Flash CGM Is Associated With Reduced Diabetes Events and Hospitalizations in Insulin-Treated Type 2 Diabetes

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.

Continuous glucose monitoring for the routine care of type 2 diabetes mellitus

Although continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices are now considered the standard of care for people with type 1 diabetes mellitus, the uptake among people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) has been slower and is focused on those receiving intensive insulin therapy. However, increasing evidence now supports the inclusion of CGM in the routine care of people with T2DM who are on basal insulin-only regimens or are managed with other medications. Expanding CGM to these groups could minimize hypoglycaemia while allowing efficient adaptation and escalation of therapies. Increasing evidence from randomized controlled trials and observational studies indicates that CGM is of clinical value in people with T2DM on non-intensive treatment regimens. If further studies confirm this finding, CGM could soon become a part of routine care for T2DM. In this Perspective we explore the potential benefits of widening the application of CGM in T2DM, along with the challenges that must be overcome for the evidence-based benefits of this technology to be delivered for all people with T2DM.

The use of technology in type 2 diabetes and prediabetes: a narrative review

The increasing incidence of type 2 diabetes, which represents 90% of diabetes cases globally, is a major public health concern. Improved glucose management reduces the risk of vascular complications and mortality; however, only a small proportion of the type 2 diabetes population have blood glucose levels within the recommended treatment targets. In recent years, diabetes technologies have revolutionised the care of people with type 1 diabetes, and it is becoming increasingly evident that people with type 2 diabetes can also benefit from these advances. In this review, we describe the current knowledge regarding the role of technologies for people living with type 2 diabetes and the evidence supporting their use in clinical practice. We conclude that continuous glucose monitoring systems deliver glycaemic benefits for individuals with type 2 diabetes, whether treated with insulin or non-insulin therapy; further data are required to evaluate the role of these systems in those with prediabetes (defined as impaired glucose tolerance and/or impaired fasting glucose and/or HbA1c levels between 39 mmol/mol [5.7%] and 47 mmol/mol [6.4%]). The use of insulin pumps seems to be safe and effective in people with type 2 diabetes, especially in those with an HbA1c significantly above target. Initial results from studies exploring the impact of closed-loop systems in type 2 diabetes are promising. We discuss directions for future research to fully understand the potential benefits of integrating evidence-based technology into care for people living with type 2 diabetes and prediabetes.

Cost-utility analysis of a flash continuous glucose monitoring system in the management of people with type 2 diabetes mellitus on basal insulin therapy-An Italian healthcare system perspective

AIMS

To assess the cost-utility of the FreeStyle Libre flash continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system from an Italian healthcare system perspective, when compared with self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in people living with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) receiving basal insulin.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A patient-level microsimulation model was run using Microsoft Excel for 10 000 patients over a lifetime horizon, with 3.0% discounting for costs and utilities. Inputs were based on clinical trials and real-world evidence, with patient characteristics reflecting Italian population data. The effect of flash CGM was modelled as a persistent 0.8% reduction in glycated haemoglobin versus SMBG. Costs (€ 2023) and disutilities were applied to glucose monitoring, diabetes complications, severe hypoglycaemia, and diabetic ketoacidosis. The health outcome was measured as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).

RESULTS

Direct costs were €5338 higher with flash CGM than with SMBG. Flash CGM was associated with 0.51 more QALYs than SMBG, giving an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €10 556/QALY. Scenario analysis ICERs ranged from €3825/QALY to €26 737/QALY. In probabilistic analysis, flash CGM was 100% likely to be cost effective at willingness-to-pay thresholds > €20 000/QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

From an Italian healthcare system perspective, flash CGM is cost effective compared with SMBG for people living with T2DM on basal insulin.

Type 2 diabetes in latin America: recommendations on the flash glucose monitoring system

OBJECTIVE

To establish recommendations through the consensus of a Latin American experts panel on the use of the flash glucose monitoring system (fCGM) in people living with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) regarding the benefits and challenges of using the fCGM.

METHODS

An executive committee of experts was created, comprised by a panel of fifteen physicians, including endocrinologists and internal medicine physicians, with expertise in management of adult patients with T2DM. The experts were from various countries: Colombia, Chile, Peru, Mexico, Argentina, and Brazil. The modified Delphi method was used, considering a consensus level of at least 80% of the participants. A seventeen-item instrument was developed to establish recommendations on the use of fCGM in patients with T2DM in Latin American.

RESULTS

The number of glucose scans recommended per day with the fCGM for patients managed with oral antidiabetic drugs or basal insulin was a median of 6 scans per day, and for those managed with multiple insulin doses, a median of 10 scans per day was recommended. Additionally, a holistic and individualized management approach was recommended, taking into account new treatment directions and identifying patients who would benefit from the use of the fCGM.

