Search

OBJECTIVE-The effect of therapeutic strategies on cardiovascular (CV) disease can be evaluated by monitoring changes in CV risk biomarkers. This study investigated the effect of a structured self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) protocol and the resultin

Objective: We evaluated the impact of an automated decision support tool (DST) on clinicians' ability to identify glycemic abnormalities in structured self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) data and then make appropriate therapeutic changes based on the glycemic patterns observed.Research Design and Methods: In this prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter study, 288 clinicians (39.6% family practice physicians, 37.9% general internal medicine physicians, and 22.6% nurse practitioners) were randomized to structured SMBG alone (STG; n = 72); structured SMBG with DST (DST; n = 72); structured SMBG with an educational DVD (DVD; n = 72); and structured SMBG with DST and the educational DVD (DST+DVD; n = 72). Clinicians analyzed 30 patient cases (type 2 diabetes), identified the primary abnormality, and selected the most appropriate therapy.Results: A total of 222 clinicians completed all 30 patient cases with no major protocol deviations. Significantly more DST, DVD, and DST+DVD clinicians correctly identified the glycemic abnormality and selected the most appropriate therapeutic option compared with STG clinicians: 49, 51, and 55%, respectively, vs. 33% (all P < 0.0001) with no significant differences among DST, DVD, and DST+DVD clinicians.Conclusions: Use of structured SMBG, combined with the DST, the educational DVD, or both, enhances clinicians' ability to correctly identify significant glycemic patterns and make appropriate therapeutic decisions to address those patterns. Structured testing interventions using either the educational DVD or the DST are equally effective in improving data interpretation and utilization. The DST provides a viable alternative when comprehensive education is not feasible, and it may be integrated into medical practices with minimal training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess the effectiveness of structured blood glucose testing in poorly controlled, noninsulin-treated type 2 diabetes.Research Design and Methods: This 12-month, prospective, cluster-randomized, multicenter study recruited 483 poorly controlled (A1C ≥ 7.5%), insulin-naïve type 2 diabetic subjects from 34 primary care practices in the U.S. Practices were randomized to an active control group (ACG) with enhanced usual care or a structured testing group (STG) with enhanced usual care and at least quarterly use of structured self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). STG patients and physicians were trained to use a paper tool to collect/interpret 7-point glucose profiles over 3 consecutive days. The primary end point was A1C level measured at 12 months.Results: The 12-month intent-to-treat analysis (ACG, n = 227; STG, n = 256) showed significantly greater reductions in mean (SE) A1C in the STG compared with the ACG: -1.2% (0.09) vs. -0.9% (0.10); Δ = -0.3%; P = 0.04. Per protocol analysis (ACG, n = 161; STG, n = 130) showed even greater mean (SE) A1C reductions in the STG compared with the ACG: -1.3% (0.11) vs. -0.8% (0.11); Δ = -0.5%; P < 0.003. Significantly more STG patients received a treatment change recommendation at the month 1 visit compared with ACG patients, regardless of the patient's initial baseline A1C level: 179 (75.5%) vs. 61 (28.0%); <0.0001. Both STG and ACG patients displayed significant (P < 0.0001) improvements in general well-being (GWB).Conclusions: Appropriate use of structured SMBG significantly improves glycemic control and facilitates more timely/aggressive treatment changes in noninsulin-treated type 2 diabetes without decreasing GWB. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: The purpose of this article is to discuss practical approaches to the use of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in clinical practice using paired glucose testing. A rationale for SMBG use and innovative tools for data collection and analysis are presented. Method Health care professionals from various medical specialties collaborated to review current evidence regarding the value and utility of SMBG and to formulate professional opinions regarding use of SMBG. The literature review included key SMBG studies from 2002 through 2009. Established guidelines, position papers, and other evidence were also reviewed for this report. Reference Manager Software was used to search ISI Web of Science, PubMed, and Z39.50 site databases. RESULTS: Although the utility of SMBG in non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes remains controversial, a recent report from the International Diabetes Federation recommends SMBG use in this population if it is used to educate/motivate individuals and/or monitor and adjust therapy. Health care providers must develop strategies to use SMBG in ways that address these criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Paired SMBG (testing before/after specific events) promotes diabetes knowledge and self-management skills and facilitates assessment of the impact of behavioral changes, medical nutrition therapy, and pharmacologic interventions on glycemic levels. New tools have been developed to assist in using paired testing in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a common metabolic disease of pregnancy that threatens the health of several million women and their offspring. The highest prevalence of GDM is seen in women of low socioeconomic status. Women with GDM are at increased risk of adverse maternal outcomes, including increased rates of Cesarean section delivery, preeclampsia, perineal tears, and postpartum hemorrhage. However, of even greater concern is the increased risk to the fetus and long-term health of the child due to elevated glycemia during pregnancy. Although the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has been shown to reduce the incidence of maternal and fetal complications in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes, most state Medicaid programs do not cover CGM for women with GDM. This article reviews current statistics relevant to the incidence and costs of GDM among Medicaid beneficiaries, summarizes key findings from pregnancy studies using CGM, and presents a rationale for expanding and standardizing CGM coverage for GDM within state Medicaid populations., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: R.J.G. has received unrestricted research support to Emory for investigator-initiated studies from Novo Nordisk and Dexcom, Inc. and consulting fees from Abbott Diabetes Care, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, BI, and Valeritas. R.J.G. is partially supported by research grants from NIH/NIDDK P30DK11102 and 1K23DK123384-01. C.J.L. has received research support from Abbott Diabetes, Dexcom, Insulet, Senseonics, Insulet, Tandem, NIH, JDRF, and Helmsley Foundation paid to her institution; nonfinancial device support from Dexcom and Abbott Diabetes; and service as a consultant for Sanofi, Eli Lilly, and Dexcom. J.G. worked as a paid intern at Dexcom when this manuscript was developed. N.B.A. has consulted or been on advisory boards for Eli Lilly Diabetes, Dexcom, DiabeLoop, ConvaTec, and Senseonics and served on the speakers’ bureaus for Boehringer-Ingelheim, Dexcom, Eli Lilly Diabetes, MannKind, Novo Nordisk, Xeris, and Zealand Pharmaceuticals.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) medications have been shown to be effective in achieving optimal glucose control and reducing all-cause death, cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, hospitalization for heart failure, and end-stage kidney disease in individuals with type 1 (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, use of these medications has been associated with increased hypoglycaemia risk in patients treated with concomitant antihyperglycaemic medications. The risk is particularly high in patients with T1D due to their loss of glucagon counter-regulatory response. This article reviews the effect of GLP-1RA formulations on the development of hypoglycaemia in individuals with T1D and T2D treated with insulin therapy, discusses the benefits of continuous glucose monitoring with GLP-1RA treatment, and presents strategies for safely initiating GLP-1RA therapy in these individuals., (© 2024 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objectives: To discuss the social, psychological, and access barriers that inhibit weight loss, and to propose steps and initiatives for addressing the growing obesity epidemic., Study Design: Narrative review of the obesity epidemic in the US and associated racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities., Methods: An internet search of relevant studies and government reports was conducted., Results: Obesity is a significant health crisis affecting more than 123 million adults and children/adolescents in the US. An estimated 1 in 5 deaths in Black and White individuals aged 40 to 85 years in the US is attributable to obesity. Obesity puts individuals at elevated risk for type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, gastrointestinal disorders, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, cancer, respiratory ailments, dementia/Alzheimer disease, and other disorders. In the US, significantly more Black (49.9%) and Hispanic (45.6%) individuals are affected by obesity than White (41.4%) and Asian (16.1%) individuals. Health care costs for obesity account for more than $260 billion of annual US health care spending-more than 50% greater in excess annual medical costs per person than individuals with normal weight., Conclusions: Addressing the obesity epidemic will require a multifaceted approach that focuses on prevention, treatment, and reducing the impact of stigma. Continued advocacy and education efforts are necessary to make progress and improve the health and well-being of individuals affected by obesity.

