Evaluating Glucose Control With a Novel Composite Continuous Glucose Monitoring Index

Real-Life Achievements of MiniMed 780G Advanced Closed-Loop System in Youth with Type 1 Diabetes: AWeSoMe Study Group Multicenter Prospective Trial

Background: We assessed real-life glycemic outcomes and predictors of composite measures of optimal glycemic control in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D) during their initial 12 months of the MiniMed™ 780G use. Methods: This prospective observational multicenter study collected demographic, clinical, and 2-week 780G system data at five time points. Optimal glycemic control was defined as a composite glycemic control (CGC) score requiring the attainment of four recommended continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) targets, as well as the glycemia risk index (GRI) of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia and composite CGM index (COGI). Outcome measures included longitudinal changes in multiple glycemic parameters and CGC, GRI, and COGI scores, as well as predictors of these optimal measures. Results: The cohort included 93 children, 43% girls, with a median age of 15.1 years (interquartile range [IQR] 12.9,17.0). A longitudinal analysis adjusted for age and socioeconomic index yielded a significant improvement in glycemic control for the entire cohort (ptime < 0.001) after the transition to 780G. The mean hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) (SE) was 8.65% (0.12) at baseline and dropped by >1% after 1 year to 7.54% (0.14) (ptime < 0.001). Optimal glycemic control measures improved at 12 months post 780G; CGC improved by 5.6-fold (P < 0.001) and was attained by 24% of the participants, the GRI score improved by 10-fold (P = 0.009) and was achieved by 10% of them, and the COGI improved by 7.6-fold (P < 0.001) and was attained by 20% of them. Lower baseline HbA1c levels and increased adherence to Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop (AHCL) usage were predictors of achieving optimal glycemic control. Conclusions: The AHCL 780G system enhances glycemic control in children and adolescents with T1D, demonstrating improvements in HbA1c and CGM metrics, albeit most participants did not achieve optimal glycemic control. This highlights yet ongoing challenges in diabetes management, emphasizing the need for continued proactive efforts on the part of health care professionals, youth, and caregivers.

Statistical Packages and Algorithms for the Analysis of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Data: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) measures glucose levels every 1 to 15 minutes and is widely used in clinical and research contexts. Statistical packages and algorithms reduce the time-consuming and error-prone process of manually calculating CGM metrics and contribute to standardizing CGM metrics defined by international consensus. The aim of this systematic review is to summarize existing data on (1) statistical packages for retrospective CGM data analysis and (2) statistical algorithms for retrospective CGM analysis not available in these statistical packages.

METHODS

A systematic literature search in PubMed and EMBASE was conducted on September 19, 2023. We also searched Google Scholar and Google Search until October 12, 2023 as sources of gray literature and performed reference checks of the included literature. Articles in English and Danish were included. This systematic review is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022378163).

RESULTS

A total of 8731 references were screened and 46 references were included. We identified 23 statistical packages for the analysis of CGM data. The statistical packages could calculate many metrics of the 2022 CGM consensus and non-consensus CGM metrics, and 22/23 (96%) statistical packages were freely available. Also, 23 statistical algorithms were identified. The statistical algorithms could be divided into three groups based on content: (1) CGM data reduction (eg, clustering of CGM data), (2) composite CGM outcomes, and (3) other CGM metrics.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review provides detailed tabular and textual up-to-date descriptions of the contents of statistical packages and statistical algorithms for retrospective analysis of CGM data.

Comparison of Glycemia Risk Index with Time in Range for Assessing Glycemic Quality

Background: The glycemia risk index (GRI) is a novel composite continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) metric that gives greater weight to hypoglycemia than to hyperglycemia and to extreme hypo/hyperglycemia over less extreme hypo/hyperglycemia. This study aimed at validating the effectiveness of GRI and at comparing it with time in range (TIR) in assessing glycemic quality in clinical practice. Methods: A total of 524 ninety-day CGM tracings of 194 insulin-treated adults with diabetes were included in the analysis. GRI was assessed according to standard metrics in ambulatory glucose profiles. Both cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses were performed to compare the GRI and TIR. Results: The GRI was strongly correlated not only with TIR (r = -0.974), but also with the coefficient of variation (r = 0.683). To identify whether the GRI differed by hypoglycemia even with a similar TIR, CGM tracings were grouped according to TIR (50% to <60%, 60% to <70%, 70% to <80%, and ≥80%). In each TIR group, the GRI increased as time below range (TBR)<70 mg/dL increased (P < 0.001 for all TIR groups). In longitudinal analysis, as TBR<70 mg/dL improved, the GRI improved significantly (P = 0.003) whereas TIR did not (P = 0.704). Both GRI and TIR improved as time above range (TAR)>180 mg/dL improved (P < 0.001 for both). The longitudinal change was easily identifiable on a GRI grid. Conclusions: The GRI is a useful tool for assessing glycemic quality in clinical practice and reflects hypoglycemia better than does TIR.

