Health State Utilities Associated with Glucose Monitoring Devices.

BACKGROUND

Glucose monitoring is important for patients with diabetes treated with insulin. Conventional glucose monitoring requires a blood sample, typically obtained by pricking the finger. A new sensor-based system called "flash glucose monitoring" monitors glucose levels with a sensor worn on the arm, without requiring blood samples.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the utility difference between these two glucose monitoring approaches for use in cost-utility models.

METHODS

In time trade-off interviews, general population participants in the United Kingdom (London and Edinburgh) valued health states that were drafted and refined on the basis of literature, clinician input, and a pilot study. The health states had identical descriptions of diabetes and insulin treatment, differing only in glucose monitoring approach.

RESULTS

A total of 209 participants completed the interviews (51.7% women; mean age = 42.1 years). Mean utilities were 0.851 ± 0.140 for conventional monitoring and 0.882 ± 0.121 for flash monitoring (significant difference between the mean utilities; t = 8.3; P < 0.0001). Of the 209 participants, 78 (37.3%) had a higher utility for flash monitoring, 2 (1.0%) had a higher utility for conventional monitoring, and 129 (61.7%) had the same utility for both health states.

CONCLUSIONS

The flash glucose monitoring system was associated with a significantly greater utility than the conventional monitoring system. This difference may be useful in cost-utility models comparing the value of glucose monitoring devices for patients with diabetes. This study adds to the literature on treatment process utilities, suggesting that time trade-off methods may be used to quantify preferences among medical devices.