Study: Diabetes self-monitoring not cost effective

By: Brian Dolan | Dec 22, 2009        

Tags: | | | | | |  |

There’s been a lot of talk this past year about the opportunity wireless health could present for people with diabetes who already carry around self-monitoring devices: Why not use a better, connected one? Well, two studies published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal this month might have a reason: They conclude that blood glucose monitoring more often than seven times per week is not cost effective for Type 2 diabetics who do not take insulin.

According to one of the studies’ abstract: “For most patients with Type 2 diabetes not using insulin, use of blood glucose test strips for frequent self-monitoring (seven times per week) is unlikely to represent efficient use of finite health care resources, although periodic testing (one or two times per week) may be costeffective. Reduced test strip price would likely also improve cost-effectiveness.”

The study concluded that “based on a clinically modest reduction in hemoglobin A1C of 0.25% (95% confidence interval 0.15-0.36) estimated from the systematic review, the UKPDS model predicted that self-monitoring performed 7 or more times per week reduced the lifetime incidence of diabetes-related complications compared with no self-monitoring, albeit at a higher cost (incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year $113,643 [Canadian]).” That translates to about U.S. $107,000.

While the researchers note that lower test strip prices would obviously bring the cost down, we wonder whether enriching the experience and usefulness of routine testing could bring the value up?

For more on the studies, read this write-up over at Science Daily

  • http://www.realist2.squarespace.com Merrilee Fullerton

    the title is misleading….the frequency of testing is what is being evaluated…not self-monitoring itself.

  • http://Www.connected-health.org Joseph Kvedar

    This is not a surprising result. If one could divide the sample into segments: those with high a1c, those who feel accountable to their health outcomes, the cost-effectiveness would emerge.

  • http://diabetech.net Kevin

    This research is flawed in that it asks a question about whether or not increased test frequency correlates directly to significantly improved outcomes. Everyone should agree that the answer to this is a resounding No. Just seeing a number on a meter does not translate into the actions a patient must take to improve blood sugar control. Just making the meter wireless doesn’t solve the data — action gap either. The right question to ask is whether or not a person (not just those diagnosed with diabetes either), using test strips to check strategically to understand cause and effect has improved outcomes vs. a person in any number of various other methods/study arms (ie – 1x per day checker, 2x per week random checker, 3x per day random checker, etc…)

    The research that I have been involved in (I am a CEO of a wireless health company) on several behavioral studies shows without a doubt that checking strategically with a daily average of 1.5 checks per day results in a clinically significant reduction in A1c vs a control group of ‘Free-Range’ patients doing their own thing.

    If you go to Pubmed.gov and read up on all of this research, regardless of which side it’s on, you will see a disturbing pattern in their conclusions…”looks promising… needs further research”. It’s way past time we design studies that can deliver the definitive answers to these questions surrounding diabetes – a health condition managed by patient behavior whether it’s type 1 or type 2 – once and for all.

    Or would that dry up a seemingly unlimited flow of cash into the pockets of academic researchers and their institutions?

  • http://3gdoctor.wordpress.com David Doherty

    @Kevin: Great to have such an authority as you on this area stepping in here to point out the very obvious flaw in this research. Agree 100%

  • Morris Older

    There have been similar studies–in Australia and elsewhere–with the same conclusion, and all with the same flaw. If people are taught how to test strategically, and how to use the outcome of those tests to make changes to their diet and their exercise regime, testing can make a huge difference in A1c and all other measures of blood sugar management. In fact at first, when some one is learning about the implications of their choices, testing 6 or 8x/day for a few weeks or months can be very instructive for people with Type 2 Diabetes.

    But simply testing, without adequate instruction on when to test and how to use the results, cannot improve outcomes by itself, so these studies are just stating the obvious. In essence they are designed to see what doesn’t work, rather than to find out what will work.

    Testing by itself has little impact. Testing with education added has a huge impact.