OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness and to project the clinical benefits of sensor augmented pump (SAP) compared to continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion therapy alone (CSII), in type 1 diabetic patients (T1D), in Netherlands. METHODS: The Core Diabetes Model was used to project the incidence of diabetes‑related complications, based on a meta-analysis from Pickup comparing SAP vs CSII. In the Pickup meta-analysis, 70% sensor usage in a population with baseline HbA1c of 8.0% led to a reduction of -0.42% versus -0.10% HbA1c, for SAP and CSII respectively. The simulated population had a mean age of 27 years with a mean diabetes duration of 13 years. The quality of life was adjusted for a reduced fear of hypoglycaemic event in the SAP arm. A discount rate of 4% and 1.5% for respectively economic and clinical outcomes was applied. Several sensitivity analysis were conducted on key parameters. RESULTS: The incremental cost‑effectiveness ratio (ICER) was 22,335 € per Quality Adjusted Life Year gained (QALY) based on a societal perspective. The improvement in discounted QALY was 1.768 years in favor of SAP. SAP additional related costs were partially offset by the savings due to the reduction in diabetes long-term complications and lower frequency of SMBG. Reduction in the incidence (%) and delay of onset of diabetes complications (years) were achieved with SAP compared to CSII alone, such as neuropathy (13% 1.3 years), first ulcer (5% 1.19 years) and stroke (4% 0.81 years). The acceptability curve showed that the likelihood to be cost-effective at a willingness to pay of 80,000 €/QALY was 100%.  CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that accordingly to commonly accepted threshold SAP compared to CSII alone can be considered as very good value for money in the Dutch setting. Extensive sensitivity analysis on key drivers confirmed the robustness of results.