Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2019 Dec 12;19(8):1-108. eCollection 2019.
People with diabetes manage their condition by monitoring the amount of glucose (a type of sugar) in their blood, typically using a method called self-monitoring of blood glucose. Flash glucose monitoring is another method of assessing glucose levels; it uses a sensor placed under the skin and a separate touchscreen reader device. We conducted a health technology assessment of flash glucose monitoring for people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, which included an evaluation of effectiveness and safety, the budget impact of publicly funding flash glucose monitoring, and patient preferences and values.
We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence. We assessed the risk of bias of each included study using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized controlled trials and the Cochrane ROBINS-I tool for nonrandomized studies, and we assessed the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We performed a systematic economic literature search, and we analyzed the net budget impact of publicly funding flash glucose monitoring in Ontario for people with type 1 diabetes and for people with type 2 diabetes requiring intensive insulin therapy who are eligible for coverage under the Ontario Drug Benefit program. To contextualize the potential value of flash glucose monitoring, we spoke with adults with diabetes and parents of children with diabetes.
Six publications met the eligibility criteria for the clinical evidence review. Compared with self-monitoring of blood glucose, people who used flash glucose monitoring spent on average 1 hour more in the target glucose range (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41-1.59) and 0.37 hours (22 minutes) less in a high glucose range (95% CI -0.69 to -0.05) (GRADE: Moderate). Among adults with well-controlled type 1 diabetes, flash glucose monitoring was more effective than self-monitoring of blood glucose in reducing glucose variability (GRADE: Moderate). Flash glucose monitoring was more effective than self-monitoring of blood glucose in reducing the average time spent in hypoglycemia (-0.47 h [95% CI -0.73 to -0.21]) and the average number of hypoglycemia events (-0.16 [95% CI -0.29 to -0.03]) among adults with type 2 diabetes requiring intensive insulin therapy (GRADE: Moderate). Our certainty in the evidence for the effectiveness of flash glucose monitoring for other clinical outcomes, such as quality of life and severe hypoglycemia events, is low or very low. We identified no studies on flash glucose monitoring that included pregnant people, people with diabetes who did not use insulin, or children younger than 13 years of age.We identified two studies for the economic evidence review: one cost analysis and one cost-utility analysis. The cost analysis study, conducted from the perspective of United Kingdom's National Health Service, found that flash glucose monitoring reduced costs when self-monitoring of blood glucose was performed 10 times daily but was more expensive when self-monitoring of blood glucose was performed 5.6 times daily. The cost-utility analysis had methodological limitations and was not applicable to the context of Ontario's health care system.Our 5-year budget impact analysis found that flash glucose monitoring may lead to a net budget increase ranging from $14.6 million ($2.9 million for type 1 diabetes and $11.7 million for type 2 diabetes) in year 1, at an uptake rate of 15%, to $38.6 million ($7.7 million for type 1 diabetes and $30.9 million for type 2 diabetes) in year 5, at an uptake rate of 35%. In this analysis, we assumed that people with type 1 diabetes who self-monitor their blood glucose levels would perform six blood glucose tests daily and that people with type 2 diabetes would perform four blood glucose tests daily. For people switching from self-monitoring of blood glucose using the maximum number of blood glucose test strips for reimbursement (3,000 strips yearly) to flash glucose monitoring, the net budget impact of using flash glucose monitoring is likely to be small.Adults with diabetes and parents of children with diabetes with whom we spoke reported positively on their experiences with flash glucose monitoring, reporting they believed that flash glucose monitoring helped them control their blood glucose levels, resulting in physical, social, and emotional benefits. The cost of flash glucose monitoring was the largest barrier to its use.
Based on an assessment of several glycemic outcomes, moderate-quality evidence shows that flash glucose monitoring improves diabetes management among adults with well-controlled type 1 diabetes and adults with type 2 diabetes requiring intensive insulin therapy. We estimate that publicly funding flash glucose monitoring in Ontario for people with type 1 diabetes and for people with type 2 diabetes requiring intensive insulin therapy who are eligible for coverage under the Ontario Drug Benefit program would result in additional costs of between $14.6 million and $38.6 million annually over the next 5 years. Adults with diabetes and parents of children with diabetes with whom we spoke reported that flash glucose monitoring helped them or their children control their blood glucose levels, resulting in physical, social, and emotional benefits.
