Am J Manag Care. 2025 Apr 1;31(4):e79-e86. doi: 10.37765/ajmc.2025.89722.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Advances in diabetes technology have led to improved glycemic control. However, no study has evaluated the economic impact of advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) technology in the US compared with older and less expensive treatments. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of the MiniMed 780G system (MM780G) with AHCL technology vs multiple daily injections of insulin (MDI) with intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) among patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in the US.
STUDY DESIGN: A 6-month randomized controlled trial compared MM780G against MDI with isCGM among patients with T1D. Outcomes included changes in hemoglobin A 1c and quality of life.
METHODS: We used the IQVIA Core Diabetes Model to simulate direct costs and quality of life separately over a 4-year horizon and a lifetime horizon. Treatment effects were sourced from the randomized controlled trial, and utilities and disutilities for diabetes-related complications came from the literature. We generated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves for the base case and 5 one-way sensitivity analyses.
RESULTS: At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000, MM780G is cost-effective in the base case, with an ICER of $68,402 per quality-adjusted life-year over a 4-year horizon and $38,842 per quality-adjusted life-year over a lifetime horizon. Sensitivity analyses varying the rates of short-term complications, pricing, and assumptions about treatment-related utilities show cost-effectiveness at a threshold of $100,000 in all but 1 case.
CONCLUSIONS: MM780G is likely to be cost-effective vs MDI with isCGM in patients with T1D in the US at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000.
PMID:40227447 | DOI:10.37765/ajmc.2025.89722
