Supplementary materials: Smart connected insulin dose monitoring technologies versus standard of care: a Canadian cost–effectiveness analysis

These are peer-reviewed supplementary tables and figure for the article 'Smart connected insulin dose monitoring technologies versus standard of care: a Canadian cost–effectiveness analysis' published in the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research.Progression of risk factors (Table S1)Table S1: Physiological Progression tableManagement settings (Table S2-4)Table S2: Proportion of patients on preventive medicationTable S3: Screening and patient management proportionsTable S4: Sensitivity and specificity of testsDirect Costs (Table S5)Table S5: Annual treatment costs appliedTable S6: Management and complication costs (CAD)Indirect costsTable S7: Indirect cost inputs (CAD)Utility DataTable S8: Utilities used in modelScenario analysesTable S9: List of scenario analysisModelling results: Base case (Table S10-11)Table S10: Breakdown of costs of the base-case analysis (CAD)Clinical outcomesTable S11: Event rate of diabetes-related complications (per 1000 patient-years)Modelling results: Figure S1: Cost-effectiveness acceptability curve. Aim: There is growing interest in novel insulin management systems that improve glycemic control. This study aimed to evaluate the cost–effectiveness of smart connected insulin re-usable pens or caps for disposable insulin pens versus pens without connected capabilities in the management of adult patients with Type 1 diabetes (T1DM) from a Canadian societal perspective. Materials & methods: The IQVIA Core Diabetes Model was utilized to conduct the analyses. Applying data from a non-interventional study, the connected insulin device arm was assumed to result in greater reductions (-0.67%) in glycated hemoglobin from baseline and fewer non-severe hypoglycemic events (-32.87 events/patient annually). Macro- and micro-vascular risks were predicted using the Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications study data. Direct and indirect costs and utilities were sourced from literature. Key model outcomes included life years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Both costs and effects were annually discounted at 1.5% over a 60-year time horizon. Uncertainty was explored in scenario and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA). Results: The connected insulin pen device was associated with lower mean discounted total costs (CAD221,943 vs 266,199; -CAD44,256), improvement in mean life expectancy (25.78 vs 24.29; +1.49 years) and gains in QALYs (18.48 vs 16.74; +1.75 QALYs) over the patient’s lifetime. Most scenario analyses confirmed the base case results. The PSA showed dominance in 99.5% of cases. Conclusion: For adults with T1DM in Canada, a connected insulin pen device is likely to be a cost-effective treatment option associated with greater clinical benefits and lower costs relative to a standard re-usable or disposable pen.

本数据集为发表于《比较疗效研究杂志》的论文《智能连接胰岛素剂量监测技术与标准护理的比较：加拿大成本-效果分析》的同行评审补充表格和图表。包括风险因素进展（表S1）
Table S1：生理进展表
管理设置（表S2-4）
Table S2：预防性用药患者比例
Table S3：筛查与患者管理比例
Table S4：测试的灵敏度和特异性
直接成本（表S5）
Table S5：年度治疗成本应用
Table S6：管理与并发症成本（加元）
间接成本
Table S7：间接成本输入（加元）
效用数据表
Table S8：模型中使用的效用
情景分析
Table S9：情景分析列表
建模结果：基准情况（表S10-11）
Table S10：基准情况分析成本分解（加元）
临床结果
Table S11：糖尿病相关并发症事件发生率（每1000患者年）
建模结果：图S1：成本-效果可接受性曲线。目标：对改进血糖控制的创新胰岛素管理系统日益关注。本研究旨在从加拿大社会视角评估智能连接可重复使用胰岛素笔或盖子与无连接功能的笔在管理1型糖尿病（T1DM）成人患者方面的成本-效果。材料与方法：利用IQVIA核心糖尿病模型进行数据分析。应用来自非干预性研究的数据，假设连接胰岛素设备组可导致基线糖化血红蛋白降低（-0.67%）和每年非严重低血糖事件减少（-32.87事件/患者年）。使用糖尿病干预和并发症流行病学研究数据预测宏观和微观血管风险。直接和间接成本及效用来源于文献。主要模型结果包括生命年数和质量调整生命年数（QALYs）。成本和效果均按年1.5%的折扣率在60年的时间范围内进行折现。在情景分析和概率敏感性分析（PSA）中探讨了不确定性。结果：连接胰岛素笔设备与较低的平均折现总成本（加元221,943 vs 266,199；-加元44,256）、平均预期寿命提高（25.78 vs 24.29；+1.49年）以及QALYs增加（18.48 vs 16.74；+1.75 QALYs）相关，这些结果在患者终身中得到了证实。大多数情景分析确认了基准结果。PSA在99.5%的案例中显示出优势。结论：对于加拿大的T1DM成人患者，连接胰岛素笔设备可能是成本效益较高的治疗方案，与标准可重复使用或一次性笔相比，其具有更大的临床益处和较低的代价。