Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of a Hybrid Closed-Loop System Versus Multiple Daily Injections and Capillary Glucose Testing for Adults with Type 1 Diabetes

Evaluating the Cost-Utility of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Individuals with Type 1 Diabetes: A Systematic Review of the Methods and Quality of Studies Using Decision Models or Empirical Data

INTRODUCTION

This review presents a critical appraisal of differences in the methodologies and quality of model-based and empirical data-based cost-utility studies on continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in type 1 diabetes (T1D) populations. It identifies key limitations and challenges in health economic evaluations on CGM and opportunities for their improvement.

METHODS

The review and its documentation adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for systematic reviews. Searches for articles published between January 2000 and January 2023 were conducted using the MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Econlit databases. Published studies using models and empirical data to evaluate the cost utility of all CGM devices used by T1D patients were included in the search. Two authors independently extracted data on interventions, populations, model settings (e.g., perspectives and time horizons), model types and structures, clinical outcomes used to populate the model, validation, and uncertainty analyses. They subsequently met to confirm consensus. Quality was assessed using the Philips checklist for model-based studies and the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) checklist for empirical studies. Model validation was assessed using the Assessment of the Validation Status of Health-Economic decision models (AdViSHE) checklist. The extracted data were used to generate summary tables and figures. The study protocol is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023391284).

RESULTS

In total, 34 studies satisfied the selection criteria, two of which only used empirical data. The remaining 32 studies applied 10 different models, with a substantial majority adopting the CORE Diabetes Model. Model-based studies often lacked transparency, as their assumptions regarding the extrapolation of treatment effects beyond available evidence from clinical studies and the selection and processing of the input data were not explicitly stated. Initial scores for disagreements concerning checklists were relatively high, especially for the Philips checklist. Following their resolution, overall quality scores were moderate at 56%, whereas model validation scores were mixed. Strikingly, costing approaches differed widely across studies, resulting in little consistency in the elements included in intervention costs.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The overall quality of studies evaluating CGM was moderate. Potential areas of improvement include developing systematic approaches for data selection, improving uncertainty analyses, clearer reporting, and explaining choices for particular modeling approaches. Few studies provided the assurance that all relevant and feasible options had been compared, which is required by decision makers, especially for rapidly evolving technologies such as CGM and insulin administration. High scores for disagreements indicated that several checklists contained questions that were difficult to interpret consistently for quality assessment. Therefore, simpler but comprehensive quality checklists may be needed for model-based health economic evaluation studies.

The Health Economics of Automated Insulin Delivery Systems and the Potential Use of Time in Range in Diabetes Modeling: A Narrative Review

Intensive therapy with exogenous insulin is the treatment of choice for individuals living with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and some with type 2 diabetes, alongside regular glucose monitoring. The development of systems allowing (semi-)automated insulin delivery (AID), by connecting glucose sensors with insulin pumps and algorithms, has revolutionized insulin therapy. Indeed, AID systems have demonstrated a proven impact on overall glucose control, as indicated by effects on glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), risk of severe hypoglycemia, and quality of life measures. An alternative endpoint for glucose control that has arisen from the use of sensor-based continuous glucose monitoring is the time in range (TIR) measure, which offers an indication of overall glucose control, while adding information on the quality of control with regard to blood glucose level stability. A review of literature on the health-economic value of AID systems was conducted, with a focus placed on the growing place of TIR as an endpoint in studies involving AID systems. Results showed that the majority of economic evaluations of AID systems focused on individuals with T1D and found AID systems to be cost-effective. Most studies incorporated HbA1c, rather than TIR, as a clinical endpoint to determine treatment effects on glucose control and subsequent quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains. Likely reasons for the choice of HbA1c as the chosen endpoint is the use of this metric in most validated and established economic models, as well as the limited publicly available evidence on appropriate methodologies for TIR data incorporation within conventional economic evaluations. Future studies could include the novel TIR metric in health-economic evaluations as an additional measure of treatment effects and subsequent QALY gains, to facilitate a holistic representation of the impact of AID systems on glycemic control. This would provide decision makers with robust evidence to inform future recommendations for health care interventions.

9. Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2024

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.

Combining Glucose Monitoring and Insulin Infusion in an Integrated Device: A Narrative Review of Challenges and Proposed Solutions

The introduction of automated insulin delivery (AID) systems has enabled increasing numbers of individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) to improve their glycemic control largely. However, use of AID systems is limited due to their complexity and costs associated. The user must wear both a continuously monitoring glucose system and an insulin infusion pump. The glucose sensor and the insulin catheter must be inserted at two different body sites using different insertion devices. In addition, the user must pair and manage the different systems. These communicate with the AID software implemented on the pump or on a third device such as a dedicated display device or smart phone application. These components might be developed and commercialized by different manufacturers, which in turn can cause difficulties for patients seeking technical support. A possible solution to these challenges would be to integrate the glucose sensor and insulin catheter into a single device. This would allow the glucose sensor and insulin catheter to be inserted simultaneously, eliminating the need for pairing, and simplifying system management. In recent years, different technologies have been developed and evaluated in clinical investigations that combine the glucose sensor and the insulin catheter in one platform. The consistent finding of all these studies is that integration has no adverse effect on insulin infusion and glucose measurements provided that certain conditions are met. In this review, we discuss the perceived challenges of such an approach and discuss possible solutions that have been proposed.

Consensus Recommendations for the Use of Automated Insulin Delivery Technologies in Clinical Practice

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.

Nationally Subsidized Continuous Glucose Monitoring: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) Initiative recently introduced universal subsidized CGM funding for people with type 1 diabetes under 21 years of age in Australia. We thus aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this CGM Initiative based on national implementation data and project the economic impact of extending the subsidy to all age-groups.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We used a patient-level Markov model to simulate disease progression for young people with type 1 diabetes and compared government-subsidized access to CGM with the previous user-funded system. Three years of real-world clinical input data were sourced from analysis of the Australasian Diabetes Data Network and National Diabetes Services Scheme registries. Costs were considered from the Australian health care system's perspective. An annual discount rate of 5% was applied to future costs and outcomes. Uncertainty was evaluated with probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Government-subsidized CGM funding for young people with type 1 diabetes compared with a completely user-funded model resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of AUD 39,518 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Most simulations (85%) were below the commonly accepted willingness-to-pay threshold of AUD 50,000 per QALY gained in Australia. Sensitivity analyses indicated that base-case results were robust, though strongly impacted by the cost of CGM devices. Extending the CGM Initiative throughout adulthood resulted in an ICER of AUD 34,890 per QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

Providing subsidized access to CGM for people with type 1 diabetes was found to be cost-effective compared with a completely user-funded model in Australia.

Closed-loop insulin delivery: update on the state of the field and emerging technologies

INTRODUCTION

Over the last five years, closed-loop insulin delivery systems have transitioned from research-only to real-life use. A number of systems have been commercialized and are increasingly used in clinical practice. Given the rapidity of new developments in the field, understanding the capabilities and key similarities and differences of current systems can be challenging. This review aims to provide an update on the state of the field of closed-loop insulin delivery systems, including emerging technologies.

AREAS COVERED

We summarize key clinical safety and efficacy evidence of commercial and emerging insulin-only hybrid closed-loop systems for type 1 diabetes. A literature search was conducted and clinical trials using closed-loop systems during free-living conditions were identified to report on safety and efficacy data. We comment on emerging technologies and adjuncts for closed-loop systems, as well as non-technological priorities in closed-loop insulin delivery.

EXPERT OPINION

Commercial hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery systems are efficacious, consistently improving glycemic control when compared to standard therapy. Challenges remain in widespread adoption due to clinical inertia and the lack of resources to embrace technological developments by health care professionals.

