scholarly journals Cost Calculation for a Flash Glucose Monitoring System for Adults With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Using Intensive Insulin – a UK Perspective

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 86 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Hellmund ◽  
Raimund Weitgasser ◽  
Deirdre Blissett
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Resource Use ◽  
Healthcare Resource ◽  
Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Cost Calculation ◽  
Healthcare Resource Use ◽  
Flash Glucose Monitoring

Aims:Estimate the costs associated with flash glucose monitoring as a replacement for routine self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) using intensive insulin, from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective.Methods:The base-case cost calculation used the frequency of SMBG and healthcare resource use observed in the REPLACE trial. Scenario analyses considered SMBG at the flash monitoring frequencies observed in the REPLACE trial (8.3 tests per day) and a real-world analysis (16 tests per day).Results:Compared with 3 SMBG tests per day, flash monitoring would cost an additional £585 per patient per year, offset by a £776 reduction in healthcare resource use, based on reductions in emergency room visits (41%), ambulance call-outs (66%) and hospital admissions (77%) observed in the REPLACE trial. Per patient, the estimated total annual cost for flash monitoring was £191 (13.4%) lower than for SMBG. In the scenarios based on acquisition cost alone, flash monitoring was cost-neutral versus 8.3 SMBG tests per day (5% decrease) and cost-saving at higher testing frequencies.Conclusion:From a UK NHS perspective, for patients with T2DM using intensive insulin, flash monitoring is potentially cost-saving compared with routine SMBG irrespective of testing frequency. Keywords

scholarly journals PDB24 REAL WORLD DATA ANALYSIS OF HEALTHCARE RESOURCE USE OF PATIENTS WITH TYPE 2 DIABETES MELLITUS AND CHRONIC KIDNEY DISEASE

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 ◽  
pp. S576
Author(s):  
D. Vivas Consuelo ◽  
S. González de Julián ◽  
J. Díaz-Carnicero ◽  
M.I. Saurí-Ferrer ◽  
R. Uso-Talamantes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Chronic Kidney Disease ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Data Analysis ◽  
Resource Use ◽  
Healthcare Resource ◽  
Healthcare Resource Use ◽  
Real World Data

scholarly journals Effects of Flash Glucose Monitoring on Dietary Variety, Physical Activity, and Self-Care Behaviors in Patients with Diabetes

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Satoshi Ida ◽  
Ryutaro Kaneko ◽  
Kanako Imataka ◽  
Kaoru Okubo ◽  
Yoshitaka Shirakura ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Type 1 Diabetes ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Flash Glucose Monitoring

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of flash glucose monitoring on dietary variety, physical activity, and self-care behavior in patients with diabetes. This study included outpatients with diabetes using insulin who presented at the Department of Diabetes and Metabolism of the Ise Red Cross Hospital. Before initiating flash glucose monitoring and 12 weeks after its initiation, blood glucose-related parameters were assessed and self-administered questionnaires were completed (Dietary Variety Score (DVS), the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ), the Summary of Diabetes Self-Care Activities Measure (SDSCA), and the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ)) and compared between the two time points. We analyzed 42 patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus and 48 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. In patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, but not type 1 diabetes mellitus, there was an increase in moderate/high category scores for IPAQ (P<0.001) and for treatment satisfaction reported via DTSQ. Furthermore, in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, the glycemic excursion index improved significantly and HbA1c decreased significantly (from 7.7 (1.2) to 7.4 (0.8), P=0.025). Results showed that standard deviation and mean amplitude of glycemic excursions significantly decreased in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (from 71.2 (20.4) to 66.2 (17.5), P=0.033 and from 124.6 (31.9) to 108.1 (28.4), P<0.001, respectively). Flash glucose monitoring is a useful tool to improve physical activity in patients with type 2 diabetes.

scholarly journals Comparison of Interstitial Fluid Glucose Levels Obtained by Continuous Glucose Monitoring and Flash Glucose Monitoring in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Undergoing Hemodialysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (6) ◽  
pp. 1088-1094 ◽  
Author(s):  
Takahiro Yajima ◽  
Hiroshi Takahashi ◽  
Keigo Yasuda
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Interstitial Fluid ◽  
Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Relative Difference ◽  
Flash Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Grid Analysis ◽  
Error Grid

