What's Wrong with This Picture? A Critical Review of Current Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Coverage Criteria for Continuous Glucose Monitoring

Increase Access, Reduce Disparities: Recommendations for Modifying Medicaid CGM Coverage Eligibility Criteria

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.

Exploring Real-World Adherence and Cost Implications of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Patients with Diabetes: Impact of Device Sourcing

BACKGROUND

Insurance benefit design influences whether individuals with diabetes who require a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) to provide real-time feedback on their blood glucose levels can obtain the CGM device from either a pharmacy or a durable medical equipment supplier. The impact of the acquisition channel on device adherence and healthcare costs has not been systematically evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

Retrospective claims analysis compared the adherence rates for patients new to CGM therapy and the costs of care for individuals who obtained CGM devices from a pharmacy versus acquisition through a durable medical equipment supplier.

METHODS

Utilizing the Mariner Commercial Claims Database, individuals aged >18 years with documented diabetes and an initial CGM claim during the first quarter of 2021 (2021Q1, index date) were identified. Patients had to maintain uninterrupted enrollment for a duration of 15 months but file no CGM claim during the six months preceding the index date. Direct matching was employed to establish comparable Pharmacy and Durable Medical Equipment cohorts. Outcomes included quarterly adherence, reinitiation, and costs for the period from 2021Q1 to the third quarter of 2022 (2022Q3). Between-cohort differences in adherence rates and reinitiation rates were analyzed using z-tests, and cost differences were analyzed using t-tests.

RESULTS

Direct matching was employed to establish comparable Pharmacy and Durable Medical Equipment cohorts. A total of 2, 356 patients were identified, with 1,178 in the Pharmacy Cohort and 1,178 in the Durable Medical Equipment cohorts Cohort. Although adherence declined over time in both cohorts, the Durable Medical Equipment Cohort exhibited significantly superior adherence compared to the Pharmacy Cohort at 6 months (Pharmacy 52%; Durable Medical Equipment 65%; P<0.05), 9 months (Pharmacy 49%; Durable Medical Equipment cohorts 61%; P<0.05), and 12 months (Pharmacy 48%; Durable Medical Equipment 59%; P<0.05). Mean annual total medical costs for adherent patients in the Pharmacy Cohort were 53% higher than the Durable Medical Equipment Cohort (Pharmacy $10,635; Durable Medical Equipment $6,967; P<0.01). In non-adherent patients, the Durable Medical Equipment Cohort exhibited a significantly higher rate of therapy reinitiation during the period compared to the Pharmacy Cohort (Pharmacy 10%; Durable Medical Equipment 22%; P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The results from this real-world claims analysis demonstrate that, in a matched set, individuals who received their CGM through a durable medical equipment supplier were more adherent to their device. For individuals who experienced a lapse in therapy, those whose supplies were provided through the durable medical equipment channel were more likely to resume use after an interruption than those who received their supplies from a pharmacy. In the matched cohort analysis, those who received their CGM equipment through a durable medical equipment supplier demonstrated a lower total cost of care.

CLINICALTRIAL

Addressing disparities in technology use among patients with type 1 diabetes: a review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The benefits of continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) and insulin pumps in the management of type 1 diabetes (T1D) are widely recognized. However, glaring disparities in access exist, particularly in marginalized and economically disadvantaged groups that stand to benefit significantly from diabetes technology use. We will review recent data describing drivers of these disparities and approaches to address the disparities.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several qualitative studies were published in recent years that have investigated the drivers of disparities reported over the past decades. These studies report that in addition to typical barriers seen in the diabetes technology, marginalized patients have unique challenges that make insulin pumps and CGMs less accessible.

SUMMARY

Barriers to technology use in these groups include stigmatization, lack of support, financial constraints, provider biases, stringent insurance policies, and clinic infrastructure. To address inequities, multifaceted strategies across community, healthcare, and provider sectors are essential. Key initiatives include enhancing public awareness, refining health policies, ensuring access to high-quality care, and emphasizing patient-centered approaches. The equitable use of technology can narrow the gap in T1D outcomes. The social and economic implications of suboptimal T1D management further underscore the urgency of these efforts for both improved health outcomes and cost-efficient care.

