Search

BackgroundA composite metric for the quality of glycemia from continuous glucose monitor (CGM) tracings could be useful for assisting with basic clinical interpretation of CGM data.MethodsWe assembled a data set of 14-day CGM tracings from 225 insulin-treated adults with diabetes. Using a balanced incomplete block design, 330 clinicians who were highly experienced with CGM analysis and interpretation ranked the CGM tracings from best to worst quality of glycemia. We used principal component analysis and multiple regressions to develop a model to predict the clinician ranking based on seven standard metrics in an Ambulatory Glucose Profile: very low-glucose and low-glucose hypoglycemia; very high-glucose and high-glucose hyperglycemia; time in range; mean glucose; and coefficient of variation.ResultsThe analysis showed that clinician rankings depend on two components, one related to hypoglycemia that gives more weight to very low-glucose than to low-glucose and the other related to hyperglycemia that likewise gives greater weight to very high-glucose than to high-glucose. These two components should be calculated and displayed separately, but they can also be combined into a single Glycemia Risk Index (GRI) that corresponds closely to the clinician rankings of the overall quality of glycemia (r = 0.95). The GRI can be displayed graphically on a GRI Grid with the hypoglycemia component on the horizontal axis and the hyperglycemia component on the vertical axis. Diagonal lines divide the graph into five zones (quintiles) corresponding to the best (0th to 20th percentile) to worst (81st to 100th percentile) overall quality of glycemia. The GRI Grid enables users to track sequential changes within an individual over time and compare groups of individuals.ConclusionThe GRI is a single-number summary of the quality of glycemia. Its hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia components provide actionable scores and a graphical display (the GRI Grid) that can be used by clinicians and researchers to determine the glycemic effects of prescribed and investigational treatments.

Diabetes Technology Society hosted its annual Diabetes Technology Meeting on November 12 to November 14, 2020. This meeting brought together speakers to cover various perspectives about the field of diabetes technology. The meeting topics included artificial intelligence, digital health, telemedicine, glucose monitoring, regulatory trends, metrics for expressing glycemia, pharmaceuticals, automated insulin delivery systems, novel insulins, metrics for diabetes monitoring, and discriminatory aspects of diabetes technology. A live demonstration was presented.

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, an interprofessional expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 2025 "Standards of Care in Diabetes" published in Diabetes Care by the American Diabetes Association reflects the evolving landscape of diabetes care, incorporating person-first language and inclusive terminology. Endorsements from various medical societies were received for different sections, emphasizing the importance of comprehensive care. The document details revisions across multiple sections, including recommendations for populations at risk, diagnosis and classification of diabetes, prevention strategies, and management of comorbidities, reflecting the latest evidence-based practices in diabetes care. [Extracted from the article]

The article "Introduction and Methodology: Standards of Care in Diabetes—2025" from Diabetes Care discusses the importance of continuous medical care for diabetes, emphasizing self-management education and support. The American Diabetes Association's "Standards of Care" provides comprehensive guidelines for clinicians, researchers, and policymakers to improve diabetes outcomes across diverse populations. The document covers screening, diagnosis, and management of diabetes and its complications, with recommendations for various age groups and types of diabetes. The Standards of Care undergoes annual updates based on new evidence and expert recommendations, ensuring its relevance and reliability for healthcare professionals and individuals with diabetes. [Extracted from the article]