CONCLUSION

Continuous use of the fCGM is recommended for people living with T2DM, regardless of their type of treatment. These metrics must be evaluated individually for each patient profile.

An estimate of the need for continuous glucose monitoring in type 2 diabetes with intensive insulin treatment in secondary healthcare

AIM

To estimate the proportion of persons with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) receiving intensive insulin treatment in the secondary healthcare who could be candidates for continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), based on different HbA1c criteria. For comparison, the results are also presented as proportion of persons with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) in the same region.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In the Central Denmark Region, we identified all persons with T1DM (n = 6179) and T2DM (n = 4315) who had a minimum of one contact to a diabetes outpatient clinic from September 2021 to September 2022. Insulin regimen and HbA1c measured after a minimum of 2 months with a stable insulin regimen were retrieved from the healthcare administrative electronic platform used in the region.

RESULTS

The numbers of persons with T1DM and T2DM with HbA1c meeting the criteria were 5145 and 3090, respectively. The fraction of T2DM with basal-bolus insulin was 35.3%, and the fraction with basal-bolus insulin and HbA1c >53 (7%) mmol/mol or >58 (7.5%) mmol/mol was 20.5% and 16.6%, respectively. These proportions correspond to 19.4%, 14.4% and 11.7% of the persons with T1DM in the same geographical area.

CONCLUSION

The proportion of persons with T2DM in secondary healthcare undergoing intensive insulin treatment who could be candidates for CGM corresponded to only a minor fraction of persons with T1DM in the same region, irrespective of any HbA1c criteria applied.

Use of continuous glucose monitoring in insulin-treated older adults with type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

Few studies have reported the adherence to and efficacy of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for improving diabetes management in insulin-treated older adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

Prospective observational cohort study using FreeStyle Libre Flash CGM in insulin-treated adults > 65 years with T2DM and HbA1c between 7% and 9%. The participants wore the CGM during the 6-weeks study period. The primary outcome was time in range (TIR) between 70 and 180 mg/dL. Secondary outcomes included time below range (TBR), glycemic variability (GV), adherence, and use of glucose data for self-insulin adjustment. Linear regressions with random effects verified the changes in TBR, TIR, time above range (TAR), GV, and GMI across the three visits using CGM (baseline, 4 weeks and 6 weeks), controlled for sex, age, educational level, and health system (private or public).

RESULTS

A total of 66 participants completed the six weeks of CGM (age 72·8 ± 5·3 years; BMI 27·8 ± 3·6 kg/m2), HbA1c: 8·0 ± 0·6%, with an overall sensor utilization of 93·1 ± 6·0%. We observed a stability in TIR (baseline: 63.5 ± 18.9% vs. endpoint: 65.5 ± 18.8%; β = 1,0, p = 0.190). Despite the low TBR at the baseline, we observed statistically significant reduction over the study period (baseline: 5.8 ± 7.0% vs. endpoint: 3.8 ± 4.7%; (β=-1.00, p = 0.008). Glucose variability also reduced from the baseline (34.9 ± 7.2%) to the endpoint (33.0 ± 6.8%) (β=-0.99, p = < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

FreeStyle Libre Flash CGM is well accepted by older adults with T2DM and allows participants to make therapeutic decisions to reduce TBR and glycemic variability.

Roadmap to the Effective Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Primary Care

Diabetes technology has undergone a remarkable evolution in the past decade, with dramatic improvements in accuracy and ease of use. Continuous glucose monitor (CGM) technology, in particular, has evolved, and coevolved with widely available consumer smartphone technology, to provide a unique opportunity to both improve management and decrease the burden of management for populations across nearly the entire spectrum of people living with diabetes. Capitalizing on that opportunity, however, will require both adoption of and adaptations to the use of CGM technology in the broader world of primary care. This article focuses on mechanisms to expand pathways to optimized glycemic management, thereby creating a robust roadway capable of improving care across broad populations managed in primary care settings. Recent expansions in access to devices combined with improved mechanisms for data access at the time of primary care visits and improved training and evolving systems of support within primary care, hold potential to improve glycemic management in diabetes across the health care spectrum.

Expanding the Role of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Modern Diabetes Care Beyond Type 1 Disease

Application of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has moved diabetes care from a reactive to a proactive process, in which a person with diabetes can prevent episodes of hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia, rather than taking action only once low and high glucose are detected. Consequently, CGM devices are now seen as the standard of care for people with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Evidence now supports the use of CGM in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) on any treatment regimen, not just for those on insulin therapy. Expanding the application of CGM to include all people with T1DM or T2DM can support effective intensification of therapies to reduce glucose exposure and lower the risk of complications and hospital admissions, which are associated with high healthcare costs. All of this can be achieved while minimizing the risk of hypoglycemia and improving quality of life for people with diabetes. Wider application of CGM can also bring considerable benefits for women with diabetes during pregnancy and their children, as well as providing support for acute care of hospital inpatients who experience the adverse effects of hyperglycemia following admission and surgical procedures, as a consequence of treatment-related insulin resistance or reduced insulin secretion. By tailoring the application of CGM for daily or intermittent use, depending on the patient profile and their needs, one can ensure the cost-effectiveness of CGM in each setting. In this article we discuss the evidence-based benefits of expanding the use of CGM technology to include all people with diabetes, along with a diverse population of people with non-diabetic glycemic dysregulation.

