Advertisement

Internal and Emergency Medicine

, Volume 13, Issue 6, pp 947–949 | Cite as

A novel flash glucose monitoring system in patients with diabetes mellitus type 1 and 2: which are the pieces of evidence for payer decision-makers?

  • Salvatore CorraoEmail author
  • Biagio Nativo
  • Giuseppe Natoli
  • Marika Lo Monaco
  • Francesco Perticone
CE - COCHRANE'S CORNER

Abstract

A rigorous health technology assessment is necessary to evaluate a new technology. However, healthcare regulatory agencies have less restrictive rules about medical devices, despite some recent warnings about this relevant matter. The evaluation should have at least two key issues, which require attention. The first one is its effectiveness, and the second one is its economic sustainability. In this paper, we deal with a novel glucose-sensing technology as a case study to examine the matter in depth. An evidence-based point of view is used to highlight this important issue.

Keywords

Biomedical technology Technology assessment Biomedical Decision making Organizational Economic Ethics 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Dr. Marta Alioto for the revision of the language.

Funding

No financial, nor any other material support was received in support of this work.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The Authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Statements on human and animal rights

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Nobre MR, Costa FM (2012) Surrogate outcomes are associated with low methodological necrosis factor agents: a systematic review. Evid Based Med 17(1):3–7CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Callea G, Armeni P, Marsilio M et al (2016) The impact of HTA and procurement practices on the selection and prices of medical devices. Soc Sci Med 174:89–95CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Porzsolt F, Rocha NG, Toledo-Arruda AC et al (2015) Efficacy and effectiveness trials have different goals, use different tools, and generate different messages. Pragmat Obs Res 6:47–54CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bolinder J, Antuna R, Geelhoed-Duijvestijn P et al (2016) Novel glucose-sensing technology and hypoglycaemia in type 1 diabetes: a multicentre, non-masked, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 388(10057):2254–2263CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Haak T, Hanaire H, Ajjan R et al (2016) Flash glucose-sensing technology as a replacement for blood glucose monitoring for the management of insulin-treated type 2 diabetes: a multicenter, open-label randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Ther.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13300-016-0223-6 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kyeremanteng K, Wan C, D’Egidio G et al (2016) Approach to economic analysis in critical care. J Crit Care 36:92–96CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Porzsolt F, Ghosh AK, Kaplan RM (2009) Qualitative assessment of innovations in healthcare provision. BMC Health Serv Res 19(9):50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Meltzer M, Pizzi LT, Jutkowitz E (2012) Payer decision-making with limited comparative and cost effectiveness data: the case of new pharmacological treatments for gout. Evid Based Med. 17(4):105–108CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
    Shapiro AR (2017) FDA approval of nonadjunctive use of continuous glucose monitors for insulin dosing: a potentially risky decision. JAMA 318(16):1541–1542CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ibrahim AM, Dimick JB (2017) Monitoring medical devices: missed warning signs within existing data. JAMA 318(4):327–328CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    European Medicine Agency. Mandate, Objectives and Rules of Procedure for the EMA/CAT and Medical Devices’ Notified Body (EMA/CATNB) Collaboration Group (CG). http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Other/2010/12/WC500099532.pdf. Accessed 30 Oct 2017

Copyright information

© SIMI 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Internal Medicine, National Relevance and High Specialization Hospital TrustARNAS Civico, Di Cristina, BenfratelliPalermoItaly
  2. 2.Centre of Research for Effectiveness and Appropriateness in Medicine (C.R.E.A.M.), Di.Bi.M.I.SUniversity of PalermoPalermoItaly
  3. 3.Department of EndocrinologyGravina HospitalCaltagironeItaly
  4. 4.Department of Organizational, Clinical, and Translational ResearchI.E.ME.S.TPalermoItaly
  5. 5.Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences“Magna-Græcia” University of CatanzaroCatanzaroItaly

Personalised recommendations