Diabetes is unique among chronic diseases because clinical outcomes are intimately tied to how the person living with diabetes reacts to and implements treatment recommendations. It is further characterised by widespread social stigma, judgement and paternalism. This physical, social and psychological burden collectively influences self-management behaviours. It is widely recognised that the individual's perspective about the impact of trying to manage the disease and the burden that self-management confers must be addressed to achieve optimal health outcomes. Standardised, rigorous assessment of mental and behavioural health status, in interaction with physical health outcomes is crucial to aid understanding of person-reported outcomes (PROs). Whilst tempting to conceptualise PROs as an issue of perceived quality of life (QoL), in fact health-related QoL is multi-dimensional and covers indicators of physical or functional health status, psychological and social well-being. This complexity is illuminated by the large number of person reported outcome measures (PROMs) that have been developed across multiple psychosocial domains. Often measures are used inappropriately or because they have been used in the scientific literature rather than based on methodological or outcome assessment rigour. Given the broad nature of psychosocial functioning/mental health, it is important to broadly define PROs that are evaluated in the context of therapeutic interventions, real-life and observational studies. This report summarises the central themes and lessons derived in the assessment and use of PROMs amongst adults with diabetes. Effective assessment of PROMs routinely in clinical research is crucial to understanding the true impact of any intervention. Selecting appropriate measures, relevant to the specific factors of PROs important in the research study will provide valuable data alongside physical health data., (© 2024 Diabetes UK.)