Frequent Monitoring of Blood Glucose Levels via a Remote Patient Monitoring System Helps Improve Glycemic Control

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of the Vivovitals diabetes platform on improving glycemic control and reducing A1C in patients with uncontrolled type II diabetes mellitus by providing more accessible and direct patient care under the monitoring and oversight of their physician.

METHODS

This 12-week, prospective, pragmatic, single-center, double-arm study assessed the impact of the Vivovitals diabetes platform on glycemic control among 78 adults ≥ 18 years of age, with A1C ≥ 7.5% (58 mmol/mol) at baseline. The participants were randomized into two groups. The control group received usual clinic care, while the intervention group was provided with a smartphone linked telehealth application, a pre-configured glucometer, and access to the glycemic readings diary. Blood glucose levels of the intervention group were transmitted to the providers daily. Patients whose blood glucose levels were <70 mg/dL or >180mg/dL were contacted, and modifications were made to diet and medication. The two groups were compared at baseline and 12 weeks using nonparametric tests with p<0.05 considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Over 12 weeks, the average A1C in the control group reduced by 0.474% (p=0.533; 95% CI: -0.425, -0.523) whereas the average A1C in the intervention group reduced 1.70% (p=0.002; 95% CI: -1.02, -2.39). The estimated treatment difference was expressed via Cohen's d which yielded 0.62. After 12 weeks, A1C values between the control and intervention groups were statistically significant (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Use of the Vivovitals platform may help to improve glycemic control among individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Use of continuous glucose monitors in low- and middle-income countries: A scoping review

AIMS

The use of continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) has been shown to have positive impact on diabetes management for people with type 1 diabetes (T1DM), type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and gestational diabetes (GDM) in high-income countries. However, as useful as CGMs are, the experience in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is limited and has not been summarized.

METHODS

A scoping review of the scientific literature was conducted. Medline, Embase, Global Health and Scopus were used to seek original research conducted in LMICs. The search results were screened by two reviewers independently. We included studies assessing health outcomes following the use of CGMs at the individual level (e.g. glycaemic control or complications) and at the health system level (e.g. barriers, facilitators and cost-effectiveness) in English, Portuguese, Spanish and French. Results were summarized narratively.

RESULTS

From 4772 records found in database search, 27 reports were included; most of them from China (n = 7), Colombia (n = 5) and India (n = 4). Thirteen reports studied T1DM, five T2DM, seven both T1DM and T2DM and two GDM. Seven reports presented results of experimental studies (five randomized trials and two quasi-experimental); two on cost-effective analysis and the remaining 18 were observational. Studies showed that CGMs improved surrogate glycaemic outcomes (HbA_1c reduction), hard endpoints (lower hospitalization rates and diabetes complications) and patient-oriented outcomes (quality of life). However, several caveats were identified: mostly observational studies, few participants in trials, short follow-up and focused on surrogate outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The scoping review identified that studies about CGMs in LMICs have several limitations. Stronger study designs, appropriate sample sizes and the inclusion of patient-important outcomes should be considered to inform the evidence about CGMs for the management of people with diabetes in LMICs.

Costs and Outcomes Comparison of Diabetes Technology Usage Among People With Type 1 or 2 Diabetes Using Rapid-Acting Insulin

BACKGROUND

Does initiation of a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) or insulin pump lower health care utilization and/or costs?

METHODS

Distinct cohorts of people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D) using a blood glucose monitor (BGM), CGM, pump, or CGM with pump were identified from a large claims database. Patients ≥40 years old with 12 months of continuous enrollment before and after the device start date qualified for the study. Outcomes included one-year medical utilization and costs (minus device) for events such as hospitalizations and office visits. Generalized linear models were fitted, controlling for numerous baseline covariates. The Holm method corrected for the multiplicity of hypotheses tested.

RESULTS

Of the 8235 total patients, the BGM control group was the largest, had the lowest percentage of patients with T1D, and was significantly different from the device groups in most baseline categories. Formally, only two comparisons were statistically significant: Compared with BGM, the pump cohort had greater adjusted first-year total medical and office visit costs. Other secondary outcomes such as days hospitalized, emergency department visits and labs, favored pump. Most endpoints were favorable for CGM. Results for CGM with pump generally were intermediate between CGM and pump alone.

