ArticleClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2021
Evaluation of the Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness of the Dexcom G6 Continuous Glucose Monitor versus Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose in People with Type 1 Diabetes in Canada.
Article in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating the Cost-Utility of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Individuals with Type 1 Diabetes: A Systematic Review of the Methods and Quality of Studies Using Decision Models or Empirical Data.PharmacoEconomics · 2024Pooled it
- A systematic review: Cost-effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring compared to self-monitoring of blood glucose in type 1 diabetes.Endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism · 2022Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of Dexcom ONE+ real-time continuous glucose monitoring versus self-monitoring of blood glucose in people with type 2 diabetes in Aotearoa New Zealand.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2026Article
- The cost-effectiveness of real-time continuous glucose monitoring versus intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring in individuals with insulin-treated Type 2 diabetes mellitus in Canada.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2025Article
- Effect of switching from intermittently scanned to real-time continuous glucose monitoring on glycaemic outcomes in adults with type 1 diabetes: A real-world, Canadian retrospective study.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2025Observational
- Social disadvantage and technology use among adults with type 1 diabetes in Quebec: A cross-sectional study using data from the Canadian T1D (BETTER) Registry.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2025Article
- Association Between Self-Monitored Blood Glucose and Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Youth With Type 1 Diabetes and Medicaid Insurance.Diabetes care · 2025Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of FreeStyle Libre for Glucose Self-Management Among People with Diabetes Mellitus: A Canadian Private Payer Perspective.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2025Article
- Article
- A Text-Mining Analysis to Examine Dominant Sources of Online Information and Content on Continuous Glucose Monitors.The science of diabetes self-management and care · 2023Article
- Article
- Personalized Digital Health Beyond the Pandemic.The journal for nurse practitioners : JNPArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Dexcom G6 real-time continuous glucose monitoring (RT-CGM) system is one of the most sophisticated RT-CGM systems developed to date and became available in Canada in 2019. A health economic analysis was performed to determine the long-term cost-effectiveness of the Dexcom G6 RT-CGM system versus SMBG in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in Canada.
methodsThe analysis was performed using the IQVIA Core Diabetes Model. Based on clinical trial data, patients with mean baseline HbA1c of 8.6% were assumed to have a HbA1c reduction of 1.0% with RT-CGM versus 0.4% reduction with SMBG. RT-CGM was also associated with a quality of life (QoL) benefit owing to reduced incidence of hypoglycemia, reduced fear of hypoglycemia (FoH) and elimination of fingerstick testing. Direct medical costs were sourced from published literature, and inflated to 2019 Canadian dollars (CAD).
resultsDexcom G6 RT-CGM was projected to improve mean quality-adjusted life expectancy by 2.09 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) relative to SMBG (15.52 versus 13.43 QALYs) but mean total lifetime cots were CAD 35,353 higher with RT-CGM (CAD 227,357 versus CAD 192,004) resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CAD 16,931 per QALY gained. Sensitivity analyses revealed that assumptions relating to the QoL benefit associated with reduced FoH and the elimination of fingerstick testing with RT-CGM as well as SMBG usage and change in HbA1c were the key drivers of cost-effectiveness.
conclusionFor adults with T1D in Canada, RT-CGM is associated with improved glycemic control and QoL benefits owing to a reduced FoH and elimination of the requirement for fingerstick testing and over a lifetime time horizon is cost-effective relative to SMBG.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.