Background: The accuracy of flash glucose monitoring (FGM, FreeStyle Libre Pro [FSL-Pro]) remains unclear in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) undergoing hemodialysis. Methods: We assessed 13 patients with T2DM undergoing hemodialysis. They simultaneously underwent FGM, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM, iPro2), and self-monitoring blood glucose (SMBG). Results: Parkes error grid analysis against SMBG showed that 49.0% and 51.0% of interstitial fluid glucose (ISFG) levels measured using FGM and 93.3% and 6.7% of those measured using CGM fell into zones A and B, respectively. Mean absolute relative difference (MARD) against SMBG for FGM was significantly higher than that for CGM (19.5% ± 13.2% vs 8.1% ± 7.6%, P < .0001). Parkes error grid analysis of 2496 paired ISFG levels between FGM and CGM showed that 53.6%, 46.2%, and 0.2% of the plots fell into zones A, B, and C, respectively. Mean ISFG levels were lower with FGM than with CGM (143.7 ± 67.2 mg/dL vs 164.6 ± 58.5 mg/dL; P < .0001). Mean absolute relative difference of ISFG levels between FGM and CGM was 19.2% ± 13.8%. Among three groups classified according to CGM ISFG levels (hypoglycemia, <70 mg/dL; euglycemia, 70-180 mg/dL; and hyperglycemia, >180 mg/dL), the MARDs for hypoglycemia (31.9% ± 25.0%) and euglycemia (22.8% ± 14.6%) were significantly higher than MARD for hyperglycemia (13.0% ± 8.5%) ( P < .0001 in both). Conclusions: Flash glucose monitoring may be clinically acceptable. Average ISFG levels were lower with FGM than with CGM, and MARDs were higher for hypoglycemia and euglycemia in patients with T2DM undergoing hemodialysis.

Flash Glucose Monitoring Improves Glucose Control in People with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Receiving Anti-diabetic Drug Medication

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maoyuan Chen ◽  
Huiqin Li ◽  
Yun Shen ◽  
Bingli Liu ◽  
Renna Yan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Plasma Glucose ◽  
Glucose Monitoring ◽  
High Concentration ◽  
Flash Glucose Monitoring ◽  
Daily Diet ◽  
Diet And Exercise

Abstract Objective To investigate the effects of Flash Glucose Monitoring (FGM) on glucose profile in people with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) receiving anti-diabetic drug medication. Methods This is a prospective non-randomized uncontrolled study. 111 people with T2DM were enrolled and received FGM for 14 days. There was no change of anti-diabetic medication during the 14 days. The plasma glucose concentration on day 2 was used as baseline and the day 13 was considered as study end point. The parameters to compare were mean plasma glucose (MPG), glucose variations, and incidence of hypoglycemia during the FGM period. The multivariate linear stepwise regression analysis was applied to determine the independent factors that affect MPG difference. Results This study analyzed the data of a total of 111 people with T2DM (male 60 and female 51). The general clinical data of these patients were as follows: age: 65.0±6.7 years old; duration of diabetes: 11.6±6.8 years; HbA1c: 61.2±13.3 mmol/mol; body mass index (BMI): 25.2±3.2 kg/m². Using FGM, people with T2DM were able to change daily diet and exercise through which significant reductions in MPG on days 12 or 13 were achieved as compared with that of day 2 (P=0.04 or P=0.003, respectively). The glucose variations, such as standard deviation (SD) of plasma glucose, coefficient of variation (CV), and mean amplitude of glycemic excursion (MAGE), progressively declined starting from day 6 as compared with baseline (P=0.016, P=0.003, or P=0.012, respectively). The incremental area over the curve (AOC) of the hypoglycemia (<3.9 mmol/L) had a significant reduction starting from the day 3 (P=0.001). When people with T2DM were divided into 3 groups based on the tertile of HbA1c (high, middle, and low concentrations), the reduction of MPG in patients with high concentration of HbA1c were much larger than that in middle and low concentration group patients (P=0.001 for both). The incidence of hypoglycemia was improved in the low concentration group (P=0.017). The optimal frequency of scanning time required to maintain euglycemia was 11.7 times/day as calculated by the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Conclusion Using FGM to monitor glucose concentration at 11.7 times/day, people with T2DM can achieve a better glucose control in addition to anti-diabetic drug medication through changing daily diet and exercise, especially in patients with high concentration of HbA1c (>66.1 mmol/mol).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document