A systematic review: Cost-effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring compared to self-monitoring of blood glucose in type 1 diabetes

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is rapidly becoming a vital tool in the management of type 1 diabetes. Its use has been shown to improve glycaemic management and reduce the risk of hypoglycaemic events. The cost of CGM remains a barrier to its widespread application. We aimed to identify and synthesize evidence about the cost-effectiveness of utilizing CGM in patients with type 1 diabetes. Studies were identified from MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library from January 2010 to February 2022. Those that assessed the cost-effectiveness of CGM compared to self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) in patients with type 1 diabetes and reported lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were included. Studies on critically ill or pregnant patients were excluded. Nineteen studies were identified. Most studies compared continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion and SMBG to a sensor-augmented pump (SAP). The estimated ICER range was [$18,734-$99,941] and the quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gain range was [0.76-2.99]. Use in patients with suboptimal management or greater hypoglycaemic risk revealed more homogenous results and lower ICERs. Limited studies assessed CGM in the context of multiple daily injections (MDI) (n = 4), MDI and SMBG versus SAP (n = 2) and three studies included hybrid closed-loop systems. Most studies (n = 17) concluded that CGM is a cost-effective tool. This systematic review suggests that CGM appears to be a cost-effective tool for individuals with type 1 diabetes. Cost-effectiveness is driven by reducing short- and long-term complications. Use in patients with suboptimal management or at risk of severe hypoglycaemia is most cost-effective.

The Cost of Control: Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Hybrid Closed-Loop Therapy in Youth

OBJECTIVE

Hybrid closed-loop (HCL) therapy is an efficacious management strategy for young people with type 1 diabetes. However, high costs prevent equitable access. We thus sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of HCL therapy compared with current care among young people with type 1 diabetes in Australia.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A patient-level Markov model was constructed to simulate disease progression for young people with type 1 diabetes using HCL therapy versus current care, with follow-up from 12 until 25 years of age. Downstream health and economic consequences were compared via decision analysis. Treatment effects and proportions using different technologies to define "current care" were based primarily on data from an Australian pediatric randomized controlled trial. Transition probabilities and utilities for health states were sourced from published studies. Costs were considered from the Australian health care system's perspective. An annual discount rate of 5% was applied to future costs and outcomes. Uncertainty was evaluated with probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Use of HCL therapy resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of Australian dollars (AUD) $32,789 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. The majority of simulations (93.3%) were below the commonly accepted willingness-to-pay threshold of AUD $50,000 per QALY gained in Australia. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the base-case results were robust.

CONCLUSIONS

In this first cost-effectiveness analysis of HCL technologies for the management of young people with type 1 diabetes, HCL therapy was found to be cost-effective compared with current care in Australia.

One-Year Real-World Study on Comparison among Different Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion Devices for the Management of Pediatric Patients with Type 1 Diabetes: The Supremacy of Hybrid Closed-Loop Systems

Since their advent in daily clinical practice, continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) systems have been increasingly improved, leading to a high percentage of both adult and pediatric patients with diabetes now using insulin pumps. Different types of CSII systems are currently available, which are characterized by different settings and technical features. This longitudinal observational study aims to evaluate real-word glycemic outcomes in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes using three different CSII devices: hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems, predictive low glucose (PLGS) systems, and non-automated insulin pumps. The secondary objective was to identify clinical variables that may significantly influence the achievement of therapeutic goals in our study cohort. One-hundred-and-one patients on CSII therapy attending our pediatric diabetes center were enrolled. When compared with the non-automated group, patients using HCL systems showed higher levels of time in target glucose range (p = 0.003) and lower glucose variability (p = 0.008). Similarly, we found significantly better glucose metrics in HCL users in comparison to PLGS patients (time in range p = 0.008; coefficient of variation p = 0.009; time above 250 mg/dL p = 0.007). Multiple linear regression models showed that HCL systems (time in range p < 0.001) and high daily percentage of glycemic sensor use (time in range p = 0.031) are predictors for good glycemic control. The introduction and increasing availability of novel technologies for diabetes represent a promising strategy to improve glycemic control and quality of life in pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes. Our real-world data confirm the superiority of HCL systems in terms of improvement of time spent in the target glucose range, prevention of hypoglycemia, and reduction of glycemic variability.

