Cited by 38Diabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes Treatment and ManagementDiabetes Management and Education

Clinical and economic benefits of professional CGM among people with type 2 diabetes in the United States: analysis of claims and lab data

Open access
Sierra, Joseph A., Shah, Mona, Gill, Max S., Flores, Zachery, Chawla, Hiten, Kaufman, Francine R., Vigersky, Robert·2018·Journal of Medical Economics

Abstract

BACKGROUND: It is estimated that one in 10 people in the US have a diagnosis of diabetes. Type 2 diabetes accounts for 95% of all cases in the US, with annual costs estimated to be $246 billion per year. This study investigated the impact of a glucose-measuring intervention to the burden of type 2 diabetes. OBJECTIVE: This analysis seeks to understand how professional continuous glucose monitoring (professional CGM) impacts clinical and economic outcomes when compared to patients who are not prescribed professional CGM. METHODS: This study utilized a large healthcare claims and lab dataset from the US, and identified a cohort of patients who were prescribed professional CGM as identified by CPT codes 95250 and 95251. It calculated economic and clinical outcomes 1 year before and 1 year after the use of professional CGM, using a generalized linear model. RESULTS: Patients who utilized professional CGM saw an improvement in hemoglobin A1C. The "difference-in-difference" calculation for A1C was shown to be -0.44%. There was no statistically significant difference in growth of total annual costs for people who used professional CGM compared to those who did not ($1,270, p = .08). Patients using professional CGM more than once per year had a -$3,376 difference in the growth of total costs (p = .05). Patients who used professional CGM while changing their diabetes treatment regimen also had a difference of -$3,327 in growth of total costs (p = .0023). CONCLUSION: Significant clinical benefits were observed for patients who used professional CGM. Economic benefits were observed for patients who utilized professional CGM more than once within a 1-year period or who used it during a change of diabetes therapy. This suggests that professional CGM may help decrease rising trends in healthcare costs for people with type 2 diabetes, while also improving clinical outcomes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/13696998.2017.1390474

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Sierra et al. found that professional CGM reduces the burden of healthcare costs in mixed therapy diabetes populations.

    “These findings align with those of Sierra et al. who found that professional CGM reduces the burden of healthcare costs in mixed therapy diabetes populations. 23”

    From Continuous glucose monitoring in noninsulin‐treated type 2 diabetes: A critical review of reported trials with an updated systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomised controlled trials (2025) · cites this paper as [23]

    The Results report lower growth in total healthcare costs for patients who used professional CGM during a change in diabetes therapy. But they found no statistically significant cost benefit for the full type 2 diabetes cohort, so the claim overgeneralizes the economic finding to mixed therapy populations and states a reduction more firmly than this observational analysis supports. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In Sierra et al. 2018, using US healthcare claims and lab datasets, a significant reduction in HbA1c (0.44%) was found when comparing values 1 year before and 1 year after professional CGM initiation among T2DM individuals on oral or injectable antihyperglycaemic agents.

    “Using US healthcare claims and lab datasets, Sierra et al. uncovered a significant reduction in HbA1c (0.44%) when comparing values 1 year before and 1 year after professional CGM (Medtronic iPro2 or Dexcom G4) initiation among individuals living with T2DM being treated with oral or injectable antihyperglycaemic agents.”

    From Continuous glucose monitoring in noninsulin‐treated type 2 diabetes: A critical review of reported trials with an updated systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomised controlled trials (2025) · cites this paper as [23]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sierra, J. A., Shah, M., Gill, M. S., Flores, Z., Chawla, H., Kaufman, F. R., & Vigersky, R.
Affiliations
Medtronic (Japan) (JP)
Corresponding author
Sierra, Joseph A.
Venue
Journal of Medical Economics
Published
2017-10-17
Volume
21
Issue
3
Pages
225-230
ISSN
  • 1369-6998 (ISSN-L)
  • 1941-837X
OpenAlex
W2763848928
Cited by
38
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4
FWCI
3.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Economics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
Keywords
continuous glucose monitoring, type 2 diabetes, HbA1c, health care costs, glycemic control, cost reduction
MeSH terms
Population Health, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Health Expenditures, Female, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Insurance Claim Review, Insurance, Health, Male, Middle Aged, United States, Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring, Databases, Factual, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Cost of Illness, Current Procedural Terminology

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review