Tehran University of Medical Sciences Health Technology Assessment in Action 2645-3835 5 3 2022 04 19 111 111 Sahar Salehi Ph.D. student of Futures Studies in Health, Health Foresight and Innovation Research Center, Institute for Futures Studies in Health, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran. Alireza Olyaeemanesh Professor, National Institute for Health Research and Health Equity Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. Mohammadreza Mobinizadeh Assistant Professor, National Institute for Health Research, Tehran University of Medical Science, Tehran, Iran. Ensieh Nasli Esfahani Associate Professor, Endocrinology and Metabolism Research Center, Shariati Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. Hossein Riazi PhD, Director of Information Technology Committee, Endocrinology and Metabolism Research Institute, Tehran, Iran. Alireza Mahdavi Hezaveh MD-MPH, Center for Non-Communicable Diseases Control and Prevention, Deputy for Health, Ministry of Health and Medical Education, Tehran, Iran. Mahdi Azadbakht MSc of Health Economics, Dept. of Disease prevention and control group, Lorestan University of Medical Sciences, Khorramabad, Iran. Elahe Bavandpour MSc of Health Technology Assessment, Dept. of Vice Chancellor for Care Services, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran. Maryam Jamali MSc student of Health Technology Assessment, Dept. of Health Management and Economics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 2021 11 20 2022 01 10 Abstract Background: This study aimed to investigate the economic evaluation of remote monitoring of type 2 diabetic patients for controlling glycosylated hemoglobin compared to routine care for type 2 diabetics. Methods: Economic evaluation was carried out to calculate the unit cost of the remote monitoring technology and the routine treatment for type 2 diabetics, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and sensitivity analysis using the key variables such as population size and cost items (in five categories of equipment and devices, building, staff, overhead costs, and consumables costs). Results: Considering the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in the base-case model and in comparison with routine treatment of type 2 diabetes, remote type 2 diabetes monitoring system was placed in the second quarter (more effective and affordable technology) of the graph as the most dominant alternative (RPM vs. Routine care: Total annual cost difference: -38476.477 US$ / “Unit- reduction in HbA1C” difference: 0.488).  The results of the sensitivity analysis revealed that in all scenarios, RPM was dominant compared to the routine treatment (The optimum ICER: -610.128 US$ per “Unit reduction in HbA1C” for the scenario with A 10% increase in the costs of the control and intervention group). Conclusion: Remote patient monitoring is a dominant alternative compared to routine treatment. Results indicated that remote type 2 diabetes monitoring interventions play an effective role in reducing HbA1c, which may be considered the rationale for policymakers to use this technology. https://htainaction.tums.ac.ir/index.php/hta/article/view/111 https://htainaction.tums.ac.ir/index.php/hta/article/download/111/74