Assessment and prevention of hypoglycaemia in primary care among U.S. Veterans: a mixed methods study

Background

Hypoglycaemia from diabetes treatment causes morbidity and lower quality of life, and prevention should be routinely addressed in clinical visits.

Methods

This mixed methods study evaluated how primary care providers (PCPs) assess for and prevent hypoglycaemia by analyzing audio-recorded visits from five Veterans Affairs medical centres in the US. Two investigators independently coded visit dialogue to classify discussions of hypoglycaemia history, anticipatory guidance, and adjustments to hypoglycaemia-causing medications according to diabetes guidelines.

Findings

There were 242 patients (one PCP visit per patient) and 49 PCPs. Two thirds of patients were treated with insulin and 40% with sulfonylureas. Hypoglycaemia history was discussed in 78/242 visits (32%). PCPs provided hypoglycaemia anticipatory guidance in 50 visits (21%) that focused on holding diabetes medications while fasting and carrying glucose tabs; avoiding driving and glucagon were not discussed. Hypoglycaemia-causing medications were de-intensified or adjusted more often (p < 0.001) when the patient reported a history of hypoglycaemia (15/51 visits, 29%) than when the patient reported no hypoglycaemia or it was not discussed (6/191 visits, 3%). Haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was not associated with diabetes medication adjustment, and only 5/12 patients (42%) who reported hypoglycaemia with HbA1c <7.0% had medications de-intensified or adjusted.

Interpretation

PCPs discussed hypoglycaemia in one-third of visits for at-risk patients and provided limited hypoglycaemia anticipatory guidance. De-intensifying or adjusting hypoglycaemia-causing medications did not occur routinely after reported hypoglycaemia with HbA1c <7.0%. Routine hypoglycaemia assessment and provision of diabetes self-management education are needed to achieve guideline-concordant hypoglycaemia prevention.

Funding

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK).

Roadmap to Achieving Continuous Glucose Monitoring Equity: Insights From the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative

This article describes successful interventions from the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative (T1DX-QI) to reduce inequities in access to and use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). The author proposes a roadmap with recommendations for different stakeholders to achieve CGM equity using insights from the T1DX-QI experience.

Evaluating Factors Associated With Continuous Glucose Monitoring Utilization With the Type 1 Diabetes Exchange Registry

BACKGROUND

The 2022 American Diabetes Association (ADA) Standards of Care recommends considering use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for insulin-managed diabetes mellitus (DM), but equitable access remains challenging. This study evaluates socioeconomic and demographic metrics associated with CGM use.

METHODS

RStudio 2021.09.1+372 was utilized to perform uni- and bivariable analysis, as well as binomial logistic regression modeling for categorical CGM use (yes/no) on the most recent cross-section from the Type 1 Diabetes Exchange (T1DX) Registry 2016-2018 cohort (n = 22 418).

RESULTS

Compared with White Non-Hispanic participants, Black Non-Hispanic (OR = 0.45, CI = 0.36-0.57, P < 0.001) and American Indian/Alaskan Native individuals (OR = 0.33, CI = 0.14-0.70, P = 0.008) had lower odds of CGM use. Compared with private insurance, government insurance had reduced odds of CGM use (OR = 0.59, CI = 0.52-0.66, P < 0.001). Individuals earning $100,000 or more were twice as likely to use CGMs (OR = 2.06, CI = 1.75-2.45, P < 0.001) compared with those earning <$25,000 annually. Subgroup analysis based on income bracket demonstrated that government insured individuals earning <$25,000 annually were the least likely to use CGMs (OR = 0.44, CI = 0.32-0.61, P < 0.001), as compared with private insurance.

CONCLUSIONS

T1DX Registry data demonstrate that CGM use follows the inverse care law, with health technology utilization inversely related to disease burden. Federal policies promoting CGM use in Medicare and Medicaid populations can facilitate the ADA's recommendation for patients with insulin-managed diabetes mellitus.