Numerous studies have demonstrated the clinical value of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in type 1 diabetes (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D) populations. However, the eligibility criteria for CGM coverage required by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) ignore the conclusive evidence that supports CGM use in various diabetes populations that are currently deemed ineligible. In an earlier article, we discussed the limitations and inconsistencies of the agency's CGM eligibility criteria relative to current scientific evidence and proposed practice solutions to address this issue and improve the safety and care of Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes. Although Medicaid is administered through CMS, there is no consistent Medicaid policy for CGM coverage in the United States. This article presents a rationale for modifying and standardizing Medicaid CGM coverage eligibility across the United States., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: R.J.G. is supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) under award numbers 2P30DK1110246 and K23DK123384-3. R.J.G. received research support to Emory University for investigator-initiated studies from Novo Nordisk, Dexcom, and Eli-Lilly and consulting fees from Sanofi, Eli-Lilly, Boehringer, Pfizer, and Weight Watchers, outside of this work. G.A. has received research support to Northwestern University from Astra Zeneca, Dexcom, Eli-Lilly, Emmes, Fractyl Health, Insulet, Novo Nordisk, and WellDoc. G.A. has received consulting fees from Eli-Lilly, Dexcom, and Insulet outside of this work. C.G.P. has received consulting fees from Abbott Diabetes Care, CeQur, Dexcom, LifeScan, Mannkind, Roche Diabetes Care, and ProventionBio. D.A.B. has no disclosures associated with this manuscript. A.L.C. has received research support from UnitedHealthcare, Abbott, Dexcom, Eli-Lilly, Insulet, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi, and is a consultant for Medtronic and Insulet, with all financial support going to his institution. In addition, ALC has a patent, Treatment of Hypoglycemia Unawareness with Intranasal Insulin, pending to HealthPartners Institute. EC is a scientific advisor for Eli-Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Adocia, and Arecor. G.P.F. received research support from Medtronic, Dexcom, Abbott, Tandem, Insulet, Beta Bionics, and Lilly, and has served as a consultant, speaker, and advisory board member for Medtronic, Dexcom, Abbott, Tandem, Insulet, Beta Bionics, and Lilly. D.F.K. institution has received research support from NIH, Helmsley Foundation, Novo Nordisk, Abbott Diabetes, and Dexcom. D.F.K. has received consulting fees from Novo Nordisk, Abbott Diabetes, Mannkind, CeQur, Sanofi, Medical Module, ProventionBio, and Pendulum. D.F.K. is the speaker for Dexcom, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Xeris, and CeQur. D.F.K. has stock options not redeemed in Pendulum. C.J.L. has received research support by the NIDDK and Helmsley Foundation and industry support paid to the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai from Abbott Diabetes, Dexcom, Insulet, Novo Nordisk, Senseonics, and Tandem. C.J.L. has received consulting fees from Eli-Lilly, and Dexcom outside of this work. J.B.M. has received research support from the NIH, Helmsley Foundation, JDRF, Novo Nordisk, and Beta Bionics. J.B.M. has received consulting fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly, Mannkind, Novo Nordisk, and Thermo Fisher outside of this work. G.E.U. is partly supported by research grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH/NATS UL 3UL1TR002378-05S2) from the Clinical and Translational Science Award program, and from National Institutes of Health and National Center for Research Resources (NIH/NIDDK 2P30DK111024-06). G.E.U. has received research support (to Emory University) from Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Abbott, and Dexcom.

Aims: The objective of this real-world, observational study was to evaluate change in continuing glucose monitoring (CGM) metrics for 1 year after CGM initiation in adults with noninsulin-treated type 2 diabetes (T2D). Methods: Data were analyzed from Dexcom G6 and G7 users who self-reported: T2D, ≥18 years, gender, no insulin use, and had a baseline percent time in range (TIR) 70-180 mg/dL of ≤70%. Outcomes were change in CGM metrics from baseline to 6 and 12 months overall and for younger (<65 years) and older (≥65 years) cohorts. Additional analyses explored the relationship between use of the high alert feature and change in TIR and time in tight range (TITR) 70-140 mg/dL. Results: CGM users ( n = 3,840) were mean (SD) 52.5 (11.2) years, 47.9% female, mean TIR was 41.7% (21.4%), and 12.4% of participants were ≥65 years. Significant improvement in all CGM metrics not meeting target values at baseline was observed at 6 months, with continued improvement at 12 months. Mean baseline TIR increased by 17.3% (32.1%) from 41.7% (21.4%) to 59.0% (28.9%), and mean glucose management indicator decreased by 0.5% (1.2%) from 8.1% (0.9%) to 7.6% (1.1%) (both P < 0.001). Participants who maintained or customized the high alert default setting of 250 mg/dL had a greater increase in TIR and TITR compared with participants who disabled the alert. Days of CGM use over 12 months were high in 84.7% (15.9%). Conclusion: In this large, real-world study of adults with suboptimally controlled T2D not using insulin, Dexcom CGM use was associated with meaningful improvements in glycemic control over 12 months. Use of the high alert system feature was positively associated with glycemic outcomes. High use of CGM over 12 months suggests benefits related to consistent CGM use in this population.

Early initiation of intensive insulin therapy has been demonstrated to be effective in controlling glycemia and possibly preserving beta-cell function. Innovations in insulin formulations and delivery systems continue. However, we have seen an acceleration in the development of new classes of diabetes medications for individuals with type 2 diabetes and obesity, such as, for example, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs). These formulations have been shown to confer significant benefits in achieving good glycemic control with reduced hypoglycemia risk, weight loss, and cardiorenal protection. Therefore, it is reasonable to question whether there is still a role for insulin therapy in the management of type 2 diabetes. However, there are clear limitations inherent to GLP-1 RA therapy, including high rates of suboptimal adherence and treatment discontinuation due to high cost and side effects, which diminish long-term efficacy, and supply issues. In addition, newer formulations have shown improvements in convenience and tolerability, and have been shown to be even more effective when used in conjunction with basal insulin. In this narrative review, we discuss current evidence that supports GLP-1 RA use in combination with insulin therapy and the potential pitfalls of reliance on GLP-1 RAs as a substitute for insulin therapy., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