Real-World Experience With Automated Insulin Pump Technology in Veterans With Type 1 Diabetes

Background

Advancements in diabetes technology now allow insulin pump and continuous glucose monitor (CGM) technology to be a part of usual US Department Veterans Affairs (VA) clinical care. The automated insulin pump (AIP) delivers insulin automatically based on CGM readings. In randomized clinical trials the closed-loop system has shown to improve glycemic control in children and younger adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) while preventing hypoglycemia. However, its safety and efficacy is less well known in older veterans with T1DM. In this VA pilot study, we aimed to assess AIP technology in the real world of an older population of veterans with T1DM followed in the outpatient setting.

Methods

Thirty-seven patients with T1DM new to AIP seen at the Malcom Randall VA Medical Center in Gainesville, Florida, were evaluated between March and December of 2018 on an Medtronic Minimed 670G Insulin Pump System. We collected demographic as well as clinical data before and after the initiation of AIP, including standard insulin pump/CGM information (sensor wear, time in target glucose range, time in automated mode, other).

Results

At the time of the initiation of AIP, the mean (SD) age of patients was 59.1 (14.4) years; 35 identified as male and 2 as female. The mean (SD) duration of T1DM was 25.3 (12.0) years. Patients transitioned from either insulin injections or other non-AIP pump to AIP safely-there was no increase in hypoglycemia, and the mean (SD) hemoglobin A_1c decreased from 7.6% (0.8) to 7.3% (0.8) by the second follow-up visit.

Conclusion

In this real-world study, AIP use was both safe and viable as a tool for T1DM management with older veterans. This technology further engaged veterans in monitoring their blood sugars and achieving more optimal glycemic control. Future long-term, larger studies are much needed in this setting.

The automated pancreas: A review of technologies and clinical practice

Insulin pumps and glucose sensors are effective in improving diabetes therapy and reducing acute complications. The combination of both devices using an algorithm-driven interoperable controller makes automated insulin delivery (AID) systems possible. Many AID systems have been tested in clinical trials and have proven safety and effectiveness. However, currently, none of these systems are available for routine use in children younger than 6 years in Europe. For continued use, both users and prescribers must have sound knowledge of the features of the individual AID systems. Presently, all systems require various user interactions (e.g. meal announcements) because fully automated systems are not yet developed. Open-source systems are non-regulated variants to circumvent existing regulatory conditions. There are risks here for both users and prescribers. To evaluate AID therapy, the metric data of the glucose sensors, 'time in target range' and 'glucose management index', are novel recognized and suitable parameters allowing a consultation based on real glucose and insulin pump download data from the daily life of people with diabetes. Read out via cloud-based software or automatic download of such individual treatment data provides the ideal technical basis for shared decision-making through telemedicine, which must be further evaluated for general use.

Hybrid Closed-Loop Systems for the Treatment of Type 1 Diabetes: A Collaborative, Expert Group Position Statement for Clinical Use in Central and Eastern Europe

In both pediatric and adult populations with type 1 diabetes (T1D), technologies such as continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), or sensor-augmented pumps (SAP) can consistently improve glycemic control [measured as glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and time in range (TIR)] while reducing the risk of hypoglycemia. Use of technologies can thereby improve quality of life and reduce the burden of diabetes management compared with self-injection of multiple daily insulin doses (MDI). Novel hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems represent the latest treatment modality for T1D, combining modern glucose sensors and insulin pumps with a linked control algorithm to offer automated insulin delivery in response to blood glucose levels and trends. HCL systems have been associated with increased TIR, improved HbA1c, and fewer hypoglycemic events compared with CSII, SAP, and MDI, thereby potentially improving quality of life for people with diabetes (PwD) while reducing the costs of treating short- and long-term diabetes-related complications. However, many barriers to their use and regional inequalities remain in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). Published data suggest that access to diabetes technologies is hindered by lack of funding, underdeveloped health technology assessment (HTA) bodies and guidelines, unfamiliarity with novel therapies, and inadequacies in healthcare system capacities. To optimize the use of diabetes technologies in CEE, an international meeting comprising experts in the field of diabetes was held to map the current regional access, to present the current national reimbursement guidelines, and to recommend solutions to overcome uptake barriers. Recommendations included regional and national development of HTA bodies, efficient allocation of resources, and structured education programs for healthcare professionals and PwD. The responsibility of the healthcare community to ensure that all individuals with T1D gain access to modern technologies in a timely and economically responsible manner, thereby improving health outcomes, was emphasized, particularly for interventions that are cost-effective.

