Asgharzadeh Asra, Patel Mubarak, Connock Martin, Damery Sara, Ghosh Iman, Jordan Mary, Freeman Karoline, Brown Anna, Court Rachel, Baldwin Sharin, Ogunlayi Fatai, Stinton Chris, Cummins Ewen, Al-Khudairy Lena
Warwick Evidence, Division of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Murray Learning Centre, Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Health Technol Assess. 2024 Dec;28(80):1-190. doi: 10.3310/JYPL3536.
Hybrid closed-loop systems are a new class of technology to manage type 1 diabetes mellitus. The system includes a combination of real-time continuous glucose monitoring from a continuous glucose monitoring device and a control algorithm to direct insulin delivery through an insulin pump. Evidence suggests that such technologies have the potential to improve the lives of people with type 1 diabetes mellitus and their families.
The aim of this appraisal was to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of hybrid closed-loop systems for managing glucose in people who have type 1 diabetes mellitus and are having difficulty managing their condition despite prior use of at least one of the following technologies: continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion, real-time continuous glucose monitoring or flash glucose monitoring (intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring).
A systematic review of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness evidence following predefined inclusion criteria informed by the aim of this review. An independent economic assessment using iQVIA CDM to model cost-effectiveness.
The clinical evidence identified 12 randomised controlled trials that compared hybrid closed loop with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion + continuous glucose monitoring. Hybrid closed-loop arm of randomised controlled trials achieved improvement in glycated haemoglobin per cent [hybrid closed loop decreased glycated haemoglobin per cent by 0.28 (95% confidence interval -0.34 to -0.21), increased per cent of time in range (between 3.9 and 10.0 mmol/l) with a MD of 8.6 (95% confidence interval 7.03 to 10.22), and significantly decreased time in range (per cent above 10.0 mmol/l) with a MD of -7.2 (95% confidence interval -8.89 to -5.51), but did not significantly affect per cent of time below range (< 3.9 mmol/l)]. Comparator arms showed improvements, but these were smaller than in the hybrid closed-loop arm. Outcomes were superior in the hybrid closed-loop arm compared with the comparator arm. The cost-effectiveness search identified six studies that were included in the systematic review. Studies reported subjective cost-effectiveness that was influenced by the willingness-to-pay thresholds. Economic evaluation showed that the published model validation papers suggest that an earlier version of the iQVIA CDM tended to overestimate the incidences of the complications of diabetes, this being particularly important for severe visual loss and end-stage renal disease. Overall survival's medium-term modelling appeared good, but there was uncertainty about its longer-term modelling. Costs provided by the National Health Service Supply Chain suggest that hybrid closed loop is around an annual average of £1500 more expensive than continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion + continuous glucose monitoring, this being a pooled comparator of 90% continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion + intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring and 10% continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion + real-time continuous glucose monitoring due to clinical effectiveness estimates not being differentiated by continuous glucose monitoring type. This net cost may increase by around a further £500 for some systems. The Evidence Assessment Group base case applies the estimate of -0.29% glycated haemoglobin for hybrid closed loop relative to continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion + continuous glucose monitoring. There was no direct evidence of an effect on symptomatic or severe hypoglycaemia events, and therefore the Evidence Assessment Group does not include these in its base case. The change in glycated haemoglobin results in a gain in undiscounted life expectancy of 0.458 years and a gain of 0.160 quality-adjusted life-years. Net lifetime treatment costs are £31,185, with reduced complications leading to a net total cost of £28,628. The cost-effectiveness estimate is £179,000 per quality-adjusted life-year.
Randomised controlled trials of hybrid closed-loop interventions in comparison with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion + continuous glucose monitoring achieved a statistically significant improvement in glycated haemoglobin per cent in time in range between 3.9 and 10 mmol/l, and in hyperglycaemic levels.
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42021248512.
This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR133547) and is published in full in ; Vol. 28, No. 80. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
混合闭环系统是一类用于管理1型糖尿病的新技术。该系统包括连续血糖监测设备的实时连续血糖监测与通过胰岛素泵指导胰岛素输注的控制算法的组合。有证据表明,此类技术有改善1型糖尿病患者及其家人生活的潜力。
本评估的目的是评估混合闭环系统对1型糖尿病患者血糖管理的临床有效性和成本效益,这些患者尽管此前使用过以下至少一种技术,但血糖控制仍有困难:持续皮下胰岛素输注、实时连续血糖监测或闪光血糖监测(间歇性扫描式连续血糖监测)。
按照本综述的目的所确定的预定义纳入标准,对临床有效性和成本效益证据进行系统综述。使用艾昆纬疾病数据模型(iQVIA CDM)进行独立的经济学评估以模拟成本效益。
临床证据纳入了12项随机对照试验,这些试验比较了混合闭环系统与持续皮下胰岛素输注加连续血糖监测。随机对照试验的混合闭环组糖化血红蛋白百分比有所改善[混合闭环使糖化血红蛋白百分比降低了0.28(95%置信区间-0.34至-0.21),使血糖在目标范围内(3.9至10.0毫摩尔/升)的时间百分比增加,平均差为8.6(95%置信区间7.03至10.22),并显著减少了血糖高于目标范围(高于10.0毫摩尔/升)的时间,平均差为-7.2(95%置信区间-8.89至-5.51),但对血糖低于目标范围(<3.9毫摩尔/升)的时间百分比没有显著影响]。对照臂也有改善,但幅度小于混合闭环组。与对照臂相比,混合闭环组的结果更优。成本效益研究检索到6项纳入系统综述的研究。研究报告的主观成本效益受支付意愿阈值影响。经济学评估表明,已发表的模型验证论文显示,艾昆纬疾病数据模型的早期版本往往高估糖尿病并发症的发生率,这对于严重视力丧失和终末期肾病尤为重要。总体生存的中期模型似乎良好,但长期模型存在不确定性。英国国家医疗服务体系供应链提供的成本表明,混合闭环系统比持续皮下胰岛素输注加连续血糖监测每年平均贵约1500英镑,这是90%持续皮下胰岛素输注加间歇性扫描式连续血糖监测与10%持续皮下胰岛素输注加实时连续血糖监测的合并对照,因为临床有效性估计未按连续血糖监测类型区分。某些系统的这一净成本可能再增加约500英镑。证据评估小组的基础病例采用混合闭环相对于持续皮下胰岛素输注加连续血糖监测糖化血红蛋白降低0.29%的估计值。没有直接证据表明对有症状或严重低血糖事件有影响,因此证据评估小组在其基础病例中未包括这些内容。糖化血红蛋白的变化使未贴现的预期寿命增加0.458年,质量调整生命年增加0.160年。终身治疗净成本为31,185英镑,并发症减少导致总成本净值为28,628英镑。成本效益估计为每质量调整生命年179,000英镑。
与持续皮下胰岛素输注加连续血糖监测相比,混合闭环干预的随机对照试验在糖化血红蛋白百分比、血糖在3.9至10毫摩尔/升范围内的时间以及高血糖水平方面取得了统计学上的显著改善。
本研究已在国际前瞻性系统评价注册库(PROSPERO)注册,注册号为CRD42021248512。
本项目由英国国家卫生与保健研究机构(NIHR)证据综合计划资助(NIHR资助编号:NIHR133547),全文发表于《;第28卷,第80期》。有关更多资助信息,请访问NIHR资助与奖项网站。