The Advanced Hybrid Closed Loop Improves Glycemia Risk Index, Continuous Glucose Monitoring Index, and Time in Range in Children with Type 1 Diabetes: Real-World Data from a Single Center Study

Introduction: The Glycemia Risk Index (GRI) and Continuous Glucose Monitoring Index (COGI) are newly defined composite metric parameters derived from continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data. GRI is divided into five separate risk zones (from lowest to highest: A-E). In this study, the effect of the advanced hybrid closed loop (AHCL) system on GRI and COGI in children with type 1 diabetes was evaluated. Materials and Methods: Forty-five children who had started using the AHCL and whose baseline and sixth-month CGM data were available were analyzed in terms of achievement of CGM consensus goals and changes in GRI scores and zones. The paired t-test was used for the analyses. Results: The mean age and duration of diabetes of the participants were 10.95 ± 3.41 and 3.85 ± 2.67 years, respectively. The mean GRI score significantly decreased from 35.66 ± 17.46 at baseline to 22.83 ± 9.08 at 6 months (P < 0.001). Although the proportion of those in the A zone was 20% at baseline, it increased to 42% at 6 months. AHCL also improved COGI from 72.59 ± 12.44 to 82.90 ± 7.72 (P < 0.001). Time in range (TIR) increased significantly from 70.54% to 80.51% (P < 0.001) at 6 months. Conclusion: AHCL provides not only an improvement in TIR but also a significant improvement in both GRI and COGI at 6 months. The incorporation of GRI and COGI alongside TIR may enhance the assessment of the glycemic profile by providing a more comprehensive and in-depth analysis.

Continuous glucose monitoring-based composite metrics: a review and assessment of performance in recent-onset and long-duration type 1 diabetes

This study examined correlations between continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-based composite metrics and standard glucose metrics within CGM data sets from individuals with recent-onset and long-duration type 1 diabetes. First, a literature review and critique of published CGM-based composite metrics was undertaken. Second, composite metric results were calculated for the two CGM data sets and correlations with six standard glucose metrics were examined. Fourteen composite metrics met selection criteria; these metrics focused on overall glycemia (n = 8), glycemic variability (n = 4), and hypoglycemia (n = 2), respectively. Results for the two diabetes cohorts were similar. All eight metrics focusing on overall glycemia strongly correlated with glucose time in range; none strongly correlated with time below range. The eight overall glycemia-focused and two hypoglycemia-focused composite metrics were all sensitive to automated insulin delivery therapeutic intervention. Until a composite metric can adequately capture both achieved target glycemia and hypoglycemia burden, the current two-dimensional CGM assessment approach may offer greatest clinical utility.

Software Packages and Tools for the Analysis of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Data

The advancement of technology in the field of glycemic control has led to the widespread use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), which can be nowadays obtained from wearable devices equipped with a minimally invasive sensor, that is, transcutaneous needle type or implantable, and a transmitter that sends information to a receiver or smart device for data storage and display. This work aims to review the currently available software packages and tools for the analysis of CGM data. Based on the purposes of this work, 12 software packages have been identified from the literature, published until December 2021, namely: GlyCulator, EasyGV (Easy Glycemic Variability), CGM-GUIDE^© (Continuous Glucose Monitoring Graphical User Interface for Diabetes Evaluation), GVAP (Glycemic Variability Analyzer Program), Tidepool, CGManalyzer, cgmanalysis, GLU, CGMStatsAnalyser, iglu, rGV, and cgmquantify. Comparison of available software packages and tools has been done in terms of main characteristics (i.e., publication year, presence of a graphical user interface, availability, open-source code, number of citations, programming language, supported devices, supported data format and organization of the data structure, documentation, presence of a toy example, video tutorial, data upload and download, measurement-units conversion), preprocessing procedures, data display options, and computed metrics; also, each of the computed metrics has been analyzed in terms of its adherence to the American Diabetes Association (ADA) 2017 international consensus on CGM data analysis and the ADA 2019 international consensus on time in range. Eventually, the agreement between metrics computed by different software and tools has been investigated. Based on such comparison, usability and complexity of data management, as well as the possibility to perform customized or patients-group analyses, have been discussed by highlighting limitations and strengths, also in relation to possible different user categories (i.e., patients, clinicians, researchers). The information provided could be useful to researchers interested in working in the diabetic research field as to clinicians and endocrinologists who need tools capable of handling CGM data effectively.

