Costs and Outcomes Comparison of Diabetes Technology Usage Among People With Type 1 or 2 Diabetes Using Rapid-Acting Insulin
Authors' conclusion
During a one-year follow-up, unadjusted medical costs of both CGM and pump appear lower than BGM, but multivariable modeling yielded adjusted savings only for CGM use. Economic benefits might be observable sooner for CGMs than for pumps. Generalized linear models fitted to health care utilization event rates produced favorable results for both CGM and pump.
Study context
- Population
- People ≥40 years with T1D or T2D using rapid-acting insulin, 12 months of continuous enrollment before and after device start, large claims database
- Participants
- 8,235 people
- Exposure
- Continuous glucose monitor (CGM), insulin pump, or CGM with pump vs blood glucose monitor (BGM)
- Outcome
- Medical utilization and costs (minus device) for events such as hospitalizations and office visits
- Follow-up
- One year
Methodological detailsclaims database, generalized linear models adjusted for baseline covariates, Holm multiplicity correction
- Claims database
- Generalized linear models adjusted for baseline covariates
- Holm multiplicity correction
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Adjusted first-year medical utilization and costs
- Only two comparisons statistically significant: pump had greater adjusted first-year total medical and office visit costs vs BGM
- Most endpoints favorable for CGM
- CGM with pump generally intermediate between CGM and pump alone
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Secondary outcomes
Days hospitalized, ED visits and labs
- Favored pump
Original publication
Costs and Outcomes Comparison of Diabetes Technology Usage Among People With Type 1 or 2 Diabetes Using Rapid-Acting Insulin. J Diabetes Sci Technol. Published 15 October 2021. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →