LAUSR.org creates dashboard-style pages of related content for over 1.5 million academic articles. Sign Up to like articles & get recommendations!

A Response to: Letter to the Editor with Regard to the Cost-Effectiveness of an Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System in People with Type 1 Diabetes: A Health Economic Analysis in Sweden

Photo from wikipedia

We would like to thank Levrat-Guillen and Ghazi for their interest in our recent analysis relating to the cost-effectiveness of advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) insulin delivery relative to intermittently scanned… Click to show full abstract

We would like to thank Levrat-Guillen and Ghazi for their interest in our recent analysis relating to the cost-effectiveness of advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) insulin delivery relative to intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) in combination with multiple daily injections (MDI) or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) [1]. LevratGuillen and Ghazi have expressed concern over several aspects of the analysis. In an attempt to alleviate these concerns, the issues raised are addressed in a point-by-point fashion below. In the absence of head-to-head comparisons of AHCL versus isCGM, Levrat-Guillen and Ghazi expressed concern over the clinical input data used to inform the analysis. For the isCGM arm, the HbA1c treatment effect was sourced from the real-world FUTURE study published by Charleer et al. [2]. Whilst several other potential data sources were available, the FUTURE study was chosen owing to the robust nature and design of the study (e.g., the study was conducted in specialist diabetes centers, with a large number of patients and long duration of follow-up) and a baseline HbA1c value that closely matched the levels observed in the study published by Collyns et al. [3], which was used to inform the AHCL arm. Levrat-Guillen and Ghazi mentioned three sources specifically (Gilbert et al. [4], Evans et al. [5], and Rose et al. [6]) but these studies were not considered for several reasons. The study published by Gilbert et al. [4] was considered inappropriate as the authors assessed the effectiveness of real-time CGM (rtCGM) rather than isCGM; utilization of this study would therefore require the assumption that isCGM and rtCGM are equivalent and evidence from a recent head-to-head study has suggested that this is not the case [7]. The metaanalysis by Evans et al. [5] reported a mean HbA1c reduction of 0.56% with isCGM; however, this was based on a large number of studies with baseline HbA1c values ranging from 6.79% to 10.28%. Finally, in the German observational study by Rose et al. [6], patients had a mean J. Jendle (&) Institute of Medical Sciences, Örebro University, Campus USÖ, 701 82 Örebro, Sweden e-mail: [email protected]

Keywords: advanced hybrid; effectiveness advanced; study; cost effectiveness; analysis; hybrid closed

Journal Title: Diabetes Therapy
Year Published: 2022

Link to full text (if available)


Share on Social Media:                               Sign Up to like & get
recommendations!

Related content

More Information              News              Social Media              Video              Recommended



                Click one of the above tabs to view related content.