Perspectives of glycemic variability in diabetic neuropathy: a comprehensive review

Diabetic neuropathy is one of the most prevalent chronic complications of diabetes, and up to half of diabetic patients will develop diabetic neuropathy during their disease course. Notably, emerging evidence suggests that glycemic variability is associated with the pathogenesis of diabetic complications and has emerged as a possible independent risk factor for diabetic neuropathy. In this review, we describe the commonly used metrics for evaluating glycemic variability in clinical practice and summarize the role and related mechanisms of glycemic variability in diabetic neuropathy, including cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy, diabetic peripheral neuropathy and cognitive impairment. In addition, we also address the potential pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment methods for diabetic neuropathy, aiming to provide ideas for the treatment of diabetic neuropathy.

Zhang et al. describe metrics for evaluating glycaemic variability (GV) in clinical practice and summarize the role and related mechanisms of GV in diabetic neuropathy, including cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy, diabetic peripheral neuropathy and cognitive impairment. They aim to stimulate ideas for the treatment of diabetic neuropathy.

Real-World Use of a New Hybrid Closed Loop Improves Glycemic Control in Youth with Type 1 Diabetes

Objective: To describe real-world outcomes for youth using the Tandem t:slim X2 insulin pump with Control-IQ technology ("Control-IQ") for 6 months at a large pediatric clinic. Methods: Youth with type 1 diabetes, who started Control-IQ for routine care, were prospectively followed. Data on system use and glycemic control were collected before Control-IQ start, and at 1, 3, and 6 months after start. Mixed models assessed change across time; interactions with baseline hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and age were tested. Results: In 191 youth (median age 14, 47% female, and median HbA1c 7.6%), percent time with glucose levels 70-180 mg/dL (time-in-range [TIR]) improved from 57% at baseline to 66% at 6 months (P < 0.001). The proportion of participants reaching TIR target (>70%) doubled from 23.5% at baseline to 47.8% at 3 months, sustaining at 46.7% at 6 months (P < 0.001). Glucose management indicator (approximation of HbA1c) improved from 7.5% at baseline to 7.1% at 3 months and 7.2% at 6 months (P < 0.001). Those with higher baseline HbA1c experienced the most substantial improvements in glycemic control. Percent time using the Control-IQ feature was 86.4% at 6 months, and <4% of cohort discontinued use. Conclusion: The Control-IQ system clinically and significantly improved glycemic control in a large sample of youth. System use was high at 6 months, with only a small proportion discontinuing use, indicating potential for sustaining results long term.

Quality of Glycemic Control: Assessment Using Relationships Between Metrics for Safety and Efficacy

Numerous methods have been proposed as measures of quality of glycemic control resulting in confusion regarding the best choice of metric to use by clinicians and researchers. Some methods use a single metric such as HbA1c, Mean Glucose, %Time In Range (%TIR), or Coefficient of Variation (%CV). Others use a combination of up to seven metrics, for example, Q-Score, Comprehensive Glucose Pentagon (CGP), and Personal Glycemic State (PGS). A recently proposed Composite continuous Glucose monitoring index utilizes three metrics: %TIR, Time Below Range (%TBR), and standard deviation (SD) of glucose. This review proposes that only two metrics can be sufficient when monitoring an individual patient or when comparing two or more forms of management interventions. These two metrics comprise (1) a measure of efficacy such as Mean Glucose, HbA1c, %TIR, or %Time Above Range (%TAR) and (2) a measure of safety based on risk of hypoglycemia such as %TBR, Low Blood Glucose Index (LBGI), or frequency of specified types of hypoglycemic events per patient year. By analysis of the two-dimensional graphical and statistical relationships between metrics for safety and efficacy and by testing identity versus nonidentity of these relationships, one can improve sensitivity for detection of the effects of medications and of other therapeutic interventions, avoid the need for arbitrary scoring systems for glucose values falling within versus outside the target range, and offer the advantage of conceptual and practical simplicity.