Benchmarking Diabetes Technology Use Among 21 U.S. Pediatric Diabetes Centers

The American Diabetes Association's Standards of Care in Diabetes recommends the use of diabetes technology such as continuous glucose monitoring systems and insulin pumps for people living with type 1 diabetes. Unfortunately, there are multiple barriers to uptake of these devices, including local diabetes center practices. This study aimed to examine overall change and center-to-center variation in uptake of diabetes technology across 21 pediatric centers in the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative. It found an overall increase in diabetes technology use for most centers from 2021 to 2022 with significant variation.

Advances in the management of type 2 diabetes in adults

Type 2 diabetes is a chronic and progressive cardiometabolic disorder that affects more than 10% of adults worldwide and is a major cause of morbidity, mortality, disability, and high costs. Over the past decade, the pattern of management of diabetes has shifted from a predominantly glucose centric approach, focused on lowering levels of haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), to a directed complications centric approach, aimed at preventing short term and long term complications of diabetes, and a pathogenesis centric approach, which looks at the underlying metabolic dysfunction of excess adiposity that both causes and complicates the management of diabetes. In this review, we discuss the latest advances in patient centred care for type 2 diabetes, focusing on drug and non-drug approaches to reducing the risks of complications of diabetes in adults. We also discuss the effects of social determinants of health on the management of diabetes, particularly as they affect the treatment of hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes.

Diabetes Specialists Value Continuous Glucose Monitoring Despite Challenges in Prescribing and Data Review Process

BACKGROUND

Diabetes clinicians are key facilitators of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) provision, but data on provider behavior related to CGM use and CGM generated data are limited.

METHODS

We conducted a national survey of providers caring for people with diabetes on CGM-related opinions, facilitators and barriers to prescription, and data review practices.

RESULTS

Of 182 survey respondents, 73.2% worked at academic centers, 70.6% were endocrinologists, and 70.7% practiced in urban settings. Nearly 70% of providers reported CGM use in the majority of their patients with type 1 diabetes. Half of the providers reported CGM use in 10% to 50% of their patients with type 2 diabetes. All respondents believed CGM improved quality of life and could optimize diabetes control. We found no differences in reported rates of CGM use based on providers' years of experience, patient volume, practice setting, or clinic type. Most providers reviewed CGM data each visit (97.7%) and actively involved patients in the data interpretation (98.8%). Only 14.1% of clinicians reported reviewing CGM data without any prompting from patients or their family members outside of visits. Most providers (80.7%) reported their CGM data review was valued by patients although only half reported having adequate time (45.1%) or an efficient process (56.1%) to do so.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite uniform support for CGM by providers, ongoing challenges related to cost, insurance coverage, and difficulties with prescription were major barriers to CGM use. Increased use of CGM in appropriate populations will necessitate improvements in data access and integration, clearly defined workflows, and decreased administrative burden to obtain CGM.

Disparities in Continuous Glucose Monitoring Use Among Women of Reproductive Age with Type 1 Diabetes in the T1D Exchange

We identified characteristics associated with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) use in women of reproductive age with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in the T1D Exchange clinic registry from 2015 to 2018. Among 6643 assessed women, the frequency of CGM increased from 2015 to 2018 (20.6% vs. 30.0%; adjusted odds ratios [aOR]: 1.72; confidence interval [95% CI]: 1.51-1.95) and was more likely with recent pregnancy (45.3% vs. 25.8%; aOR: 1.63; 95% CI: 1.23-2.16). Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic race and ethnicity, younger age, lower educational attainment, lower income, and Medicaid insurance were associated with lower odds of CGM. The use of CGM was associated with lower odds of diabetic ketoacidosis and lower hemoglobin A1c without any difference in the odds of symptomatic severe hypoglycemia. In conclusion, although CGM use was associated with better glycemic control, the majority of reproductive-age women still did not use it. Those who did not use CGM were more likely to be those at greatest risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes.

