Abstract
Modeling approaches demonstrate that improvement in the accuracy of blood glucose (BG) meters may lead to cost savings. An improvement of accuracy of BG meters on the basis of a reduction in error range from 20% to 5% has been reported to be associated with substantial cost savings in Germany. The aim of this study is to analyze potential cost savings related to a reduction in error range from 20% to 15% and 10% of glucose meters in Germany. The health economic analysis included the number of type 1 diabetic and the number of insulin-treated patients in Germany, the costs for glucose monitoring, a model on the effects of the improvement of accuracy on the impact of severe hypoglycemic episodes, HbA1c, and subsequently myocardial infarctions and the costs of diabetes-related complications in Germany. In the model, a reduction of 1% and 3.5% reduction in severe hypoglycemic episodes, and a 0.14% and 0.28% reduction in HbA1c was included. In type 1 diabetes the savings could be equal to a reduction in health care expenditures of more than €1.0 million (20% vs 15% error range) and €3.4 million (20% vs 10% error range). Respectively, potential savings of more than €6.0 million and €20.1 million were calculated for the group of insulin-treated patients. The model demonstrates that a reduction of error range of BG meters from 20% to 15% and 10% may translate into substantial savings for the German health care system.
Keywords: diabetes, self-monitoring of blood glucose, accuracy, cost analysis, hypoglycemia
Prevention of hypoglycemic episodes has been identified as an important objective in diabetes management.1-3 Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) enables the optimization of diabetes management and prevention of both acute and chronic complications of diabetes.4,5 In particular, SMBG facilitates self-regulatory prevention of significant hypoglycemic episodes.6-8
The reliability of self-monitored glucose values is a prerequisite for an efficient and safe approach to treat patients to their target. Accuracy of SMBG, therefore, is a key aspect in this regard.9 Recently, accuracy requirements have been tightened. According to the revised ISO standard 15197:2013, 95% of the blood glucose (BG) results shall fall within ±15 mg/dl of the reference method at BG concentrations < 100 mg/dl and within ±15% at BG concentrations ≥ 100 mg/dl.10 The less restrictive ISO standard 15197:2003 loses its validity after a transitional period of 3 years.11
We recently introduced a model for a health economic analysis, which is based on 4 main pillars.9 Our analysis concluded that a reduction of a meter error from 20% to 5% was identified to be associated with a 10% reduction in very severe hypoglycemic episodes and a 0.39% reduction in HbA1c, which is translated into a 0.5% reduction of myocardial infarctions (MI).9 According to the health economic analysis, the reduction in very severe hypoglycemic episodes and MI lead to cost savings of €24.14 per patient per year. Considering 390 000 type 1 diabetic patients or 2.3 million insulin-treated patients in Germany, these savings could be equal to a reduction in health care expenditures of more than €9.4 million and €55.5 million, respectively.9
It was now the aim of the current modeling analysis to calculate clinical and economic impact using 2 examples with an error range of 10% and 15%, respectively. We also considered results of a recently published simulation on the risk for severe hypoglycemia due to BG measurement errors12 and the updated UKPDS Risk Engine, which was published in September 2013, for the analyses.
Methods
The current modeling included updates of the previous analysis.9 Two publications contributed to the rational background of the analysis.13,14 One publication included in silico simulations:13 In the model, an insulin-induced hypoglycemia was simulated and SMBG was performed at the precise time when the reference BG level reached an array of 50-70 mg/dl. For each of these reference BG levels, the probability of SMBG not to detect the hypoglycemic episode was assessed as a function of the permitted meter error.13 Taking a reference BG level of 60 mg/dl as an example, hypoglycemia was reported to be always detected at an SMBG error of 5%. The likelihood of not detecting that hypoglycemic event was found to increase to 1%, 3.5%, and 10% for SMBG errors of 10%, 15%, and 20%, respectively.13 In the study, the deterioration of overall glucose control (HbA1c) created by increased SMBG inaccuracy was also estimated. The increase in average BG needed to offset hypoglycemia was translated into an increase in HbA1c using the formula recommended by the American Diabetes Association (ie, “28.7 × A1C − 46.7 = estimated average glucose value”).14 The needed increase in average BG was found to be associated with an increase in HbA1c by 0.01 at 5% error, 0.12 at 10% error, 0.26 at 15% error, and 0.40 at 20% error, respectively.14
Another study simulated the additional risk for severe hypoglycemia due to BG measurement errors of 5 different SMBG systems for both type 1 diabetic patients and type 2 diabetic patients requiring multiple daily injections based on results of a real-world accuracy study.12 In the study, the most accurate system had a standard deviation of 9.9 mg/dl and a mean error of −1.0 mg/dl and the least accurate system had a standard deviation of 18.2 mg/dl and a mean error of +2.5 mg/dl.12 The differences between severe hypoglycemic episodes attributable to a meter’s specific error profile ranged from 0.44 to 0.75 per patient per year in type 1 diabetes and, respectively, from 0.11 to 0.19 in type 2 diabetes.12
In the current analysis the previous model was applied9 and developed further. Table 1 summarizes the results of the data incorporated into the analysis.9
Table 1.