Time-in-range for monitoring glucose control: Is it time for a change?

The HbA1c value has been the gold standard for evaluating glucose control for decades. However, it has limitations such as the lack of information on glycemic variability or the risk of hypoglycemia. The increasing use of continuous glucose monitoring has provided patients and healthcare professionals with a range of useful metrics for the management of diabetes. Among them, Time in Range (TIR) is a simple and intuitive metric that gives information regarding the quality of glucose control. It is defined as the time spent in an individual's target glucose range. TIR is strongly correlated with HbA1c, and it has been linked to the risk of developing microvascular and macrovascular complications. The International Consensus on Time in Range has recently set targets for different diabetes populations. For the majority of people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, a TIR (70-180 mg/dL or 3.9-10.0 mmol/L) of >70%, a time below range (TBR) <70 mg/dL (<3.9 mmol/L) of <4% and a TBR <54 (<3.0 mmol/L) of <1% are recommended. In this review, we address the latest evidence for the use of TIR as an essential parameter in the management of diabetes.

Diabetes Technology Meeting 2020

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

Standardized Hybrid Closed-Loop System Reporting

The hybrid closed-loop (HCL) system has been shown to improve glycemic control and reduce hypoglycemia. Optimization of HCL settings requires interpretation of the glucose, insulin, and factors affecting glucose such as food intake and exercise. To the best of our knowledge, there is no published guidance on the standardized reporting of HCL systems. Standardization of HCL reporting would make interpretation of data easy across different systems. We reviewed the literature on patient and provider perspectives on downloading and reporting glucose metric preferences. We also incorporated international consensus on standardized reporting for glucose metrics. We describe a single-page HCL data reporting, referred to here as "artificial pancreas (AP) Dashboard." We propose seven components in the AP Dashboard that can provide detailed information and visualization of glucose, insulin, and HCL-specific metrics. The seven components include (A) glucose metrics, (B) hypoglycemia, (C) insulin, (D) user experience, (E) hyperglycemia, (F) glucose modal-day profile, and (G) insight. A single-page report similar to an electrocardiogram can help providers and patients interpret HCL data easily and take the necessary steps to improve glycemic outcomes. We also describe the optimal sampling duration for HCL data download and color coding for visualization ease. We believe that this is a first step in creating a standardized HCL reporting, which may result in better uptake of the systems. For increased adoption, standardized reporting will require input from providers, patients, diabetes device manufacturers, and regulators.

The Ambulatory Glucose Profile: Opportunities for Enhancement

The ambulatory glucose profile (AGP) and the frequency distribution for glucose by ranges are well established as standard methods for display, analysis, and interpretation of glucose data arising from self-monitoring, continuous glucose monitoring, and automated insulin delivery systems. In this review, we consider several refinements that may further improve the utility of the AGP. These include (1) display of the AGP together with information regarding dietary intake, medication administration (e.g., insulin), glucose lowering (pharmacodynamic) activity of medications, and physical activity measured by accelerometers or heart rate; (2) display of average time below range (%TBR), time above range (%TAR), and time in range (%TIR) by time of day to indicate timing of hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic episodes; (3) detailed analysis of postprandial excursions for each of the major meals after synchronizing by onset of meals and adjusting for the premeal glucose levels, enabling comparisons of magnitude, shape, and patterns; (4) methods to characterize distinct patterns on different days of the week; (5) display of glucose on a nonlinear scale to improve the balance between deviations associated with hypoglycemia versus hyperglycemia; (6) use of time scales other than midnight-to-midnight to facilitate analysis of time segments of particular interest (e.g., overnight); (7) options to display individual glucose values to assist in the identification of dates and times of outliers and episodes of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia; and (8) methods to compare AGPs obtained from different individuals or groups receiving alternative interventions in terms of therapy or technology. These refinements, individually or collectively, can potentially further enhance the effectiveness of the AGP for assessment of glucose levels, patterns, and variability. We discuss several questions regarding implementation and optimization of these methods.