Background: There is a need for accurate glycemic control metrics in patients with diabetes and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). Hence, we assessed the relationship of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) metrics and laboratory-measured hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) treated by hemodialysis. Methods: This prospective observational study included adults (age 18–80 years) with T2D (HbA1c 5%–12%), treated by hemodialysis (for at least 90 days). Participants used a Dexcom G6 Pro CGM for 10 days. Correlation analyses between CGM metrics [mean glucose, glucose management indicator (GMI), and time-in-range (TIR 70–180 mg/dL)] and HbA1c were performed. Results: Among 59 participants (mean age was 57.7 ± 9.3 years, 58% were female, 86% were non-Hispanic blacks), the CGM mean glucose level was 188.9 ± 45 mg/dL (95% CI: 177.2, 200.7), the mean HbA1c and GMI were 7.1% ± 1.3% and 7.8% ± 1.1%, respectively (difference 0.74% ± 0.95). GMI had a strong negative correlation with TIR 70–180 mg/dL (r = −0.96). The correlation between GMI and HbA1c (r = 0.68) was moderate. Up to 29% of participants had a discordance between HbA1c and GMI of <0.5%, with 22% having a discordance between 0.5% and 1%, and 49% having a discordance of >1%. Conclusions: In patients with diabetes and ESKD treated by hemodialysis, the GMI has a strong correlation with TIR, while HbA1c underestimated the average glucose and GMI. Given the limitations of HbA1c in this population, GMI or mean glucose and TIR may be considered as more appropriate glucose control markers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated baseline characteristics of participants with early-onset type 2 diabetes (T2D) from the SURPASS program and tirzepatide's effects on glycemic control, body weight (BW), and cardiometabolic markers. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This post hoc analysis compared baseline characteristics and changes in mean HbA1c, BW, waist circumference (WC), lipids, and blood pressure (BP) in 3,792 participants with early-onset versus later-onset T2D at week 40 (A Study of Tirzepatide [LY3298176] in Participants With Type 2 Diabetes Not Controlled With Diet and Exercise Alone [SURPASS-1] and A Study of Tirzepatide [LY3298176] Versus Semaglutide Once Weekly as Add-on Therapy to Metformin in Participants With Type 2 Diabetes [SURPASS-2]) or week 52 (A Study of Tirzepatide [LY3298176] Versus Insulin Degludec in Participants With Type 2 Diabetes [SURPASS-3]). Analyses were performed by study on data from participants while on assigned treatment without rescue medication in case of persistent hyperglycemia. RESULTS: At baseline in SURPASS-2, participants with early-onset versus later-onset T2D were younger with longer diabetes duration (9 vs. 7 years, P < 0.001) higher glycemic levels (8.5% vs. 8.2%, P < 0.001), higher BW (97 vs. 93 kg, P < 0.001) and BMI (35 vs. 34 kg/m2, P < 0.001), and a similarly abnormal lipid profile (e.g., triglycerides 167 vs. 156 mg/dL). At week 40, similar improvements in HbA1c (−2.6% vs. −2.4%), BW (−14 vs. −13 kg), WC (−10 vs. −10 cm), triglycerides (−26% vs. −24%), HDL (7% vs. 7%), and systolic BP (−6 vs. −7 mmHg) were observed in both subgroups with tirzepatide. CONCLUSIONS: Despite younger age, participants with early-onset T2D from the SURPASS program had higher glycemic levels and worse overall metabolic health at baseline versus those with later-onset T2D. In this post hoc analysis, similar improvements in HbA1c, BW, and cardiometabolic markers were observed with tirzepatide, irrespective of age at T2D diagnosis. Future studies are needed to determine long-term outcomes of tirzepatide in early-onset T2D. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a case study of a 54-year-old man with type 2 diabetes and uncontrolled glucose levels, necessitating rapid improvement for surgery. Topics discussed include the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) to guide treatment adjustments, addition of prandial insulin, and subsequent reduction of basal insulin based on CGM data to achieve glycemic targets.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with diabetes and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) may experience "burnt-out diabetes," defined as having an HbA1c value <6.5% without antidiabetic therapy for >6 months. We aim to assess glycemic control by continuous glucose monitoring (Dexcom G6 CGM) metrics and glycemic markers in ESKD patients on hemodialysis with burnt-out diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this pilot prospective study, glycemic control was assessed by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), HbA1c measures, and glycated albumin and fructosamine measurements in patients with burnt-out diabetes (n = 20) and without a history of diabetes (n = 20). RESULTS: Patients with burnt-out diabetes had higher CGM-measured daily glucose levels, lower percent time in the range 70–180 mg/dL, higher percent time above range (>250 mg/dL), and longer duration of hyperglycemia >180 mg/dL (hours/day) compared with patients without diabetes (all P < 0.01). HbA1c and fructosamine levels were similar; however, patients with burnt-out diabetes had higher levels of glycated albumin than did patients without diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: The use of CGM demonstrated that patients with burnt-out diabetes have significant undiagnosed hyperglycemia. CGM and glycated albumin provide better assessment of glycemic control than do values of HbA1c and fructosamine in patients with ESKD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context Efficacy and safety of tirzepatide, a once-weekly glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, have been studied in patients with type 2 diabetes in the global phase 3 SURPASS program. Objective This work aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of tirzepatide in Hispanic/Latino and non-Hispanic/Latino patients in SURPASS-1 to -4 clinical trials. Methods A total of 5679 patients were included, 2895 of self-reported Hispanic/Latino ethnicity, in this exploratory analysis of SURPASS-1 to -4 trial data. Interventions included tirzepatide 5, 10, or 15 mg, placebo, or active comparator (semaglutide 1 mg, insulin degludec, and insulin glargine). Change in glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and body weight from baseline to week 40 (SURPASS-1 and -2) and to week 52 (SURPASS-3 and -4), and other efficacy and safety outcomes were evaluated within Hispanic/Latino and non-Hispanic/Latino subgroups. Results Among Hispanic/Latino and non-Hispanic/Latino patients treated with tirzepatide, respectively, HbA1c decreased significantly from baseline, ranging from 1.9% to 2.7% and 1.7% to 2.5%, and body weight decreased significantly from baseline, ranging from 5.3 kg to 12.4 and 6.5 kg to 17.1 kg (both P <.05) vs comparators across all trials. Subgroup trends were consistent with the overall trial populations. Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in similar proportions across the subgroups and were primarily gastrointestinal disorders. The incidence of hypoglycemia was low. Conclusion Tirzepatide significatively reduced HbA1c and body weight in Hispanic/Latino and non-Hispanic/Latino patients. Tirzepatide was generally well tolerated in both subgroups. Efficacy and safety trends were comparable between subgroups and within the overall trial populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]