The cost implications of continuous glucose monitoring in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes in 3 Canadian provinces: a posthoc cost analysis of the CONCEPTT trial

Rashid J. Ahmed, Amiram Gafni, Eileen K. Hutton, Zheng Jing Hu, J. Johanna Sanchez, Helen R. Murphy, Denice S. Feig

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Women with Type 1 Diabetes in Pregnancy Trial (CONCEPTT) found improved health outcomes for mothers and their infants among those randomized to self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) compared with SMBG alone. In this study, we evaluated whether CGM or standard SMBG was more or less costly from the perspective of a third-party payer. METHODS: We conducted a posthoc analysis of data from the CONCEPTT trial (Mar. 25, 2013, to Mar. 22, 2016). Health care resource data from 215 pregnant women, randomized to CGM or SMBG, were collected from 31 hospitals in 7 countries. We determined resource costs posthoc based on prices from hospitals in 3 Canadian provinces (Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta). The primary outcome was the difference between groups in the mean total cost of care for mother and infant dyads, paid by each government (i.e., the third-party payer) from randomization to hospital discharge (time horizon). The secondary outcome included CGM and SMBG costs not paid by governments (e.g., glucose monitoring devices and supplies). RESULTS: The mean total cost of care was lower in the CGM group compared with the SMBG group in each province (Ontario: $13 270.25 v. $18 465.21, difference in mean total cost [DMT] -$5194.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] -$9841 to -$1395; BC: $13 480.57 v. $18 762.17, DMT -$5281.60, 95% CI -$9964 to -$1382; Alberta: $13 294.39 v. $18 674.45, DMT -$5380.06, 95% CI -$10 216 to -$1490). There was no difference in the secondary outcome. INTERPRETATION: Government health care costs are lower when CGM is paid by the patient, driven by lower costs from reduced use of the neonatal intensive care unit in the CGM group; however, when governments pay for CGM equipment, there is no overall cost difference between CGM and SMBG. Governments should consider paying for CGM, as it results in improved maternal and neonatal outcomes with no added overall cost. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT01788527.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)E627-E634
Number of pages8
JournalCMAJ Open
Volume9
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Apr 2021

Cite this