Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorJiao, Yuxin-
dc.contributor.authorLin, Rose-
dc.contributor.authorHua, Xinyang-
dc.contributor.authorChurilov, Leonid-
dc.contributor.authorGaca, Michele J-
dc.contributor.authorJames, Steven-
dc.contributor.authorClarke, Philip M-
dc.contributor.authorO'Neal, David-
dc.contributor.authorEkinci, Elif I-
dc.identifier.citationEndocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism 2022en_US
dc.description.abstractContinuous 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.en_US
dc.subjectcontinuous glucose monitoringen_US
dc.subjecthealth economicsen_US
dc.subjectself-monitoring blood glucoseen_US
dc.subjecttype 1 diabetesen_US
dc.titleA systematic review: Cost-effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring compared to self-monitoring of blood glucose in type 1 diabetes.en_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.identifier.journaltitleEndocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolismen_US
dc.identifier.affiliationAustin Healthen_US
dc.identifier.affiliationCentre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Carlton, Victoria, Australia.en_US
dc.identifier.affiliationMelbourne Medical School, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.en_US
dc.identifier.affiliationAustin Health Sciences Libraryen_US
dc.identifier.affiliationSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Paramedicine, University of the Sunshine Coast, Petrie, Queensland, Australia.en_US
dc.identifier.affiliationHealth Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.en_US
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Medicine, St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne, Melbourne Medical School, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.en_US
dc.identifier.affiliationGeneral Medicineen_US
dc.subject.meshtermssecondaryDiabetes Mellitus, Type 1/drug therapy-
dc.subject.meshtermssecondaryBlood Glucose Self-Monitoring/methods-, Leonid
item.openairetypeJournal Article-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.openairecristype (University of Melbourne)- Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health-
Appears in Collections:Journal articles
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

checked on Dec 8, 2023

Google ScholarTM


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.