There is a mounting clinical, psychosocial, and socioeconomic burden worldwide as the prevalence of diabetes, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and chronic kidney disease (CKD) continues to rise. Despite the introduction of therapeutic interventions with demonstrated efficacy to prevent the development or progression of these common chronic diseases, many individuals have limited access to these innovations due to their race/ethnicity, and/or socioeconomic status (SES). However, practical guidance to providers and healthcare systems for addressing these disparities is often lacking. In this article, we review the prevalence and impact of healthcare disparities derived from the above-mentioned chronic conditions and present broad-based recommendations for improving access to quality care and health outcomes within the most vulnerable populations., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Aim: To compare open-source AndroidAPS (AAPS) and commercially available Control-IQ (CIQ) automated insulin delivery (AID) systems in a prospective, open-label, single-arm clinical trial., Methods: Adults with type 1 diabetes who had been using AAPS by their own decision entered the first 3-month AAPS phase then were switched to CIQ for 3 months. The results of this treatment were compared with those after the 3-month AAPS phase. The primary endpoint was the change in time in range (% TIR; 70-80 mg/dL)., Results: Twenty-five people with diabetes (mean age 34.32 ± 11.07 years; HbA1c 6.4% ± 3%) participated in this study. CIQ was comparable with AAPS in achieving TIR (85.72% ± 7.64% vs. 84.24% ± 8.46%; P = .12). Similarly, there were no differences in percentage time above range (> 180 and > 250 mg/dL), mean sensor glucose (130.3 ± 13.9 vs. 128.3 ± 16.9 mg/dL; P = .21) or HbA1c (6.3% ± 2.1% vs. 6.4% ± 3.1%; P = .59). Percentage time below range (< 70 and < 54 mg/dL) was significantly lower using CIQ than AAPS. Even although participants were mostly satisfied with CIQ (63.6% mostly agreed, 9.1% strongly agreed), they did not plan to switch to CIQ., Conclusions: The CODIAC study is the first prospective study investigating the switch between open-source and commercially available AID systems. CIQ and AAPS were comparable in achieving TIR. However, hypoglycaemia was significantly lower with CIQ., (© 2023 The Authors. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Advances in the development of innovative medical devices and telehealth technologies create the potential to improve the quality and efficiency of diabetes care through collecting, aggregating, and interpreting relevant health data in ways that facilitate more informed decisions among all stakeholder groups. Although many medical societies publish guidelines for utilizing these technologies in clinical practice, we believe that the methodologies used for the selection and grading of the evidence should be revised. In this article, we discuss the strengths and limitations of the various types of research commonly used for evidence selection and grading and present recommendations for modifying the process to more effectively address the rapid pace of device and technology innovation and new product development., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Numerous studies have demonstrated the clinical benefits of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D) who are treated with intensive insulin regimens. Based on this evidence, CGM is now a standard of care for individuals within these diabetes populations and widely covered by commercial and public insurers. Moreover, recent clinical guidelines from the American Diabetes Association and American Association of Clinical Endocrinology now endorse CGM use in individuals treated with nonintensive insulin regimens. However, despite increasing evidence supporting CGM use for individuals treated with less-intensive insulin therapy or noninsulin medications, insurance coverage is limited or nonexistent. This narrative review reports key findings from recent randomized, observational, and retrospective studies investigating use of CGM in T2D individuals treated with basal insulin only and/or noninsulin therapies and presents an evidence-based rationale for expanding access to CGM within this population.

Aims: Current continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices provide features that alert individuals with diabetes about their current and impending adverse glycaemic events. The use of these features has been associated with glycaemic improvements. However, how these features are utilised under real-world conditions has not been well studied. We queried a large database to quantify utilisation of the Dexcom G6 system features and how utilisation impacted glycaemic outcomes within a cohort of European users., Methods: This 6-month retrospective, observational, large database analysis utilised anonymised data from a sample of 47,784 Europe-based G6 users. Primary outcome measures were associations between utilisation and customisation of High/Low threshold alerts, 'urgent low soon' (ULS) alert, and established CGM metrics., Results: Users in the Germany, Austria, Switzerland region (n = 20,257), the Nordic countries (n = 10,314), United Kingdom (n = 9006), Italy (n = 4747), France (n = 2130) and Spain (1330) were included. All alert features were utilised by >75% of the cohort across all regions/countries and age groups. Enabling the Low alert and ULS alert was associated with lower percentage of time below range compared to disabling the Low alert (p < 0.001). Enabling the High alert was associated with higher percentage of time in range (%TIR) and lower percentage of time above range (%TAR) %TAR compared to disabling the High alert (p < 0.001). Paediatric patients and older adults tended to set a higher threshold for High/Low alerts, while younger adults tended to use lower threshold values for High/Low alerts., Conclusions: Individuals who utilised the Dexcom G6 features showed better glycaemic control, particularly among those who utilised more sensitive High alert and Low alert settings, than users who did not utilise the system features., (© 2023 Diabetes UK.)

Access to real-time glucose data in real time allows users to make informed decisions about their insulin dosages, appropriate carbohydrate intake, exercise, and other health behaviors. Programmable alarms and alerts warn users about current and/or impending acute glycemic events. However, the value and utility of retrospective data analysis for clinical decision-making have gone mostly unrecognized. This article presents a series of patient case examples that illustrate how our use of retrospective data enables us to identify and effectively address patterns of problematic glycemia.

