Cost-Effectiveness of Continuous Glucose Monitoring With Remote Patient Monitoring in Pediatric Patients With Newly Diagnosed Type 1 Diabetes in the U.S.
Authors' conclusion
CGM with RPM delivers superior health outcomes compared with SMBG and CGM and is likely cost-effective for patients with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes. Despite higher intervention costs, CGM with RPM can reduce complications costs and generate net health care savings.
Study context
- Population
- Simulated 5-year-old patients with newly diagnosed T1D, U.S.
- Comparison
- Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) with remote patient monitoring (RPM) vs CGM alone vs self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG)
- Outcome
- QALYs and health care costs (2022 U.S. dollars), discounted at 3% annually
- Follow-up
- 20-year, 50-year and lifetime horizon
Methodological detailsMarkov model, 20-year, 50-year and lifetime horizons, 3% annual discounting, sensitivity analyses, Efficacy estimates from meta-analyses of pediatric CGM studies and the 4T Study 1
- Markov model
- 20-year, 50-year and lifetime horizons
- 3% annual discounting
- Sensitivity analyses
- Efficacy estimates from meta-analyses of pediatric CGM studies and the 4T Study 1
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Incremental QALYs, costs and ICER vs SMBG · 20 years
Incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)
0.09 QALYs
CGM · costs increased by $8,900
Incremental QALYs
0.37 QALYs
CGM with RPM · costs increased by $10,300
- ICER, CGM with RPM
- $27,400/QALY
- ICER, CGM
- $103,700/QALY
Further findings
- CGM with RPM remained cost-effective when achieving at least this share of 4T's clinical efficacy
- 30%
- Results robust across sensitivity analyses and time horizons
Original publication
Cost-Effectiveness of Continuous Glucose Monitoring With Remote Patient Monitoring in Pediatric Patients With Newly Diagnosed Type 1 Diabetes in the U.S. Diabetes Care. Published 25 March 2026. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →