MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4281816149 · doi:10.2337/db22-134-or

134-OR: Cost-Effectiveness of a Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring System vs. Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose in Type 2 Diabetes Patients on Insulin in Canada

2022· article· en· W4281816149 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
JOHN J. ISITT, Stéphane Roze, GREGORY COGSWELL, PETER M. LYNCH

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCohortDiabetes mellitusType 2 diabetesCost effectivenessBlood Glucose Self-MonitoringContinuous glucose monitoringCost-effectiveness analysisQuality-adjusted life yearInternal medicineInsulinGlycemicEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A health economic analysis was conducted to determine the cost-effectiveness of a real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rt-CGM) system versus self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in Type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients treated with insulin. The IQVIA CORE diabetes model was utilized for the analysis. Clinical data were sourced from a US retrospective cohort study of adult T2D patients on insulin and adapted to Canada. The baseline mean age (SD) of the cohort was 61 years (13.2) and proportion of male 49%. Mean baseline HbA1c for the cohort was 8.3% (67 mmol/mol) . Patients using rt-CGM were assumed to have a reduction in HbA1c of -0.56% based on the mean difference between groups after 12-months follow-up. A quality-of-life (QoL) benefit associated with reduced finger-stick testing was applied. The analysis was conducted from the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health perspective over a lifetime horizon. The rt-CGM system was associated with an incremental gain of 0.97 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared with SMBG (mean [SD] 10.35 [3.08] versus 9.375 [2.85] QALYs) . Total mean [SD] lifetime costs were CAN$ 17,223 higher with rt-CGM (CAN$ 206,284 [121,493] versus 189,061 [129.680]) , resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CAN$ 17,652 per QALY gained. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated findings were sensitive to changes in QoL, HbA1c, younger patient cohorts, and rt-CGM cost. Varying rt-CGM cost to -25% of base case yielded an ICER of CAN$ 3,512, and varying rt-CGM cost to -50% of base case the ICER becomes dominant over SMBG. For T2D patients on insulin, rt-CGM was associated with significant clinical outcomes and is a cost-effective management option relative to SMBG based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of CAN$ 50,000 per QALY gained. Disclosure J.J.Isitt: Consultant; Dexcom, Inc. S.Roze: None. G.Cogswell: None. P.M.Lynch: Employee; Dexcom, Inc., Stock/Shareholder; Dexcom, Inc.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.197
Threshold uncertainty score0.396

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetes→Same topicDiabetes Management and Research→French-language works237,207→