol

Specialty Endocrinology

Date 2024 Mar 18

PMID 38494876

Authors

D Steven Fox

Julia Ware

Charlotte K Boughton

Janet M Allen

Malgorzata E Wilinska

Martin Tauschmann

Louise Denvir

Ajay Thankamony

Fiona Campbell

R Paul Wadwa

Bruce A Buckingham

Nikki Davis

Linda A DiMeglio

Nelly Mauras

Rachel E J Besser

Atrayee Ghatak

Stuart A Weinzimer

Lauren Kanapka

Craig Kollman

Judy Sibayan

Roy W Beck

Korey K Hood

Roman Hovorka

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background/objective: The main objective of this study is to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) of the Cambridge hybrid closed-loop automated insulin delivery (AID) algorithm versus usual care for children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

Methods: This multicenter, binational, parallel-controlled trial randomized 133 insulin pump using participants aged 6 to 18 years to either AID (n = 65) or usual care (n = 68) for 6 months. Both within-trial and lifetime cost-effectiveness were analyzed. Analysis focused on the treatment subgroup (n = 21) who received the much more reliable CamAPS FX hardware iteration and their contemporaneous control group (n = 24). Lifetime complications and costs were simulated via an updated Sheffield T1D policy model.

Results: Within-trial, both groups had indistinguishable and statistically unchanged health-related quality of life, and statistically similar hypoglycemia, severe hypoglycemia, and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) event rates. Total health care utilization was higher in the treatment group. Both the overall treatment group and CamAPS FX subgroup exhibited improved HbA (-0.32%, 95% CI: -0.59 to -0.04; = .02, and -1.05%, 95% CI: -1.43 to -0.67; < .001, respectively). Modeling projected increased expected lifespan of 5.36 years and discounted quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 1.16 (U.K. tariffs) and 1.52 (U.S. tariffs) in the CamAPS FX subgroup. Estimated ICERs for the subgroup were £19 324/QALY (United Kingdom) and -$3917/QALY (United States). For subgroup patients already using continuous glucose monitors (CGM), ICERs were £10 096/QALY (United Kingdom) and -$33 616/QALY (United States). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis generated mean ICERs of £19 342/QALY (95% CI: £15 903/QALY to £22 929/QALY) (United Kingdom) and -$28 283/QALY (95% CI: -$59 607/QALY to $1858/QALY) (United States).

Conclusions: For children and adolescents with T1D on insulin pump therapy, AID using the Cambridge algorithm appears cost-effective below a £20 000/QALY threshold (United Kingdom) and cost saving (United States).

References

Jendle J, Buompensiere M, Ozdemir Saltik A, de Portu S, Smith-Palmer J, Pollock R . A European Cost-Utility Analysis of the MiniMed™ 780G Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System Versus Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring with Multiple Daily Insulin Injections in People Living with Type 1 Diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2023; 25(12):864-876. DOI: 10.1089/dia.2023.0297. View

Brown S, Kovatchev B, Raghinaru D, Lum J, Buckingham B, Kudva Y . Six-Month Randomized, Multicenter Trial of Closed-Loop Control in Type 1 Diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2019; 381(18):1707-1717. PMC: 7076915. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1907863. View

Kovatchev B, Anderson S, Raghinaru D, Kudva Y, Laffel L, Levy C . Randomized Controlled Trial of Mobile Closed-Loop Control. Diabetes Care. 2020; 43(3):607-615. PMC: 7035585. DOI: 10.2337/dc19-1310. View

Nathan D, Bayless M, Cleary P, Genuth S, Gubitosi-Klug R, Lachin J . Diabetes control and complications trial/epidemiology of diabetes interventions and complications study at 30 years: advances and contributions. Diabetes. 2013; 62(12):3976-86. PMC: 3837056. DOI: 10.2337/db13-1093. View

Roze S, Buompensiere M, Ozdemir Z, de Portu S, Cohen O . Cost-effectiveness of a novel hybrid closed-loop system compared with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in people with type 1 diabetes in the UK. J Med Econ. 2021; 24(1):883-890. DOI: 10.1080/13696998.2021.1939706. View

Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D . Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. Eur J Health Econ. 2013; 14(3):367-72. DOI: 10.1007/s10198-013-0471-6. View

Leelarathna L, Choudhary P, Wilmot E, Lumb A, Street T, Kar P . Hybrid closed-loop therapy: Where are we in 2021?. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2020; 23(3):655-660. DOI: 10.1111/dom.14273. View

Berget C, Messer L, Vigers T, Frohnert B, Pyle L, Wadwa R . Six months of hybrid closed loop in the real-world: An evaluation of children and young adults using the 670G system. Pediatr Diabetes. 2019; 21(2):310-318. PMC: 7204168. DOI: 10.1111/pedi.12962. View

Stevens K . Valuation of the Child Health Utility 9D Index. Pharmacoeconomics. 2012; 30(8):729-47. DOI: 10.2165/11599120-000000000-00000. View

10.

Hermann J, Miller K, Hofer S, Clements M, Karges W, Foster N . The Transatlantic HbA gap: differences in glycaemic control across the lifespan between people included in the US T1D Exchange Registry and those included in the German/Austrian DPV registry. Diabet Med. 2019; 37(5):848-855. DOI: 10.1111/dme.14148. View

11.

Roze S, Isitt J, Smith-Palmer J, Javanbakht M, Lynch P . Long-term Cost-Effectiveness of Dexcom G6 Real-time Continuous Glucose Monitoring Versus Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose in Patients With Type 1 Diabetes in the U.K. Diabetes Care. 2020; 43(10):2411-2417. DOI: 10.2337/dc19-2213. View

12.

. EuroQol--a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990; 16(3):199-208. DOI: 10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9. View

13.

Biskupiak J, Ramos M, Levy C, Forlenza G, Hopley C, Boyd J . Cost-effectiveness of the tubeless automated insulin delivery system vs standard of care in the management of type 1 diabetes in the United States. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2023; 29(7):807-817. PMC: 10394185. DOI: 10.18553/jmcp.2023.22331. View

14.

Lal R, Basina M, Maahs D, Hood K, Buckingham B, Wilson D . One Year Clinical Experience of the First Commercial Hybrid Closed-Loop System. Diabetes Care. 2019; 42(12):2190-2196. PMC: 6868462. DOI: 10.2337/dc19-0855. View

15.

Jendle J, Pohlmann J, de Portu S, Smith-Palmer J, Roze S . Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the MiniMed 670G Hybrid Closed-Loop System Versus Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion for Treatment of Type 1 Diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2019; 21(3):110-118. DOI: 10.1089/dia.2018.0328. View

16.

Retra J, Essers B, Joore M, Evers S, Dirksen C . Age dependency of EQ-5D-Youth health states valuations on a visual analogue scale. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2020; 18(1):386. PMC: 7733269. DOI: 10.1186/s12955-020-01638-z. View

17.

Messer L, Berget C, Vigers T, Pyle L, Geno C, Wadwa R . Real world hybrid closed-loop discontinuation: Predictors and perceptions of youth discontinuing the 670G system in the first 6 months. Pediatr Diabetes. 2019; 21(2):319-327. PMC: 7204392. DOI: 10.1111/pedi.12971. View

18.

Breton M, Kanapka L, Beck R, Ekhlaspour L, Forlenza G, Cengiz E . A Randomized Trial of Closed-Loop Control in Children with Type 1 Diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2020; 383(9):836-845. PMC: 7920146. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2004736. View

19.

Nathan D . The diabetes control and complications trial/epidemiology of diabetes interventions and complications study at 30 years: overview. Diabetes Care. 2013; 37(1):9-16. PMC: 3867999. DOI: 10.2337/dc13-2112. View

20.

Ware J, Boughton C, Allen J, Wilinska M, Tauschmann M, Denvir L . Cambridge hybrid closed-loop algorithm in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes: a multicentre 6-month randomised controlled trial. Lancet Digit Health. 2022; 4(4):e245-e255. DOI: 10.1016/S2589-7500(22)00020-6. View