The significant and growing global prevalence of diabetes continues to challenge people with diabetes (PwD), healthcare providers, and payers. While maintaining near-normal glucose levels has been shown to prevent or delay the progression of the long-term complications of diabetes, a significant proportion of PwD are not attaining their glycemic goals. During the past 6 years, we have seen tremendous advances in automated insulin delivery (AID) technologies. Numerous randomized controlled trials and real-world studies have shown that the use of AID systems is safe and effective in helping PwD achieve their long-term glycemic goals while reducing hypoglycemia risk. Thus, AID systems have recently become an integral part of diabetes management. However, recommendations for using AID systems in clinical settings have been lacking. Such guided recommendations are critical for AID success and acceptance. All clinicians working with PwD need to become familiar with the available systems in order to eliminate disparities in diabetes quality of care. This report provides much-needed guidance for clinicians who are interested in utilizing AIDs and presents a comprehensive listing of the evidence payers should consider when determining eligibility criteria for AID insurance coverage., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Endocrine Society.)

Background: We investigated the potential associations between race/ethnicity and adherence to prescribed glucose monitoring in a sample of Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes and how adherence to the method used impacted diabetes-related inpatient hospitalizations and associated costs among beneficiaries with intensive insulin-treated diabetes. Methods: This 12-month retrospective analysis utilized Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services data to identify Medicare beneficiaries who used intensive insulin therapy from January through December 2018 and classified them into four groups: (1) persons using real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM), (2) persons using any method of blood glucose monitoring (BGM) who followed prescribed use patterns (adherent), (3) persons who were prescribed BGM but were nonadherent in its use, and (4) no record of any form of BGM. Analyses compared these groups and the role that comorbidities (Charlson Comorbidity Index [CCI]), and race/ethnicity played on group assignment, diabetes-related inpatient hospitalizations, and costs. Results: Among the 1,329,061 persons assessed, 38.14% had no record of glucose monitoring and 35.42% were BGM nonadherent. Similarly, among the 629,514 beneficiaries with a CCI risk score of ≥2, 466,646 (74.13%) were either nonadherent to BGM or had no monitoring record. The percentage of White (3.65%) rtCGM adherent beneficiaries was significantly larger than Black (1.58%) and Hispanic (1.28%) beneficiaries, both P  < 0.0001. Hospitalizations and costs were higher for Black and Hispanic beneficiaries versus Whites within the risk score ≥ 2 group regardless of glucose monitoring method. Conclusions: Race is associated with increased hospitalizations and costs associated with diabetes care and absence of any form of BGM was associated with higher rates of comorbidities. Persons of color were less likely to use rtCGM despite Medicare coverage. New initiatives that promote diabetes self-management education and support services are needed to improve utilization of glucose monitoring within the Medicare diabetes population.

Background: The aim was to compare the efficacy of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) and intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) focusing on glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) as the primary endpoint. Methods: The CORRIDA LIFE was a 12-month, real-world, nonrandomized study that is part of the CORRIDA clinical trials program. The study compared rtCGM (Dexcom G5 or G6) and isCGM (FreeStyle Libre 14-Day; Abbott) in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Only patients on multiple daily insulin injections or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion with no automatic functions were included in this study. Primary outcome was the difference in HbA1c between study groups at 12 months. Results: One hundred ninety-one adults with T1D (mean age 40 ± 13 years, HbA1c 8.1% ± 3.4% [65 ± 14 mmol/mol]) participated in this study; 81 patients initiated rtCGM and 110 initiated isCGM. After 12-months, HbA1c was significantly lower with rtCGM versus isCGM (7.1% ± 3.1% [54.1 ± 10.1 mmol/mol] vs. 7.7% ± 3.3% [61.2 ± 12.2 mmol/mol]), P  = 0.0001. The percentage of time in hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dL [<3.9 mmol/L]) was lower among rtCGM vs. isCGM participants [4.3% ± 2.8% vs. 6.4% ± 5.3%], P  = 0.003). Patients with rtCGM spent less time in clinically significant hypoglycemia (<54 mg/dL [<3.0 mmol/L]) (0.9% ± 1.0% vs. 2.3% ± 2.5%, P  < 0.0001) and more time in target range (70-180 mg/dL [3.9-10 mmol/L]) than isCGM users (67.5% ± 14.8% vs. 57.8% ± 17.0%), P  = 0.0002. Conclusions: rtCGM was superior to isCGM in HbA1c, hypoglycemia, and other glycemic outcomes. Our findings provide guidance to clinicians when discussing monitoring options with their patients. The study was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04759495).

A significant proportion of individuals with diabetes have suboptimal glycemic management. Studies have shown that persistent hyperglycemia significantly increases the risks for both acute and long-term microvascular and macrovascular complications of diabetes. A key contributor to suboptimal glycemic management is therapeutic inertia in which clinicians delay intensifying therapy when patients are not meeting their glycemic goals. During the past five years, an increasing number of individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and insulin-treated type 2 diabetes (T2D) have adopted the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for daily measurement of glucose levels. As demonstrated in numerous clinical trials and real-world observational studies, use of CGM improves glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and reduces the occurrence and severity of hypoglycemia. However, for primary care clinicians who are unfamiliar with using CGM, integrating this technology into clinical practice can be daunting. In this article, we discuss the benefits and rationale for using CGM compared with traditional blood glucose monitoring (BGM), review the evidence supporting the clinical value of CGM in patients with T1D and T2D, and describe how use of CGM in primary care can facilitate appropriate and more timely therapy adjustments.

