Supplementary materials: Cost-utility of real-time continuous glucose monitoring versus self-monitoring of bloodglucose in people with insulin-treated Type II diabetes in France

These are peer-reviewed supplementary tables for the article 'Cost-utility of real-time continuous glucose monitoring versus self-monitoring of blood glucose in people with insulin-treated Type II diabetes in France' published in the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research.

• Supplemental Table S1: Utility and disutility values for events/states.
• Supplemental Table S2: Costs per diabetes complication or event.
• Supplemental Table S3: Annual treatment and device costs.
• Supplemental Table S4: Projected diabetes complications for rt-CGM versus SMBG
• References: References for online-only supplementary material.

Aim: Clinical trials and real-world data for Type II diabetes both show that glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c)

levels and hypoglycemia occurrence can be reduced by real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rt-CGM)

versus self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). The present cost-utility study investigated the long-term

health economic outcomes associated with using rt-CGM versus SMBG in people with insulin-treated Type

II diabetes in France. Materials & methods: Effectiveness data were obtained from a real-world study,

which showed rt-CGM reduced HbA1c by 0.56% (6.1 mmol/mol) versus sustained SMBG. Analyses were

conducted using the IQVIA Core Diabetes Model. A French payer perspective was adopted over a lifetime

horizon for a cohort aged 64.5 years with baseline HbA1c of 8.3% (67 mmol/mol). A willingness-to-pay

threshold of €147,093 was used, and future costs and outcomes were discounted at 4% annually. Results:

The analysis projected quality-adjusted life expectancy was 8.50 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for rt-

CGM versus 8.03 QALYs for SMBG (difference: 0.47 QALYs), while total mean lifetime costs were €93,978

for rt-CGM versus €82,834 for SMBG (difference: €11,144). This yielded an incremental cost-utility ratio

(ICUR) of €23,772 per QALY gained for rt-CGM versus SMBG. Results were particularly sensitive to changes

in the treatment effect (i.e., change in HbA1c), annual price and quality of life benefit associated with

rt-CGM, SMBG frequency, baseline patient age and complication costs. Conclusion: The use of rt-CGM is

likely to be cost-effective versus SMBG for people with insulin-treated Type II diabetes in France.