糖尿病患者通常通过一种称为自我血糖监测的方法来监测血液中的葡萄糖(一种糖)含量,以此来管理病情。动态葡萄糖监测是另一种评估血糖水平的方法;它使用一个置于皮下的传感器和一个单独的触摸屏读取设备。我们对1型或2型糖尿病患者的动态葡萄糖监测进行了一项卫生技术评估,其中包括对有效性和安全性的评估、公共资助动态葡萄糖监测的预算影响,以及患者的偏好和价值观。
我们对临床证据进行了系统的文献检索。我们使用Cochrane随机对照试验偏倚风险工具和Cochrane ROBINS - I工具(用于非随机研究)评估了每项纳入研究的偏倚风险,并根据推荐分级评估、制定和评价(GRADE)工作组的标准评估了证据的质量。我们进行了系统的经济文献检索,并分析了安大略省公共资助动态葡萄糖监测对1型糖尿病患者以及符合安大略药物福利计划覆盖范围、需要强化胰岛素治疗的2型糖尿病患者的净预算影响。为了将动态葡萄糖监测的潜在价值置于背景中,我们与成年糖尿病患者以及糖尿病儿童的父母进行了交流。
六篇出版物符合临床证据审查的纳入标准。与自我血糖监测相比,使用动态葡萄糖监测的患者在目标血糖范围内平均多花费1小时(95%置信区间[CI] 0.41 - 1.59),在高血糖范围内少花费0.37小时(22分钟)(95% CI - 0.69至 - 0.05)(GRADE:中等)。在1型糖尿病控制良好的成年人中,动态葡萄糖监测在降低血糖变异性方面比自我血糖监测更有效(GRADE:中等)。在需要强化胰岛素治疗的2型糖尿病成年人中,动态葡萄糖监测在减少低血糖平均花费时间(-0.47小时[95% CI - 0.73至 - 0.21])和低血糖事件平均次数(-0.16 [95% CI - 0.29至 - 0.03])方面比自我血糖监测更有效(GRADE:中等)。我们对动态葡萄糖监测在其他临床结局(如生活质量和严重低血糖事件)有效性证据的确定性较低或非常低。我们未发现关于动态葡萄糖监测纳入孕妇、不使用胰岛素的糖尿病患者或13岁以下儿童的研究。我们确定了两项用于经济证据审查的研究:一项成本分析和一项成本效用分析。从英国国家医疗服务体系的角度进行的成本分析研究发现,当每日进行10次自我血糖监测时,动态葡萄糖监测可降低成本,但当每日进行5.6次自我血糖监测时,其成本更高。成本效用分析存在方法学局限性,不适用于安大略省医疗保健系统的情况。我们的5年预算影响分析发现,动态葡萄糖监测可能导致净预算增加,在第1年,采用率为15%时,增加幅度为1460万美元(1型糖尿病为290万美元,2型糖尿病为1170万美元),到第5年,采用率为35%时,增加幅度为3860万美元(1型糖尿病为770万美元,2型糖尿病为3090万美元)。在此分析中,我们假设自我监测血糖水平的1型糖尿病患者每天进行6次血糖测试,2型糖尿病患者每天进行4次血糖测试。对于从使用报销最高数量血糖测试条(每年3000条)的自我血糖监测转换为动态葡萄糖监测的患者,使用动态葡萄糖监测的净预算影响可能较小。我们与之交谈的成年糖尿病患者以及糖尿病儿童的父母对他们的动态葡萄糖监测经历给予了积极评价,称他们认为动态葡萄糖监测有助于他们控制血糖水平,带来了身体、社交和情感上的益处。动态葡萄糖监测的成本是其使用的最大障碍。
基于对多个血糖结局的评估,中等质量的证据表明,动态葡萄糖监测可改善1型糖尿病控制良好的成年人以及需要强化胰岛素治疗的2型糖尿病成年人的糖尿病管理。我们估计,在安大略省为符合安大略药物福利计划覆盖范围的1型糖尿病患者以及需要强化胰岛素治疗的2型糖尿病患者公共资助动态葡萄糖监测,在未来5年每年将导致额外成本在1460万美元至3860万美元之间。我们与之交谈的成年糖尿病患者以及糖尿病儿童的父母表示,动态葡萄糖监测帮助他们或他们的孩子控制了血糖水平,带来了身体、社交和情感上的益处。