Steven James: School of Nursing, Midwifery and Paramedicine, University of the Sunshine Coast, Petrie, Queensland, Australia. ORCID
Philip M Clarke: Health Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
David O'Neal: Department of Medicine, St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne, Melbourne Medical School, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Elif I Ekinci: Department of Medicine, Austin Health, Melbourne Medical School, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia. ORCID
Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is rapidly becoming a vital tool in the management of type 1 diabetes. Its use has been shown to improve glycaemic management and reduce the risk of hypoglycaemic events. The cost of CGM remains a barrier to its widespread application. We aimed to identify and synthesize evidence about the cost-effectiveness of utilizing CGM in patients with type 1 diabetes. Studies were identified from MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library from January 2010 to February 2022. Those that assessed the cost-effectiveness of CGM compared to self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) in patients with type 1 diabetes and reported lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were included. Studies on critically ill or pregnant patients were excluded. Nineteen studies were identified. Most studies compared continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion and SMBG to a sensor-augmented pump (SAP). The estimated ICER range was [$18,734-$99,941] and the quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gain range was [0.76-2.99]. Use in patients with suboptimal management or greater hypoglycaemic risk revealed more homogenous results and lower ICERs. Limited studies assessed CGM in the context of multiple daily injections (MDI) (n = 4), MDI and SMBG versus SAP (n = 2) and three studies included hybrid closed-loop systems. Most studies (n = 17) concluded that CGM is a cost-effective tool. This systematic review suggests that CGM appears to be a cost-effective tool for individuals with type 1 diabetes. Cost-effectiveness is driven by reducing short- and long-term complications. Use in patients with suboptimal management or at risk of severe hypoglycaemia is most cost-effective.
