Cited by 15Diabetes Management and ResearchHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeDiabetes Treatment and Management

Evaluation of the Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness of the Dexcom G6 Continuous Glucose Monitor versus Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose in People with Type 1 Diabetes in Canada

Open access
Roze, Stephane, Isitt, John J, Smith-Palmer, Jayne, Lynch, Peter·2021·ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Dexcom G6 real-time continuous glucose monitoring (RT-CGM) system is one of the most sophisticated RT-CGM systems developed to date and became available in Canada in 2019. A health economic analysis was performed to determine the long-term cost-effectiveness of the Dexcom G6 RT-CGM system versus SMBG in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in Canada. METHODS: The analysis was performed using the IQVIA Core Diabetes Model. Based on clinical trial data, patients with mean baseline HbA1c of 8.6% were assumed to have a HbA1c reduction of 1.0% with RT-CGM versus 0.4% reduction with SMBG. RT-CGM was also associated with a quality of life (QoL) benefit owing to reduced incidence of hypoglycemia, reduced fear of hypoglycemia (FoH) and elimination of fingerstick testing. Direct medical costs were sourced from published literature, and inflated to 2019 Canadian dollars (CAD). RESULTS: Dexcom G6 RT-CGM was projected to improve mean quality-adjusted life expectancy by 2.09 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) relative to SMBG (15.52 versus 13.43 QALYs) but mean total lifetime cots were CAD 35,353 higher with RT-CGM (CAD 227,357 versus CAD 192,004) resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CAD 16,931 per QALY gained. Sensitivity analyses revealed that assumptions relating to the QoL benefit associated with reduced FoH and the elimination of fingerstick testing with RT-CGM as well as SMBG usage and change in HbA1c were the key drivers of cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSION: For adults with T1D in Canada, RT-CGM is associated with improved glycemic control and QoL benefits owing to a reduced FoH and elimination of the requirement for fingerstick testing and over a lifetime time horizon is cost-effective relative to SMBG.

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 · 10.2147/ceor.s304395

Cites

37 of 37 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?

  • Insulin pump therapy and CGM reduce HbA1c, hypoglycaemia, diabetes burden and distress, and are associated with higher quality of life compared to usual care.

    “Insulin pump therapy and continuous glucose monitor (CGM) reduce Haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), hypoglycaemia, diabetes burden and distress, and are associated with higher quality of life (QOL) compared to usual care.”

    From Social disadvantage and technology use among adults with type 1 diabetes in Quebec: A cross‐sectional study using data from the Canadian <scp>T1D</scp> ( <scp>BETTER</scp> ) Registry (2025) · cites this paper as [2]

    The Methods (Simulation Cohort Characteristics and Treatment Effects; page unavailable) report lower HbA1c and hypoglycemia rates with CGM than with usual care using self-monitoring of blood glucose. The Methods (Costs and Health State Utilities; page unavailable) assign CGM a quality-of-life benefit associated with less fear of hypoglycemia and fewer fingerstick tests. The comparison concerns CGM in adults using multiple daily insulin injections, not insulin pump therapy, and does not establish reduced overall diabetes burden or distress. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Economic analyses generally support the cost-effectiveness of diabetes technologies owing to a reduction in hypoglycaemia and acute and chronic diabetes complications.

    “While these technologies are expensive, economic analyses generally support their cost‐effectiveness owing to a reduction in hypoglycaemia and acute and chronic diabetes complications.”

    From Social disadvantage and technology use among adults with type 1 diabetes in Quebec: A cross‐sectional study using data from the Canadian <scp>T1D</scp> ( <scp>BETTER</scp> ) Registry (2025) · cites this paper as [2]

    The Results (page unavailable) report that Dexcom G6 was cost-effective versus self-monitoring for adults with type 1 diabetes in Canada; lower rates of severe hypoglycemia and long-term complications partly offset its higher device cost. The paper does not establish that diabetes technologies generally are cost-effective, and its Discussion describes an earlier Canadian analysis that reached a much less favorable cost-effectiveness estimate for continuous glucose monitors. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [21]Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Optimal use recommendations forsecond and third-line therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes. Ottawa: The Agency; 2013. (CADTHoptimal use report; vol.3, no. 1d). Available from: https://www.cadth.ca/media/pdf/OP0512_Diabetes_RecsReport_2nd_3rd-line_e.pdf. Accessed 4 24, 2020.
  2. [25]Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies 4th edition; 3 2017. Available from: https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines_for_the_economic_evaluation_of_health_technologies_canada_4th_ed.pdf. Accessed 4 23, 2020.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Roze, S., Isitt, J. J., Smith-Palmer, J., & Lynch, P.
Affiliations
Dexcom (United States) (US)
Venue
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research
Published
2021-08
Volume
Volume 13
Pages
717-725
ISSN
1178-6981 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3193000380
Cited by
15
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3
FWCI
1.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Dove Medical Press (Taylor and Francis Group) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Dexcom
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
Keywords
Dexcom G6, continuous glucose monitoring, type 1 diabetes, self-monitoring of blood glucose, cost-effectiveness, hypoglycemia, fear of hypoglycemia, quality-adjusted life years, HbA1c, quality of life, lifetime costs

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