Clinical and Economic Data Incorporated Into the Analysis.9
| Average annual costs for SMBG in Germany | €1164.20 |
| Average cost for a severe hypoglycemia in Germany | €1227 |
| Type 1 diabetic patients in Germany (n) | 390 000 |
| Patients with a myocardial infarction (MI) annually (n) | 4914 |
| Fatal MI annually (n) | 1002 |
| Nonfatal MI annually (n) | 3912 |
| Costs for MI in type 1 diabetic patients annually | €63 768 222 |
| Insulin-treated patients in Germany (n) | 2.3 million |
| Patients with a MI annually (n) | 28 980 |
| Fatal MI annually (n) | 5912 |
| Nonfatal MI annually (n) | 23 068 |
| Costs for MI in type 1 diabetic patients annually | €376 057 836 |
| Reduction in severe hypoglycemic events caused by a reduction of SMBG meter error from 20% to 15% | 1% |
| Reduction in severe hypoglycemic events caused by reduction of SMBG meter error from 20% to 10% | 3.5% |
| HbA1c reduction caused by reduction of SMBG meter error from 20% to 15% | 0.14% |
| HbA1c reduction caused by reduction of SMBG meter error from 20% to 10% | 0.28% |
| Costs of severe hypoglycemia in Germany | |
| Ambulance | €520 |
| Hospitalization | €2021 |
| Average cost | €1227 |
| Costs of myocardial infarction in Germany | |
| Acute | €9767 |
| Follow-up (first year) | €4032 |
| Successfully treated MI | €13 799 |
Four domains were included into the model, as previously described:9 First is the number of insulin-treated diabetic patients in Germany.9 Second is the cost of glucose monitoring in Germany.9 Third is an analysis of the impact of higher accuracy on hypoglycemia, HbA1c, and subsequently cardiovascular complications. Taking the previous analysis,9 and the data regarding hypoglycemia due to misdosing of insulin,12 it was assumed that a reduction of error range from 20% to 15% leads to a 1% reduction of severe hypoglycemic episodes due to undetected BG levels < 60 mg/dl and misdosing of insulin. Respectively, a reduction of error range from 20% to 10% was assumed to cause a 3.5% reduction of severe hypoglycemic episodes. A rate of 0.19 times per patient and year for very severe hypoglycemic episodes (need for medical assistance or hospitalization) was included.15 In the current analysis, the recently published UKPDS Risk Engine was applied to compute the effects of a reduction in HbA1c on cardiovascular outcome.16 To compute the impact of a HbA1c reduction on the reduction of diabetes-related complications, we used the EDIC cohort for the analysis and defined the characteristics of a typical cohort of patients with insulin-dependent diabetes, equal to the cohort in the EDIC trial at year 11.17 Fourth is the cost of diabetes-related complications in Germany.9 In 2.3 million German patients with insulin-treated diabetes, 28 980 patients with an MI were calculated per year, of whom 5912 have a fatal event and 23 068 have a nonfatal event.9 Total costs of MI in the entire group of insulin-treated patients are calculated to be as follows: 5912 cases × €9767 + 23 068 cases × €13 799 = €57 742 504 + €318 315 332 = €376 057 836.9
Results
Cost Analysis of Improvement of Accuracy From 20% to 15%
Based on a rate of 0.19 severe hypoglycemic events per patient and year and a 1.0% reduction in severe hypoglycemic episodes, savings per patient were calculated as follows: €1227 × 1.0% × 0.19 = €2.33 (Table 2).
Table 2.
