Cost-effectiveness of the tubeless automated insulin delivery system vs standard of care in the management of type 1 diabetes in the United States.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A tubeless, on-body automated insulin delivery (AID) system (Omnipod 5 Automated Insulin Delivery System) demonstrated improved glycated hemoglobin A1c levels and increased time in range (70 mg/dL to 180 mg/dL) for both adults and children with type 1 diabetes in a 13-week multicenter, single-arm study. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of the tubeless AID system compared with standard of care (SoC) in the management of type 1 diabetes (T1D) in the United States. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analyses were conducted from a US payer's perspective, using the IQVIA Core Diabetes Model (version 9.5), with a time horizon of 60 years and an annual discount of 3.0% on both costs and effects. Simulated patients received either tubeless AID or SoC, the latter being defined as either continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (86% of patients) or multiple daily injections. Two cohorts (children: <18 years; adults: ≥18 years) of patients with T1D and 2 thresholds for nonsevere hypoglycemia (nonsevere hypoglycemia event [NSHE] <54 mg/dL and <70 mg/dL) were considered. Baseline cohort characteristics and treatment effects of different risk factors for tubeless AID were sourced from the clinical trial. Utilities and cost of diabetes-related complications were obtained from published sources. Treatment costs were derived from US national database sources. Scenario analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the results. RESULTS: Treating children with T1D with tubeless AID, considering an NSHE threshold of less than 54 mg/dL, brings incremental life-years (1.375) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (1.521) at an incremental cost of $15,099 compared with SoC, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $9,927 per QALY gained. Similar results were obtained for adults with T1D assuming an NSHE threshold of less than 54 mg/dL (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio = $10,310 per QALY gained). Furthermore, tubeless AID is a dominant treatment option for children and adults with T1D assuming an NSHE threshold of less than 70 mg/dL compared with SoC. The probabilistic sensitivity analyses results showed that compared with SoC, in both children and adults with T1D, tubeless AID was cost-effective in more than 90% of simulations, assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY gained. The key drivers of the model were the cost of ketoacidosis, duration of treatment effect, threshold of NSHE, and definition of severe hypoglycemia. CONCLUSIONS: The current analyses suggest that the tubeless AID system can be considered a cost-effective treatment compared with SoC in people with T1D from a US payer's perspective. DISCLOSURES: This research was funded by Insulet. Mr Hopley, Ms Boyd, and Mr Swift are full-time Insulet employees and own stock in Insulet Corporation. IQVIA, the employer of Ms Ramos and Dr Lamotte, received consulting fees for this work. Dr Biskupiak is receiving research support and consulting fees from Insulet. Dr Brixner has received consulting fees from Insulet. The University of Utah has received research funding from Insulet. Dr Levy is a consultant with Dexcom and Eli Lilly and has received grant/research support from Insulet, Tandem, Dexcom, and Abbott Diabetes. Dr Forlenza conducted research sponsored by Medtronic, Dexcom, Abbott, Tandem, Insulet, Beta Bionics, and Lilly. He has been speaker/consultant/advisory board member for Medtronic, Dexcom, Abbott, Tandem, Insulet, Beta Bionics, and Lilly.