The National Clinical Care Commission Report to Congress: Leveraging Federal Policies and Programs to Improve Diabetes Treatment and Reduce Complications

The Treatment and Complications subcommittee of the National Clinical Care Commission focused on factors likely to improve the delivery of high-quality care to all people with diabetes. The gap between available resources and the needs of people living with diabetes adversely impacts both treatment and outcomes. The Commission's recommendations are designed to bridge this gap. At the patient level, the Commission recommends reducing barriers and streamlining administrative processes to improve access to diabetes self-management training, diabetes devices, virtual care, and insulin. At the practice level, we recommend enhancing programs that support team-based care and developing capacity to support technology-enabled mentoring interventions. At the health system level, we recommend that the Department of Health and Human Services routinely assess the needs of the health care workforce and ensure funding of training programs directed to meet those needs. At the health policy level, we recommend establishing a process to identify and ensure pre-deductible insurance coverage for high-value diabetes treatments and services and developing a quality measure that reduces risk of hypoglycemia and enhances patient safety. We also identified several areas that need additional research, such as studying the barriers to uptake of diabetes self-management education and support, exploring methods to implement team-based care, and evaluating the importance of digital connectivity as a social determinant of health. The Commission strongly encourages Congress, the Department of Health and Human Services, and other federal departments and agencies to take swift action to implement these recommendations to improve health outcomes and quality of life among people living with diabetes.

Effect of CGM Access Expansion on Uptake Among Patients on Medicaid With Diabetes

OBJECTIVE

Current studies on continuous glucose monitor (CGM) uptake are revealing for significant barriers and inequities for CGM use among patients from socially underprivileged communities. This study explores the effect of full subsidies regardless of diabetes type on CGM uptake and HbA1c outcomes in a U.S. adult patient population on Medicaid.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This retrospective cohort study examined 3,036 adults with diabetes enrolled in a U.S. Medicaid program that fully subsidized CGM. CGM uptake and adherence were assessed by CGM prescription and dispense data, including more than one fill and adherence by medication possession ratio (MPR). Multivariate logistic regression evaluated predictors of CGM uptake. Pre- and post-CGM use HbA1c were compared.

RESULTS

CGM were very well received by both individuals with type 1 diabetes and individuals with type 2 diabetes with similar high fill adherence levels (mean MPR 0.78 vs. 0.72; P = 0.06). No significant difference in CGM uptake outcomes were noted among major racial/ethnic groups. CGM use was associated with improved HbA1c among those with type 2 diabetes (-1.2% [13.1 mmol/mol]; P < 0.001) that was comparable between major racial/ethnic groups and those with higher fill adherence achieved greater HbA1c reduction (-1.4% [15.3 mmol/mol]; P < 0.001) compared with those with lower adherence (-1.0% [10.9 mmol/mol]; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

CGM uptake disparities can largely be overcome by eliminating CGM cost barriers. CGM use was associated with improved HbA1c across all major racial/ethnic groups, highlighting broad CGM appeal, utilization, and effectiveness across an underprivileged patient population.

Glycemic Outcomes and Feature Set Engagement Among Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring Users With Type 1 or Non-Insulin-Treated Type 2 Diabetes: Retrospective Analysis of Real-World Data

BACKGROUND

The benefits of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (RT-CGM) are well established for patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and patients with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, the usage and effectiveness of RT-CGM in the context of non-insulin-treated T2D has not been well studied.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess glycemic metrics and rates of RT-CGM feature utilization in users with T1D and non-insulin-treated T2D.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed data from 33,685 US-based users of an RT-CGM system (Dexcom G6; Dexcom, Inc) who self-identified as having either T1D (n=26,706) or T2D and not using insulin (n=6979). Data included glucose concentrations, alarm settings, feature usage, and event logs.

RESULTS

The T1D cohort had lower proportions of glucose values in the 70 mg/dl to 180 mg/dl range than the T2D cohort (52.1% vs 70.8%, respectively), with more values indicating hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia and higher glycemic variability. Discretionary alarms were enabled by a large majority in both cohorts. The data sharing feature was used by 38.7% (10,327/26,706) of those with T1D and 10.4% (727/6979) of those with T2D, and the mean number of followers was higher in the T1D cohort. Large proportions of patients with T1D or T2D enabled and customized their glucose alerts. Retrospective analysis features were used by the majority in both cohorts (T1D: 15,783/26,706, 59.1%; T2D: 3751/6979, 53.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

Similar to patients with T1D, patients with non-insulin-treated T2D used RT-CGM system features, suggesting beneficial, routine engagement with data by patients and others involved in their care. Motivated patients with diabetes could benefit from RT-CGM coverage.