Results of the Cost Analysis (Reduction of Error Range From 20% to 15%).
| Annual cost savings per patient | |
| 1% reduction in severe hypoglycemic episodes | €2.33 |
| 0.18% reduction in fatal and nonfatal MI | €0.29 |
| In total | €2.62 |
| Annual savings for the German health care system | |
| 390 000 type 1 diabetic patients | €1.02 million |
| 2.3 million insulin-treated patients | €6.03 million |
The reduction of the error range from 20% to 15% leads to a HbA1c reduction of 0.14%.13 According to the UKPDS Risk Engine, this translates into a 0.18% reduction in CHD.16 A 0.18% reduction in fatal and nonfatal MI translates into savings of €376 057 836 × 0.18% = €676 904 per year or €676 904 / 2.3 million patients = €0.29 per insulin-treated patient per year.
Adding annual savings due to prevented hypoglycemia (€2.33 per patient per year) and to MI (€0.29 per patient per year), total savings of €2.62 per patient and year were modeled. In the group of 390 000 type 1 diabetic patients in Germany, this will add to potential annual savings of €1.02 million. Savings in 2.3 million patients with insulin-treated diabetes will add up to €6.03 million.
Cost Analysis of Improvement of Accuracy From 20% to 10%
Based on a rate of 0.19 severe hypoglycemic events per patient and year, and a 3.5% reduction in severe hypoglycemic episodes, savings per patient were calculated as follows: €1227 × 3.5% × 0.19 = €8.16 (Table 3).
Table 3.
Results of the Cost Analysis (Reduction of Error Range From 20% to 10%).
| Annual cost savings per patient | |
| 3.5% reduction in severe hypoglycemic episodes | €8.16 |
| 0.5% reduction in fatal and nonfatal MI | €0.59 |
| In total | €8.75 |
| Annual savings for the German health care system | |
| 390 000 type 1 diabetic patients | €3.41 million |
| 2.3 million insulin-treated patients | €20.13 million |
The reduction of the error range from 20% to 10% leads to a HbA1c reduction of 0.28%.13 According to the UKPDS Risk Engine, this translates into a 0.36% reduction in CHD.16 A 0.36% reduction in fatal and nonfatal MI translates into savings of €376 057 836 × 0.36% = €676 904 per year or €676 904 / 2.3 million patients = €0.59 per insulin-treated patient per year.
Adding annual savings due to prevented hypoglycemia (€8.16 per patient per year) and MI (€0.59 per patient per year), total savings of €8.75 per patient per year were calculated. Considering the number of 390 000 type 1 diabetic patients in Germany, this will add to potential annual savings of €3.41 million. Analyzing the savings for 2.3 million patients with insulin-treated diabetes the sum will add up to €20.13 million.
Discussion
In the current analysis, we modeled savings for the health care system due to a higher accuracy of SMBG devices in Germany on the basis of a reduction in SMBG error range from 20% to 15% and 10%, respectively.
For the German health care system, the clinical effects translate into potential cost savings of €2.62 and €8.75 (15% and 10% error range) per patient and year. The annual savings due to an improvement from 20% to 15% error range add up to €1.02 million in type 1 diabetic patients and to €6.03 million in the entire group of insulin-treated patients. The annual savings related to an improvement to 10% error range add up to €3.41 million in type 1 diabetic patients and to €20.13 million in the entire group of insulin-treated patients, respectively.
In addition, indirect costs related to reductions of severe hypoglycemic episodes may also need to be considered. In Sweden, indirect costs related to a hospitalization of 6.6 days due to severe hypoglycemia have been calculated as €1110.6 for patients with type 2 diabetes.18 In the United Kingdom, a mean loss of 3 productive days following a severe hypoglycemic episode has been reported.19
Recently the clinical and economic implications of accuracy differences among glucose meters have been model for the US health care system. The model predicted an annual difference of approximately 296 000 severe hypoglycemic episodes from BG measurement errors for T1DM (105 000 for T2DM with multiple daily injections) patients for the estimated US population of 958 800 T1DM and 1 353 600 T2DM MDI patients, using the least accurate BGM system versus patients using the most accurate system in a US health care system. This resulted in additional direct costs of approximately $339 million for T1DM and approximately $121 million for T2DM MDI patients per year.12 Taking a glucose meter with higher accuracy (SD 9.9 mg/dl, mean error −1.0 mg/dl) and a system with lower accuracy (SD 18.2 mg/dl, mean error +2.5 mg/dl) as an example, a difference of 0.31 severe hypoglycemic episodes per patient and year has been modeled.12
A limitation of the analysis is, that the UKPDS Risk Engine provides an equation for estimating the risk of new coronary heart disease in people with type 2 diabetes, based on data from 4540 UK Prospective Diabetes Study.16 We decided to apply the risk engine, since an engine for assessing the risk of cardiovascular outcome in type 1 diabetes is currently not available. Also 1 previous in silico analysis13 focused on type 1 diabetic patients with little or no endogenous insulin production. The application of these patient’s data to type 2 diabetic patients using insulin may also have an impact on the results. Another limitation is that other factors such as errors in carbohydrate counting and varying insulin absorption were not included in the model.
