ArticleDiabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders2025
Cost-Utility of Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring Versus Self-monitoring of Blood Glucose in People with Insulin-Treated Type 2 Diabetes in Sweden.
Article in Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe aim of this study was to investigate the cost-utility of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rt-CGM) versus self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in people with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes (T2D) in Sweden.
methodsThe CORE Diabetes Model (CDM v10) was used for the analysis. Clinical effectiveness data were obtained from the Steno2Tech trial, an investigator-initiated, 12-month, single center randomized controlled trial based in Denmark. Adverse event rates were sourced from a large-scale observational study based in the USA. Costs were obtained from Swedish and European studies and inflated to 2023 Swedish Krona (SEK). The analysis adopted the perspective of the Swedish payer, and a remaining lifetime horizon was used in the base case. A discount rate of 3% was applied to future costs and outcomes on an annual basis. A commonly cited willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of SEK 500,000 was used.
resultsrt-CGM led to a gain in mean incremental survival by 0.082 years (11.529 life years for rt-CGM versus 11.447 life years for SMBG). Total mean incremental costs were SEK 138,448 higher with rt-CGM compared with SMBG (SEK 1,151,049 for rt-CGM versus SEK 1,012,601 for SMBG). However, rt-CGM incurred fewer overall diabetes-related complication costs than SMBG over the remaining lifetime horizon. Rt-CGM also yielded a gain in mean incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 0.632 (8.608 QALYs for rt-CGM versus 7.976 QALYs for SMBG). The mean incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) for rt-CGM was SEK 219,063 per QALY gained, which showed rt-CGM to be cost-effective when compared with the WTP threshold of SEK 500,000. When various indirect cost estimates were incorporated, rt-CGM was consistently more cost-effective than in the base case analysis.
conclusionsFor individuals living in Sweden with T2D requiring insulin treatment, rt-CGM is a cost-effective management option 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.