Real-World Evidence Supporting Tandem Control-IQ Hybrid Closed-Loop Success in the Medicare and Medicaid Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes Populations

Background: The Tandem Control-IQ (CIQ) system has demonstrated significant glycemic improvements in large randomized controlled and real-world trials. Use of this system is lower in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) government-sponsored insurance and those with type 2 diabetes (T2D). This analysis aimed to evaluate the performance of CIQ in these groups. Methods and Materials: A retrospective analysis of CIQ users was performed. Users age ≥6 years with a t:slim X2 Pump and >30 days of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data pre-CIQ and >30 days post-CIQ technology initiation were included. Results: A total of 4243 Medicare and 1332 Medicaid CIQ users were analyzed among whom 5075 had T1D and 500 had T2D. After starting CIQ, the Medicare beneficiaries group saw significant improvement in time in target range 70-180 mg/dL (TIR; 64% vs. 74%; P < 0.0001), glucose management index (GMI; 7.3% vs. 7.0%; P < 0.0001), and the percentage of users meeting American Diabetes Association (ADA) CGM Glucometrics Guidelines (12.8% vs. 26.3%; P < 0.0001). The Medicaid group also saw significant improvement in TIR (46% vs. 60%; P < 0.0001), GMI (7.9% vs. 7.5%; P < 0.0001), and percentage meeting ADA guidelines (5.7% vs. 13.4%; P < 0.0001). Patients with T2D and either insurance saw significant glycemic improvements. Conclusions: The CIQ system was effective in the Medicare and Medicaid groups in improving glycemic control. The T2D subgroup also demonstrated improved glycemic control with CIQ use. Glucometrics achieved in this analysis are comparable with those seen in previous randomized controlled clinical trials with the CIQ system.

Barriers and Facilitators to Diabetes Device Adoption for People with Type 1 Diabetes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Diabetes technology (insulin pumps, continuous glucose monitoring, automated insulin delivery systems) has advanced significantly and provides benefits to the user. This article reviews the current barriers to diabetes device adoption and sustained use, and outlines the known and potential facilitators for increasing and sustaining device adoption.

RECENT FINDINGS

Barriers to diabetes device adoption continue to exist at the system-, provider-, and individual-level. Known facilitators to promote sustained adoption include consistent insurance coverage, support for providers and clinics, structured education and support for technology users, and device user access to support as needed (e.g., through online resources). Systemic barriers to diabetes device adoption persist while growing evidence demonstrates the increasing benefits of newest devices and systems. There are ongoing efforts to develop evidence-based structured education programs to support device adoption and sustained use.

Association Between Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitor Use and Diabetes-Related Medical Costs for Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

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.

With or Without Residual C-Peptide, Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Realize Glycemic Benefits from Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring

Real-time continuous glucose monitoring (RT-CGM) is superior to blood glucose monitoring (BGM) for adults with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes (T2D); however, the utility of C-peptide levels for predicting the magnitude of the glycemic benefits is controversial. Data were from a subset of 147 participants in the MOBILE study who were treated with basal-only insulin and who had baseline C-peptide levels ≥0.5 ng/mL. Participants were randomized to treatment with either RT-CGM (n = 100) or BGM (n = 47). Between-group differences in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and time in range (TIR) changes were assessed. The between-group difference in HbA1c favored the RT-CGM group (by 0.58 percentage points, P = 0.004 at 3 months and by 0.42 percentage points, P = 0.04 at 8 months). TIR was 16% higher, and time >180 mg/dL was 16% lower, in the RT-CGM group at 8 months (P = 0.002 for each). In T2D managed with basal insulin, RT-CGM benefits occur for those with residual insulin secretory capacity. Clinical Trial Identifier: NCT03566693.

Continuous glucose monitoring in primary care - are we there?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In this review, we examine the expanding role of continuous glucose monitoring in glycaemic management in primary care.

RECENT FINDINGS

Improving technology and decreasing cost have increased the uptake of use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for glycaemic management in primary care, wherein most diabetes is managed. Optimized use of this technology, however, will require a convergence of several factors. Availability of devices for people with diabetes, availability of data at the time of clinical interactions, and expertise in interpretation of CGM and ambulatory glucose profile (AGP) data, as well as optimization of therapies, will be required. Significant progress has been made in all three areas in recent years, yet creating systems of support for widespread use of CGM in primary care remains an area of active investigation.