Interpreting blood GLUcose data with R package iglu

Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) data play an increasing role in clinical practice as they provide detailed quantification of blood glucose levels during the entire 24-hour period. The R package iglu implements a wide range of CGM-derived metrics for measuring glucose control and glucose variability. The package also allows one to visualize CGM data using time-series and lasagna plots. A distinct advantage of iglu is that it comes with a point-and-click graphical user interface (GUI) which makes the package widely accessible to users regardless of their programming experience. Thus, the open-source and easy to use iglu package will help advance CGM research and CGM data analyses. R package iglu is publicly available on CRAN and at https://github.com/irinagain/iglu.

Glycemic deviation index: a novel method of integrating glycemic numerical value and variability

BACKGROUND

There are many continuous blood glucose monitoring (CGM) data-based indicators, and most of these focus on a single characteristic of abnormal blood glucose. An ideal index that integrates and evaluates multiple characteristics of blood glucose has not yet been established.

METHODS

In this study, we proposed the glycemic deviation index (GDI) as a novel integrating characteristic, which mainly incorporates the assessment of the glycemic numerical value and variability. To verify its effectiveness, GDI was applied to the simulated 24 h glycemic profiles and the CGM data of type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients (n = 30).

RESULTS

Evaluation of the GDI of the 24 h simulated glycemic profiles showed that the occurrence of hypoglycemia was numerically the same as hyperglycemia in increasing GDI. Meanwhile, glycemic variability was added as an independent factor. One-way ANOVA results showed that the application of GDI showed statistically significant differences in clinical glycemic parameters, average glycemic parameters, and glycemic variability parameters among the T2D groups with different glycemic levels.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, GDI integrates the characteristics of the numerical value and the variability in blood glucose levels and may be beneficial for the glycemic management of diabetic patients undergoing CGM treatment.

A Review of Continuous Glucose Monitoring-Based Composite Metrics for Glycemic Control

We performed a literature review of composite metrics for describing the quality of glycemic control, as measured by continuous glucose monitors (CGMs). Nine composite metrics that describe CGM data were identified. They are described in detail along with their advantages and disadvantages. The primary benefit to using composite metrics in clinical practice is to be able to quickly evaluate a patient's glycemic control in the form of a single number that accounts for multiple dimensions of glycemic control. Very little data exist about (1) how to select the optimal components of composite metrics for CGM; (2) how to best score individual components of composite metrics; and (3) how to correlate composite metric scores with empiric outcomes. Nevertheless, composite metrics are an attractive type of scoring system to present clinicians with a single number that accounts for many dimensions of their patients' glycemia. If a busy health care professional is looking for a single-number summary statistic to describe glucose levels monitored by a CGM, then a composite metric has many attractive features.

Glucose Time In Range, Time Above Range, and Time Below Range Depend on Mean or Median Glucose or HbA1c, Glucose Coefficient of Variation, and Shape of the Glucose Distribution

Background: Examine the expected relationships between time in range (%TIR), time above range (%TAR), and time below range (%TBR) with median glucose (or %HbA1c) and %coefficient of variation (%CV) of glucose for various shapes of the glucose distribution. Methods: We considered several thresholds defining hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia and examined wide ranges of median glucose and %CV using three models for the glucose distribution: gaussian, log-gaussian, and a modified log-gaussian distribution. Results: There is a linear relationship between %TIR and median glucose for any specified %CV when median glucose is well removed from the threshold for hypoglycemia. %TIR reaches a peak when median glucose is close to 120 mg/dL and declines both at higher and lower median glucose values. There is a nearly linear relationship for %TAR and median glucose for a wider range of glucose (80-220 mg/dL). Risk of hypoglycemia is minimal when %CV is below 20%, but rises exponentially as %CV increases or as median glucose decreases. Similar results were obtained for a wide range of possible shapes of glucose distribution. These simulations are consistent with results from clinical studies. Conclusion: Both %TIR and %TAR are approximately linearly related to mean and median glucose (or %HbA1c). %TAR provides linearity over a wider range than %TIR. Risk of hypoglycemia (%TBR) is critically dependent on both glycemic variability (%CV) and mean or median glucose. These relationships support the use of %TIR, %TAR, and %TBR as metrics of quality of glycemic control for clinical, research, and regulatory purposes.