Optimizing type 1 diabetes after multiple daily injections and capillary blood monitoring: Pump or sensor first? A meta-analysis using pooled differences in outcome measures

AIMS

Most people living with type 1 diabetes self-manage using multiple daily injection (MDI) insulin regimens and self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) are adjuncts to education and support self-management optimization. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess which first-line technology is most effective.

METHODS

Electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and WEB OF SCIENCE) were systematically searched from 1999 to September 2020. Randomized controlled trials comparing either CSII with MDI or CGM with SMBG in adults with type 1 diabetes were included. Data were extracted in duplicate by two reviewers, and were analysed to assess individual and overall treatment effect measures (PROSPERO registration: CRD42020149915).

RESULTS

Glycated haemoglobin was significantly reduced for CGM when compared with SMBG [Cohen's d - 0.62 (95% CI -0.79 to -0.45)] and for CSII when compared with MDI [Cohen's d - 0.44 (95% CI -0.67 to -0.22)]. Rates of severe hypoglycaemia were significantly reduced with CGM compared with SMBG, but did not change for CSII when compared with MDI. Episodes of diabetic ketoacidosis were more likely to occur with CSII than MDI. Both CSII and CGM reduced glucose standard deviation, compared with MDI and SMBG respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Both CGM and CSII remain impactful interventions compared with SMBG and MDI but in adults with type 1 diabetes and in the contexts in which they have been studied, CGM might have a greater positive impact on glycaemic variability and severe hypoglycaemia than CSII, when added to MDI and SMBG. A head-to-head study, including patient reported outcomes, is required to explore these findings further.

Optimizing the use of technology to support people with diabetes: research recommendations from Diabetes UK's 2019 diabetes and technology workshop

AIMS

To identify key gaps in the research evidence base that could help improve how technology supports people with diabetes, and provide recommendations to researchers and research funders on how best to address them.

METHODS

A research workshop was conducted, bringing together research experts in diabetes, research experts in technology, people living with diabetes and healthcare professionals.

RESULTS

The following key areas within this field were identified, and research recommendations for each were developed: Matching the pace of research with that of technology development Time in range as a measure Health inequalities and high-risk groups How to train people to use technology most effectively Impact of technology usage on mental health CONCLUSIONS: This position statement outlines recommendations through which research could improve how technology is employed to care for and support people living with diabetes, and calls on the research community and funders to address them in future research programmes and strategies.

Utilisation, access and recommendations regarding technologies for people living with type 1 diabetes: consensus statement of the ADS/ADEA/APEG/ADIPS Working Group

INTRODUCTION

Type 1 diabetes presents significant challenges for optimal management. Despite intensive glycaemic control being the standard of care for several decades, glycaemic targets are infrequently achieved and the burden of complications remains high. Therefore, the advancement of diabetes management technologies has a major role in reducing the clinical and economic impact of the disease on people living with type 1 diabetes and on health care systems. However, a national framework is needed to ensure equitable and sustainable implementation of these technologies as part of holistic care.

MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS

This consensus statement considers technologies for insulin delivery, glucose sensing and insulin dose advice that are commercially available in Australia. While international position statements have provided recommendations for technology implementation, the ADS/ADEA/APEG/ADIPS Working Group believes that focus needs to shift from strict trial-based glycaemic criteria towards engagement and individualised management goals that consider the broad spectrum of benefits offered by technologies.

CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT AS RESULT OF THIS STATEMENT

This Australian consensus statement from peak national bodies for the management of diabetes across the lifespan outlines a national framework for the optimal implementation of technologies for people with type 1 diabetes. The Working Group highlights issues regarding equity of access to technologies and services, scope of clinical practice, credentialling and accreditation requirements, regulatory issues with "do-it-yourself" technology, national benchmarking, safety reporting, and ongoing patient advocacy.

Standardizing Reporting of Glucose and Insulin Data for Patients on Multiple Daily Injections Using Connected Insulin Pens and Continuous Glucose Monitoring

Background: Recent development and availability of several connected insulin pens with digital memory are likely to expand the availability of glucose and insulin metrics that previously had been available only for the much smaller number of people using insulin pumps. It would be highly desirable to standardize data presentations to avoid the chaotic emergence of multiple formats that might reduce the clinical utility of connected pens. Methods: We reviewed the literature and analyzed data displays from multiple blood glucose monitoring, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), insulin pump, and automated insulin delivery systems, and methods for combination of glucose and insulin data. We examined multiple forms of presentation and now propose a prototype for a standardized method for data analysis and display, focusing on the content and format of a one-page dashboard summary for patients on multiple daily injection (MDI) insulin regimens. Results: We propose the following metrics to be included in the one-page report: (A) glucose metrics: simplified glucose distribution in the form of a stacked bar chart showing percentages of time below-, above-, or within-target ranges overall and (optionally) by date, by time of day, or day of the week; (B) insulin metrics: types and doses, and timing of basal and bolus insulin; (C) an enhanced ambulatory glucose profile or "AGP+" showing glucose data points and/or distributions (10th to 90th percentiles), dosages and timing of basal and bolus insulins and (optionally) graphical display of risk of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia; and (D) user experience regarding technology usage, frequency of alerts for hypo- and hyperglycemia, and information regarding lifestyle, meals, exercise, and sleep, if available; and (E) clinical insights and interpretation. Conclusion: We propose a prototype for a dashboard summary report of glucose, insulin, meals, and activity data intended for providers and patients on MDI using connected pens and CGM. Our goal is to stimulate development of a standardized approach.

Time in range centered diabetes care

Optimal glycemic control remains challenging and elusive for many people with diabetes. With the comprehensive clinical evidence on safety and efficiency in large populations, and with broader reimbursement, the adoption of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is rapidly increasing. Standardized visual reporting and interpretation of CGM data and clear and understandable clinical targets will help professionals and individuals with diabetes use diabetes technology more efficiently, and finally improve long-term outcomes with less everyday disease burden. For the majority of people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, time in range (between 70 and 180 mg/dL, or 3.9 and 10 mmol/L) target of more than 70% is recommended, with each incremental increase of 5% towards this target being clinically meaningful. At the same time, the goal is to minimize glycemic excursions: a recommended target for a time below range (< 70 mg/dL or < 3.9 mmol/L) is less than 4%, and time above range (> 180 mg/dL or 10 mmol/L) less than 25%, with less stringent goals for older individuals or those at increased risk. These targets should be individualized: the personal use of CGM with the standardized data presentation provides all necessary means to accurately tailor diabetes management to the needs of each individual with diabetes.

Glycemic Status Assessment by the Latest Glucose Monitoring Technologies

The advanced and performing technologies of glucose monitoring systems provide a large amount of glucose data that needs to be properly read and interpreted by the diabetology team in order to make therapeutic decisions as close as possible to the patient's metabolic needs. For this purpose, new parameters have been developed, to allow a more integrated reading and interpretation of data by clinical professionals. The new challenge for the diabetes community consists of promoting an integrated and homogeneous reading, as well as interpretation of glucose monitoring data also by the patient himself. The purpose of this review is to offer an overview of the glycemic status assessment, opened by the current data management provided by latest glucose monitoring technologies. Furthermore, the applicability and personalization of the different glycemic monitoring devices used in specific insulin-treated diabetes mellitus patient populations will be evaluated.