Table 5.
Scenario analysis | ICER: flash monitoring vs. SMBG/POCT | |
---|---|---|
T1D | T2D | |
Non-severe and severe hypoglycemia event rate from a Chinese study | 31,150 | 102,664 |
0% discount rates for costs and health outcomes | 66,289 | 138,868 |
8% discount rates for costs and health outcomes | 41,657 | 141,198 |
5-year time horizon | 45,315 | 146,958 |
Upper limit of 95% CI of non-severe and severe hypoglycemia event disutility | 48,262 | 142,897 |
Lower limit of 95% CI of non-severe and severe hypoglycemia event disutility | 47,022 | 137,790 |
Upper limit of 95% CI of SMBG/POCT treatment disutility | 51,874 | 159,280 |
Lower limit of 95% CI of SMBG/POCT treatment disutility | 43,569 | 123,469 |
Sensor cost of flash glucose monitoring decreased by 20% | 15,892 | 95,298 |
Insulin costs increased by 20% | 48,512 | 140,524 |
Insulin costs decreased by 20% | 46,760 | 140,053 |
Complication treatment costs increased by 20% | 40,359 | 130,728 |
Complication treatment costs decreased by 20% | 54,914 | 149,867 |
SMBG/POCT frequency of 7 times per day | 37,106 | 105,179 |
CNY Chinese yuan, QALY quality-adjusted life year, ICER incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, SMBG/POCT self-monitoring of blood glucose, T1D type 1 diabetes, T2D type 2 diabetes