Risk of clinically relevant hypoglycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes self-titrating insulin glargine U-100

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.

Use of Retrospective Continuous Glucose Monitoring Data Is Underrated and Underused

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.

Use of Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring Improves Glycemic Control and Other Clinical Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes Patients Treated with Less Intensive Therapy

Objective: Use of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) has been shown to improve glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who are treated with intensive insulin therapy. However, most T2D patients are denied coverage for rtCGM due to failure to meet payer eligibility requirements: treatment with ≥3 insulin injections (or pump) and history of 4 × /day blood glucose testing. We investigated the relevance of these criteria to successful rtCGM use. Methods: This 6-month, prospective, interventional, single-arm study assessed the clinical effects of use rtCGM in patients with T2D treated with basal insulin only or noninsulin therapy. Primary outcomes were changes in HbA1c, average glucose, glycemic variability (% coefficient of variation), and percent of time in range (%TIR), below range (%TBR) and above range (%TAR). Results: Thirty-eight patients were included in the analysis (10.1% ± 1.8% HbA1c, 54.7 ± 10.2 years, 35.6 ± 6.4 body mass index). At 6 months, we observed reductions in HbA1c (-3.0% ± 1.3%, P < 0.001) and average glucose (-23.6 ± 38.8, P < 0.001). %TIR increased 15.2 ± 22.3, from 57.0 ± 29.9 to 72.2 ± 23.6, P < 0.001, with all patients maintaining %TBR targets (<4% at 70 mg/dL, <1% at <54 mg/dL). No changes in glycemic variability were observed. The greatest improvements in %TIR and %TAR were seen in patients treated with ≤1 medication. Conclusions: rtCGM use was associated with significant glycemic improvements in T2D patients treated with basal insulin only or noninsulin therapy. Given the growing body of evidence supporting rtCGM use in this population, insurance eligibility criteria should be modified to expand rtCGM use by T2D patients treated with less intensive therapies.

Lost in Translation: A Disconnect Between the Science and Medicare Coverage Criteria for Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion

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.

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.

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

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.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) Is a Tool, Not a Reward: Unjustified Insurance Coverage Criteria Limit Access to CGM

Recent studies have demonstrated the clinical utility of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) use in type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients who are treated with intensive insulin management. Large retrospective database analyses of T2D patients treated with less-intensive therapies have also shown that CGM use was associated with significant reductions in hemoglobin A1c levels and health resource utilization, including diabetes-related hospitalizations and emergency room care. Despite the growing body of evidence supporting CGM use in the broader T2D population, current eligibility criteria required by public and many private insurers are denying millions of individuals with T2D access to this valuable technology. In this article, we discuss an evidence-based rationale for modifying current eligibility requirements for CGM coverage.

Risk of clinically relevant hypoglycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes self-titrating insulin glargine U-100

AIMS

We evaluated risk factors for clinically relevant hypoglycaemia (blood glucose <3 mmol/L) in patients with type 2 diabetes during insulin glargine self-titration. Data were from two clinical trials in which patients were able to improve glycaemic control by self-titration of insulin glargine using a simple algorithm.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed post hoc analyses of pooled treatment groups from each of two Phase 3 studies comparing LY2963016 with LANTUS: ELEMENT-2 (double-blind) and ELEMENT-5 (open label). Clinically relevant hypoglycaemia was analysed by category of HbA1c (<7%, 7%-8.5%, >8.5%) at Week 12 (titration period) and at Week 24 (overall study), and by subgroups of age (<65, ≥65 years) and previous insulin use (naïve or not).

RESULTS

In the ELEMENT-2 study (N = 756), there were no overall differences in rate or incidence of hypoglycaemia among HbA1c categories. In the ELEMENT-5 study (N = 493), patients with HbA1c greater than 8.5% had a lower rate and incidence of hypoglycaemia throughout the study compared to those in the lower HbA1c categories. In both studies, patients 65 years of age or older, compared to those less than 65 years, had a higher rate and incidence of hypoglycaemia during the titration phase, had lower baseline HbA1c, and experienced smaller increases in dose, with no differences in HbA1c post baseline. The rate and incidence of hypoglycaemia was similar between naïve patients and patients previously using basal insulin, across all levels of glycaemic control. With the exception of the older subgroup, hypoglycaemia rates were similar during titration and maintenance periods.

CONCLUSION

Our results support broader use of self-titration algorithms for patients with type 2 diabetes.