Little is known about the impact of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) on diabetes-related medical costs within the type 2 diabetes (T2D) population. A retrospective analysis of administrative claims data from the Optum Research Database was conducted. Changes in diabetes-related health care resource utilization costs were expressed as per-patient-per-month (PPPM) costs. A total of 571 T2D patients (90% insulin treated) met study inclusion criteria. Average PPPM for diabetes-related medical costs decreased by -$424 (95% confidence interval [CI] -$816 to -$31, P  = 0.035) after initiating rtCGM. These reductions were driven, in part, by reductions in diabetes-related inpatient medical costs: -$358 (95% CI -$706 to -$10, P  = 0.044). Inpatient hospital admissions were reduced on average -0.006 PPPM ( P  = 0.057) and total hospital days were reduced an average of -0.042 PPPM ( P  = 0.139). These findings provide real-world evidence that rtCGM use was associated with diabetes-related health care resource utilization cost reductions in patients with T2D.

Numerous studies have demonstrated the clinical value and safety of insulin pump therapy in type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes populations. However, the eligibility criteria for insulin pump coverage required by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) discount conclusive evidence that supports insulin pump use in diabetes populations that are currently deemed ineligible. This article discusses the limitations and inconsistencies of the insulin pump eligibility criteria relative to current scientific evidence and proposes workable solutions to address this issue and improve the safety and care of all individuals with diabetes.

Numerous studies have demonstrated the clinical value of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes populations. However, the eligibility criteria for CGM coverage required by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) ignore conclusive evidence that supports CGM use in various diabetes populations that are currently deemed ineligible. This article discusses the limitations and inconsistencies of the CMS eligibility criteria relative to current scientific evidence and proposes workable solutions to address this issue and improve the safety and care of all individuals with diabetes.

The increasing prevalence of diabetes, combined with a growing global shortage of health care professionals (HCP), necessitates the need to develop new approaches to diabetes care delivery to expand access to care, lessen the burden on people with diabetes, improve efficiencies, and reduce the unsustainable financial liability on health systems and payers. Use of digital diabetes technologies and telehealth protocols within a digital/virtual diabetes clinic has the potential to address these challenges. However, several issues must be resolved to move forward. In February 2020, organizers of the Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes Annual Conference convened an international panel of HCP, researchers, patient advocates, and industry representatives to review the status of digital diabetes technologies, characterize deficits in current technologies, and identify issues for consideration. Since that meeting, the importance of using telehealth and digital diabetes technologies has been demonstrated amid the global coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. This article summarizes the panel's discussion of the opportunities, obstacles, and requisites for advancing the use of these technologies as a standard of care for the management of diabetes.

The Onduo Virtual Diabetes Clinic (VDC) for people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) combines a mobile app, remote lifestyle coaching, connected devices, and live video consultations with board-certified endocrinologists. Adults with T2D ( n  = 594) who were evaluated by a VDC endocrinologist, remotely prescribed and mailed a real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) device and used ≥1 sensor completed a CGM satisfaction questionnaire. The CGM satisfaction score was 4.5 ± 0.8 out of 5. Most respondents (94.7%) agreed/strongly agreed that they were comfortable inserting the sensor remotely and that rtCGM use improved understanding of the impact of eating (97.0%), increased diabetes knowledge (95.7%), and helped improve diabetes control when not wearing the sensor (79.4%). HbA1c ( n  = 372) decreased from 7.7% ± 1.6% to 7.1% ± 1.2% ( P  < 0.001; 10.2 months). These data suggest that it is feasible to provide rtCGM directly to individuals with T2D through a VDC without in-office training. Intermittent use of rtCGM was well-received by adults with T2D and was associated with improvement in HbA1c.

Objective: The aim of this trial was to compare the efficacy of real-time and intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM and isCGM, respectively) in maintaining optimal glycemic control., Research Design and Methods: In this randomized study, adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and normal hypoglycemia awareness (Gold score <4) used rtCGM (Guardian Connect Mobile) or isCGM (FreeStyle Libre) during 4 days of physical activity (exercise phase) and in the subsequent 4 weeks at home (home phase). Primary end points were time in hypoglycemia (<3.9 mmol/L [<70 mg/dL]) and time in range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L [70-180 mg/dL]). The isCGM group wore an additional masked Enlite sensor (iPro2) for 6 days to check for bias between the different sensors used by the rtCGM and isCGM systems., Results: Sixty adults with T1D (mean age 38 ± 13 years; A1C 62 ± 12 mmol/mol [7.8 ± 1.1%]) were randomized to rtCGM ( n = 30) or isCGM ( n = 30). All participants completed the study. Percentage of time in hypoglycemia (<3.9 mmol/L [<70 mg/dL]) was lower among rtCGM versus isCGM participants in the exercise phase (6.8 ± 5.5% vs. 11.4 ± 8.6%, respectively; P = 0.018) and during the home phase (5.3 ± 2.5% vs. 7.3 ± 4.4%, respectively; P = 0.035). Hypoglycemia differences were significant and most notable during the night. rtCGM participants spent more time in range (3.9-10 mmol/L [70-180 mg/dL]) than isCGM participants throughout both the exercise (78.5 ± 10.2% vs. 69.7 ± 16%, respectively; P = 0.0149) and home (75.6 ± 9.7% vs. 67.4 ± 17.8%, respectively; P = 0.0339) phases. The results were robust to the insignificant bias between rtCGM and isCGM sensors that masked CGM found in the isCGM arm., Conclusions: rtCGM was superior to isCGM in reducing hypoglycemia and improving time in range in adults with T1D with normal hypoglycemia awareness, demonstrating the value of rtCGM alarms during exercise and in daily diabetes self-management., (© 2020 by the American Diabetes Association.)