Characterization of Daily Glycemic Variability in Subjects with Type 1 Diabetes Using a Mixture of Metrics

Background: Glycemic variability (GV) is an important component of glycemic control for patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D). The inadequacy of existing measurements lies in the fact that they view the variability from different aspects, so that no consensus has been reached among physicians as to which metrics to use in practice. Moreover, although GV, from 1 day to another, can show very different patterns, few metrics have been dedicated to daily evaluations. Materials and Methods: A reference (stable glycemia) statistical model is built based on a combination of daily computed canonical glycemic control metrics including variability. The metrics are computed for subjects from the TRIMECO islet transplantation trial, selected when their β-score (composite score for grading success) is ≥6 after a transplantation. Then, for any new daily glycemia recording, its likelihood with respect to this reference model provides a multimetric score of daily GV severity. In addition, determining the likelihood value that best separates the daily glycemia with β-score = 0 from that with β-score ≥6, we propose an objective decision rule to classify daily glycemia into "stable" or "unstable." Results: The proposed characterization framework integrates multiple standard metrics and provides a comprehensive daily GV index, based on which, long-term variability evaluations and investigations on the implicit link between variability and β-score can be carried out. Evaluation, in a daily GV classification task, shows that the proposed method is highly concordant to the experience of diabetologists. Conclusion: A multivariate statistical model is proposed to characterize the daily GV of subjects with T1D. The model has the advantage to provide a single variability score that gathers the information power of a number of canonical scores, too partial to be used individually. A reliable decision rule to classify daily variability measurements into stable or unstable is also provided.

Role of Composite Glycemic Indices: A Comparison of the Comprehensive Glucose Pentagon Across Diabetes Types and HbA1c Levels

Background: Complex changes of glycemia that occur in diabetes are not fully captured by any single measure. The Comprehensive Glucose Pentagon (CGP) measures multiple aspects of glycemia to generate the prognostic glycemic risk (PGR), which constitutes the relative risk of hypoglycemia combined with long-term complications. We compare the components of CGP and PGR across type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Methods: Participants: n = 60 type 1 and n = 100 type 2 who underwent continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). Mean glucose, coefficient of variation (%CV), intensity of hypoglycemia (INT_hypo), intensity of hyperglycemia (INT_hyper), time out-of-range (TOR <3.9 and >10 mmol/L), and PGR were calculated. PGR (median, interquartile ranges [IQR]) for diabetes types, and HbA1c classes were compared. Results: While HbA1c was lower in type 1 (type 1 vs. type 2: 8.0 ± 1.6 vs. 8.6 ± 1.7, P = 0.02), CGM-derived mean glucoses were similar across both groups (P > 0.05). TOR, %CV, INT_hypo, and INT_hyper were all higher in type 1 [type 1 vs. type 2: 665 (500, 863) vs. 535 (284, 823) min/day; 39% (33, 46) vs. 29% (24, 34); 905 (205, 2951) vs. 18 (0, 349) mg/dL × min²; 42,906 (23,482, 82,120) vs. 30,166 (10,276, 57,183) mg/dL × min², respectively, all P < 0.05]. Across each HbA1c class, the PGR remained consistently and significantly higher in type 1. While mean glucose remained the same across HbA1c classes, %CV, TOR, INT_hyper, and INT_hypo were significantly higher for type 1. Even within the same HbA1c class, the variation (IQR) of each parameter in type 1 was wider. The PGR increased across diabetes groups; type 2 on orals versus type 2 on insulin versus type 1 (PGR: 1.6 vs. 2.2 vs. 2.9, respectively, P < 0.05). Conclusion: Composite indices such as the CGP capture significant differences in glycemia independent of HbA1c and mean glucose. The use of such indices must be explored in both the clinical and research settings.

Time in range: a new parameter to evaluate blood glucose control in patients with diabetes

The International Consensus in Time in Range (TIR) was recently released and defined the concept of the time spent in the target range between 70 and 180 mg/dL while reducing time in hypoglycemia, for patients using Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM). TIR was validated as an outcome measures for clinical Trials complementing other components of glycemic control like Blood glucose and HbA1c. The challenge is to implement this practice more widely in countries with a limited health public and private budget as it occurs in Brazil. Could CGM be used intermittently? Could self-monitoring blood glucose obtained at different times of the day, with the amount of data high enough be used? More studies should be done, especially cost-effective studies to help understand the possibility of having sensors and include TIR evaluation in clinical practice nationwide.