Search

Value-based healthcare (VBHC) intends to achieve better outcomes for patients, to improve quality of patient care, with reduced costs. Four dimensions define a model of intimately related value-pillars: personal value, allocative value, technical value, and societal value. VBHC is mostly applied in common diseases, and there are fundamental challenges in applying VBHC strategies to low volume, high complex healthcare situations, such as rare diseases, including inherited metabolic disorders. This article summarizes current practices at various academical domains (i.e., research, healthcare, education, and training) that (aim to) increase values at various value-pillars for persons with liver glycogen storage diseases or fatty acid oxidation disorders and their families. Future perspectives may include facilitating virtual networks to function as integrated practice units, improving measurement of outcomes, and creating information technology platforms to overcome the ethical, legal, societal, and technical challenges of data sharing for healthcare and research purposes.

Context Although previous research has shown the benefit of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for hepatic glycogen storage diseases (GSDs), current lack of prospectively collected CGM metrics and glycemic targets for CGM-derived outcomes in the hepatic GSD population limits its use. Objective To assess CGM metrics for glycemic variation and glycemic control in adult patients with GSDIa as compared to matched healthy volunteers. Design Prospective CGM data were collected during the ENGLUPRO GSDIa trial (NCT04311307) in which a Dexcom G6 device was used. Ten adult patients with GSDIa and 10 age-, sex- and body mass index–matched healthy volunteers were enrolled. Capillary blood glucose was concurrently measured during 2 standardized 2-hour time intervals. Descriptive [eg, glycemic variability (GV), time below range, time in range (TIR), time above range (TAR)] and advanced (ie, first- and second-order derivatives, Fourier analysis) CGM outcomes were calculated. For each descriptive CGM outcome measure, 95% CIs were computed in patients with GSDIa and healthy volunteers, respectively. Results CGM overestimation was higher under preprandial and level 1 hypoglycemia (ie, capillary glucose values ≥ 3.0 mmol/L and Conclusions This is the first study to prospectively compare CGM outcomes between adult patients with GSDIa and matched healthy volunteers. The generation of a set of CGM metrics will provide guidance in using and interpreting CGM data in GSDIa and will be useful for the definition of glycemic targets for CGM in patients with GSDIa. Future studies should investigate the prognostic value of CGM outcomes and their major determinants in patients with GSDIa.