SUMMARY

There has been significant uptake in the use of CGM in the management of diabetes in primary care. Optimized use, however, requires both access to CGM data and the expertise to use the data. Although promising strategies have emerged, the task of generalizing these strategies to the broad population of primary care in America is ongoing. CGM technology holds significant potential for improving glycaemic management in primary care, yet important work remains to leverage the full potential of this promising technology.

Barriers to Uptake of Insulin Technologies and Novel Solutions

Diabetes-related technology has undergone great advancement in recent years. These technological devices are more commonly utilized in the type 1 diabetes population, which requires insulin as the primary treatment modality. Available devices include insulin pumps, continuous glucose monitors, and hybrid systems referred to as automated insulin delivery systems or hybrid closed-loop systems, which combine those two devices along with software algorithms to achieve advanced therapeutic capabilities, including automatic modulation of insulin delivery based on sensor-derived glucose levels to minimize abnormal glucose trends. Use of diabetes technology is associated with significant positive health and psychosocial outcomes, yet utilization rates are generally lacking across both adult and pediatric type 1 diabetes populations in the United States and other countries. There are consistent themes in existing barriers to technology uptake reported by individuals with type 1 diabetes or parents of children with type 1 diabetes, including physical burdens associated with wearing the devices, concerns in navigating the technology and the devices’ abilities to meet user expectations, high cost, inadequate resources within the healthcare team to support device use, disparities in technology access, and psychosocial barriers. It is important to understand the common barriers to uptake of not only the automated insulin delivery systems but also their component devices (insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitors) to fully support individuals in utilizing these devices and optimizing health benefits. The purpose of this article is to summarize the current automated insulin delivery devices that are available for use in management of type 1 diabetes, review common barriers to uptake of those systems and their component devices, and provide expert opinion on existing and future solutions to identified barriers.

Help when you need it: Perspectives of adults with T1D on the support and training they would have wanted when starting CGM

AIMS

The purpose of this study was to explore preferences that adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) have for training and support to initiate and sustain optimal use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) technology.

METHODS

Twenty-two adults with T1D (M age 30.95 ± 8.32; 59.1% female; 90.9% Non-Hispanic; 86.4% White; diabetes duration 13.5 ± 8.42 years; 72.7% insulin pump users) who had initiated CGM use in the past year participated in focus groups exploring two overarching questions: (1) What helped you learn to use your CGM? and (2) What additional support would you have wanted? Focus groups used a semi-structured interview guide and were recorded, transcribed and analyzed.

RESULTS

Overarching themes identified were: (1) "I got it going by myself": CGM training left to the individual; (2) Internet as diabetes educator, troubleshooter, and peer support system; and (3) domains of support they wanted, including content and format of this support.

CONCLUSION

This study identifies current gaps in training and potential avenues for enhancing device education and CGM onboarding support for adults with T1D. Providing CGM users with relevant, timely resources and attending to the emotional side of using CGM could alleviate the burden of starting a new device and promote sustained device use.

Health Care Disparities in Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring

Numerous studies have demonstrated that use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) improves glycemic control and reduces diabetes-related hospitalizations and emergency room service utilization in individuals with diabetes who are treated with intensive insulin regimens. Recent studies have revealed disparities in use of CGM within racially and ethnically diverse and lower socioeconomic populations, leading to underutilization of CGM in these populations. This article reviews the scope and impact of these disparities on utilization of CGM and explores the factors that may be contributing to this issue.

Evolving Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Beyond Intensive Insulin Treatment

Numerous studies have demonstrated the clinical benefits of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) use in individuals with type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes (T2D) who are treated with intensive insulin therapy. A growing body of evidence suggests that CGM use may also confer similar glycemic benefits in T2D individuals who are treated with less-intensive therapies. Investigators are also exploring the potential use of CGM as an aid in weight management. This article reviews the continuing evolution of CGM, focusing on how CGM may be used to improve glycemic control and promote adoption of desired health behaviors within broader T2D and prediabetes populations.