The Onduo Virtual Diabetes Clinic is a telehealth program for people with type 2 diabetes that combines mobile app technology, remote personalized lifestyle coaching, connected blood glucose meters, real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) devices, and clinical support from board-certified endocrinologists. This analysis evaluated change in diabetes distress among 228 program participants who reported moderate distress (score 2.0-2.9) or high distress (score ≥3.0) on the 17-item Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS17) at enrollment. Participants reported significant reductions in overall distress from 3.0 ± 0.8 at baseline to 2.5 ± 0.9 ( P <0.001) at an average of 6 months of follow-up. Significant reductions in all DDS17 subscale scores were observed; most notable were reductions in the regimen-related and emotional distress subscales (-0.9 and -0.4, respectively; both P <0.001). Significantly greater reductions in overall distress ( P = 0.012) and regimen-related distress ( P <0.001) were reported by participants who were prescribed and used intermittent rtCGM ( n = 77) versus nonusers ( n = 151). Although the generalizability of these findings may be limited by the study's small sample size and potential for self-selection bias, these results do suggest that telemedicine programs such as the Onduo VDC could be a valuable tool for addressing the problem of diabetes-related distress., (© 2020 by the American Diabetes Association.)

A panel of international experts in the field of diabetes and diabetes technology met in Copenhagen, Denmark, for the 12th Roche Diabetes Care Network Meeting. The goal of these meetings is to share current knowledge, facilitate new collaborations, and encourage further research projects that can improve the lives of people with diabetes. Specific areas of interest included use of telemedicine and mobile health technologies, behavior change, patient-centered care, and multifactorial approaches to addressing all metabolic abnormalities associated with diabetes. The 2019 meeting covered a comprehensive scientific program and four keynote lectures.

Objective: This study assessed the clinical impact of four treatment strategies in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D): real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) with multiple daily insulin injections (rtCGM+MDI), rtCGM with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (rtCGM+CSII), self-monitoring of blood glucose with MDI (SMBG+MDI), and SMBG with CSII (SMBG+CSII)., Research Design and Methods: This 3-year, nonrandomized, prospective, real-world, clinical trial followed 94 participants with T1D (rtCGM+MDI, n = 22; rtCGM+CSII, n = 26; SMBG+MDI, n = 21; SMBG+CSII, n = 25). The main end points were changes in A1C, time in range (70-180 mg/dL [3.9-10 mmol/L]), time below range (<70 mg/dL [<3.9 mmol/L]), glycemic variability, and incidence of hypoglycemia., Results: At 3 years, the rtCGM groups (rtCGM+MDI and rtCGM+CSII) had significantly lower A1C (7.0% [53 mmol/mol], P = 0.0002, and 6.9% [52 mmol/mol], P < 0.0001, respectively), compared with the SMBG+CSII and SMBG+MDI groups (7.7% [61 mmol/mol], P = 0.3574, and 8.0% [64 mmol/mol], P = 1.000, respectively), with no significant difference between the rtCGM groups. Significant improvements in percentage of time in range were observed in the rtCGM subgroups (rtCGM+MDI, 48.7-69.0%, P < 0.0001; and rtCGM+CSII, 50.9-72.3%, P < 0.0001) and in the SMBG+CSII group (50.6-57.8%, P = 0.0114). Significant reductions in time below range were found only in the rtCGM subgroups (rtCGM+MDI, 9.4-5.5%, P = 0.0387; and rtCGM+CSII, 9.0-5.3%, P = 0.0235). Seven severe hypoglycemia episodes occurred: SMBG groups, n = 5; sensor-augmented insulin regimen groups, n = 2., Conclusions: rtCGM was superior to SMBG in reducing A1C, hypoglycemia, and other end points in individuals with T1D regardless of their insulin delivery method. rtCGM+MDI can be considered an equivalent but lower-cost alternative to sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy and superior to treatment with SMBG+MDI or SMBG+CSII therapy., (© 2019 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Improving user engagement with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is considered a major requirement for achieving optimal treatment efficacy. Human factors testing is needed to ensure that CGM product designs and requisite training simplify the user experience and enhance usability and patient safety. Dexcom, Inc, recently introduced a novel, "one-button" automatic sensor applicator (ASA) for use with the Dexcom G6 (rtCGM) system. The device was developed utilizing all phases of the human factors testing process. We recruited eight certified diabetes educators from independent health care institutions to conduct a comparative ease-of-use analysis to confirm the usability of the ASA. Participants judged the instructions and device to be easier to use than the previous sensor applicator.

Improvements in sensor accuracy, greater convenience and ease of use, and expanding reimbursement have led to growing adoption of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). However, successful utilization of CGM technology in routine clinical practice remains relatively low. This may be due in part to the lack of clear and agreed-upon glycemic targets that both diabetes teams and people with diabetes can work toward. Although unified recommendations for use of key CGM metrics have been established in three separate peer-reviewed articles, formal adoption by diabetes professional organizations and guidance in the practical application of these metrics in clinical practice have been lacking. In February 2019, the Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes (ATTD) Congress convened an international panel of physicians, researchers, and individuals with diabetes who are expert in CGM technologies to address this issue. This article summarizes the ATTD consensus recommendations for relevant aspects of CGM data utilization and reporting among the various diabetes populations., (© 2019 by the American Diabetes Association.)