Conclusion
Our model demonstrates that an improvement of accuracy of BG meters from 20% to 15% and 10% may lead to substantial savings for the German health care system by both reducing MI and severe hypoglycemic episodes. Both the current findings and the publication of the new ISO Standard by health care authorities will enforce the development of BG meters with improved accuracy.
Footnotes
Abbreviations: BG, blood glucose; CHD, coronary heart disease; HbA1c, glycosylated hemoglobin; ISO, International Organization for Standardization; MI, myocardial infarction; SMBG, self-monitoring of blood glucose; UKPDS, UK Prospective Diabetes Study.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding: The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: An unrestricted educational grant of Bayer Health Care was provided to support the editorial needs of this publication. Bayer did not provide statistical support and is not responsible for content.
References
- 1. Cushman WC, Evans GW, Byington RP, et al. Effects of intensive blood-pressure control in type 2 diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(17):1575-1585. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Patel A, MacMahon S, Chalmers J, et al. Intensive blood glucose control and vascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(24):2560-2572. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Duckworth W, Abraira C, Moritz T, et al. Glucose control and vascular complications in veterans with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(2):129-139. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. American Diabetes Association. Standards of medical care in diabetes—2012. Diabetes Care. 2012;35(suppl 1):S11-S63. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Kovatchev BP, Otto E, Cox D, Gonder-Frederick L, Clarke W. Evaluation of a new measure of blood glucose variability in diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2006;29(11):2433-2438. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Schnell OAH, Battelino T, Ceriello A, et al. Consensus statement on self-monitoring of blood glucose in diabetes: a European perspective. Diab Metabol Heart. 2009;18:285-289. [Google Scholar]
- 7. Peel E, Parry O, Douglas M, Lawton J. Blood glucose self-monitoring in non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes: a qualitative study of patients’ perspectives. Br J Gen Pract. 2004;54(500):183-188. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group. Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). Lancet. 1998;352(9131):837-853. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Schnell O, Erbach M, Wintergerst E. Higher accuracy of self-monitoring of blood glucose in insulin-treated patients in Germany: clinical and economical aspects. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2013;7(4):904-912. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. International Organization for Standardization. In Vitro Diagnostic Test Systems—Requirements for Blood-glucose Monitoring Systems for Self-testing in Managing Diabetes Mellitus. EN ISO/DIS 15197:2013. Available at: http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=54976.
- 11. International Organization for Standardization. In Vitro Diagnostic Test Systems—Requirements for Blood-glucose Monitoring Systems for Self-testing in Managing Diabetes Mellitus. ISO 15197: 2003. Available at: http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=26309.
- 12. Budiman ES, Samant N, Resch A. Clinical implications and economic impact of accuracy differences among commercially available blood glucose monitoring systems. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2013;7(2):365-380. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Breton MD, Kovatchev BP. Impact of blood glucose self-monitoring errors on glucose variability, risk for hypoglycemia, and average glucose control in type 1 diabetes: an in silico study. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2010;4(3):562-570. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Nathan DM, Kuenen J, Borg R, Zheng H, Schoenfeld D, Heine RJ. Translating the A1C assay into estimated average glucose values. Diabetes Care. 2008;31(8):1473-1478. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. Hypoglycemia in the diabetes control and complications trial. Diabetes. 1997;46(2):271-286. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. UKPDS Risk Engine. Available at: http://www.dtu.ox.ac.uk/riskengine/. Accessed September 6, 2013.
- 17. Nathan DM, Cleary PA, Backlund JY, et al. Intensive diabetes treatment and cardiovascular disease in patients with type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(25):2643-2653. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Jonsson L, Bolinder B, Lundkvist J. Cost of hypoglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes in Sweden. Value Health. 2006;9(3):193-198. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Davis RE, Morrissey M, Peters JR, Wittrup-Jensen K, Kennedy-Martin T, Currie CJ. Impact of hypoglycaemia on quality of life and productivity in type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Curr Med Res Opin. 2005;21(9):1477-1483. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