IN BRIEF Therapeutic inertia and suboptimal treatment adherence remain the key drivers of chronic poor diabetes control. Advances in mHealth technologies have spurred the development of a new generation of blood glucose monitoring systems that enable individuals with diabetes to automatically transfer glucose data and other information from their smartphones to their health care providers for analysis and interpretation via diabetes data-management software. This report discusses key lessons learned from two investigations that assessed the effects of interventions using the Accu-Chek Connect diabetes-management system (Roche Diabetes Care, Indianapolis, Ind.) within diverse diabetes populations.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter (SGLT) inhibitors are new oral antidiabetes medications shown to effectively reduce glycated hemoglobin (A1C) and glycemic variability, blood pressure, and body weight without intrinsic properties to cause hypoglycemia in people with type 1 diabetes. However, recent studies, particularly in individuals with type 1 diabetes, have demonstrated increases in the absolute risk of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). Some cases presented with near-normal blood glucose levels or mild hyperglycemia, complicating the recognition/diagnosis of DKA and potentially delaying treatment. Several SGLT inhibitors are currently under review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and European regulatory agencies as adjuncts to insulin therapy in people with type 1 diabetes. Strategies must be developed and disseminated to the medical community to mitigate the associated DKA risk. This Consensus Report reviews current data regarding SGLT inhibitor use and provides recommendations to enhance the safety of SGLT inhibitors in people with type 1 diabetes., (© 2019 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Purpose: Large randomized trials have demonstrated the efficacy of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in persons with type 1 diabetes and insulin-treated type 2 diabetes. The purpose of this article is to provide basic knowledge about CGM technology, discuss the use of CGM data in clinical practice, and direct clinicians to online resources that provide comprehensive information and tools relevant to patient selection, education/training, and reimbursement., Conclusions: Effective use of CGM requires all members of the health care team to become knowledgeable and skilled in integrating CGM into their practices and in teaching their patients how to safely incorporate CGM use into their daily diabetes self-management.

A panel of international experts in the field of diabetes and diabetes technology met in Oslo, Norway, for the 11th Annual Symposium on Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose. The goal of these meetings is to share current knowledge, facilitate new collaborations, and encourage further research projects that can improve the lives of people with diabetes. The 2018 meeting comprised a comprehensive scientific program and four keynote lectures.

Aims: Globally, many patients with insulin-treated type-2 diabetes are suboptimally controlled. The PDM-ProValue study program evaluated whether integrated personalized diabetes management (iPDM) has the potential to improve clinical outcomes., Methods: 101 practices with 907 patients participated in the 12-month, prospective, controlled, cluster-randomized study program. HbA1c levels, therapy changes, frequency of hypoglycemic episodes, patient reported outcomes, and physician satisfaction were assessed., Results: iPDM led to a greater reduction in HbA1c after 12 months vs. usual care (-0.5%, p < 0.0001 vs. -0.3%, p < 0.0001), (Diff. 0.2%, p = 0.0324). Most of the HbA1c reduction occurred after 3 months and remained stable thereafter. The percentage of patients with therapy adjustments was higher in the iPDM group at all visits (p < 0.01 at week 3, month 3, month 6). Patient adherence at month 12 was higher in the iPDM group compared to baseline (Odds ratio = 2.39; p = 0.0003); also, patient treatment satisfaction (DTSQc: 12.2 vs. 10.4, δ = 1.78, p = 0.004; DTSQs: 31.0 vs. 30.0, δ = 0.924, p = 0.02), and physician satisfaction was higher in the intervention group., Conclusions: iPDM improved the use of diagnostic data leading to better glycemic control, more timely treatment adjustments (indicating reduced clinical inertia), and increased patient adherence and treatment satisfaction among patients and physicians., (Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

We queried PubMed and other internet databases to identify studies, meta-analyses, review articles and other data sources regarding hypoglycaemia incidence/costs/impacts and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) use. Our analysis of the evidence showed that hypoglycaemia remains a significant health concern and a primary obstacle to optimal adherence to prescribed diabetes treatment. In addition to its adverse clinical consequences, hypoglycaemia negatively impacts quality of life and places additional financial burdens on patients, patient families, employers and healthcare payers. Clinical trials have shown that the use of CGM can reduce the incidence and duration of hypoglycaemic episodes. This article reviews relevant CGM studies, discusses the prevalence and clinical/financial implications of hypoglycaemia, and explores the strengths and limitations of current CGM systems in minimising the burden of hypoglycaemia., Competing Interests: Disclosure: Peter Adolfsson has received a research grant from Novo Nordisk and consulting fees associated with lectures/meetings from Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Abbott, Dexcom, Medtronic, Nordic Infucare, Roche and Rubin Medical. Christopher Parkin has received consulting fees from CeQur, Dexcom, Insulet, Johnson & Johnson, Mannkind, and Roche Diabetes Care and Senseonics. Donald Rentoul and Brigitte Klinkenbijl are employees of Dexcom.