CONCLUSIONS

During a one-year follow-up, unadjusted medical costs of both CGM and pump appear lower than BGM, but multivariable modeling yielded adjusted savings only for CGM use. Economic benefits might be observable sooner for CGMs than for pumps. Generalized linear models fitted to health care utilization event rates produced favorable results for both CGM and pump.

Continuous glucose monitors and virtual care in high-risk, racial and ethnic minority populations: Toward promoting health equity

Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) have become an important tool to aid self-management of blood glucose for many patients with diabetes in the U.S., and the benefits of CGM use are well-documented. However, disparities in CGM use exist, with lower use in certain marginalized racial and ethnic groups. CGM may be an important and underutilized tool to help reduce inequities. Evidence supporting the use of CGMs as a part of virtual care is discussed, with an emphasis on designing virtual diabetes care programs to promote health equity. Recommendations for clinical practice and research are presented. In clinical practice, CGM should be an option for all people with diabetes who qualify based on clinical practice guidelines, regardless of race, ethnicity, or other individual characteristics. Future research should characterize the use of, benefit from, and preferences for CGM among individuals from racial and ethnic groups to guide interventions at the health system, clinic, provider, and patient levels to promote equitable, evidence-based, and guideline-directed CGM use in marginalized racial and ethnic groups with diabetes.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring to Optimize Management of Diabetes in Patients with Advanced CKD

Treatment of patients with diabetes and CKD includes optimizing glycemic control using lifestyle modifications and drugs that safely control glycemia and improve clinical kidney and cardiovascular disease outcomes. However, patients with advanced CKD, defined as eGFR <30 ml/min per 1.73 m2 or kidney disease treated with dialysis, have limitations to the use of some preferred glucose-lowering medications, are often treated with insulin, and experience high rates of severe hypoglycemia. Moreover, hemoglobin A1c accuracy decreases as GFR deteriorates. Hence, there is a need for better glycemic monitoring tools. Continuous glucose monitoring allows for 24-hour glycemic monitoring to understand patterns and the effects of lifestyle and medications. Real-time continuous glucose monitoring can be used to guide the administration of insulin and noninsulin therapies. Continuous glucose monitoring can overcome the limitations of self-monitored capillary glucose testing and hemoglobin A1c and has been shown to prevent hypoglycemic excursions in some populations. More data are needed to understand whether similar benefits can be obtained for patients with diabetes and advanced CKD. This review provides an updated approach to management of glycemia in advanced CKD, focusing on the role of continuous glucose monitoring in this high-risk population.

Reduced Rate of Acute Diabetes Events with Flash Glucose Monitoring Is Sustained for 2 Years After Initiation: Extended Outcomes from the RELIEF Study

Background: The RELIEF study has previously shown a fall in the rate of acute diabetes events (ADEs) in people living with type 1 diabetes (PwDT1) or people living with type 2 diabetes (PwDT2) in the 12 months after initiation of flash glucose monitoring (FLASH) in France. The 2-year follow-up has provided new insights on the frequency of ADEs, including severe hypoglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), during use of FLASH. Methods: The RELIEF study included 31,446 PwDT1 and 41,027 PwDT2 with a first delivery of FreeStyle Libre (FSL) between August 1 and December 31, 2017. Hospitalizations for DKA, severe hypoglycemia, diabetes-related coma, and hyperglycemia were recorded for the 12 months before and 24 months after FSL initiation. Persistence of the FSL system use was estimated through a Kaplan-Meier survival curve. Change in usual blood glucose monitoring was estimated through acquisition of blood glucose test strips. Results: In the 2 years after FSL initiation, hospitalizations for ADEs were reduced by 49% and by 48% in PwDT1 or PwDT2, respectively, driven by reductions in DKA. After 2 years, 88% of patients persisted with the system and estimated mean consumption of blood glucose test strips had fallen after 2 years by -82% and by -84% in type 1 diabetes mellitus and type 2 diabetes mellitus, respectively. Conclusion: Use of FSL consistently reduces the rates of hospitalization for ADEs, mainly DKA, 2 years after initiation, confirming this is not a transitory effect. Use of FSL also results in a clear and progressive drop in use of blood glucose test strips over the 2-year period.

High incidence of undetected low sensor glucose events among elderly patients with type 2 diabetes more than a decade on after the ACCORD study

OBJECTIVE

Hypoglycaemia leads to significant morbidity and impacts negatively on quality-of-life, especially in elderly people with increased frailty. The aims of this study were to determine the prevalence of low interstitial fluid glucose (IFG) in patients with tightly controlled type 2 diabetes (T2D), and to evaluate whether there were differences in burden of low IFG between sulphonylurea and insulin treated groups.

METHODS

A Freestyle Libre-Pro sensor was used for sampling of the IFG continuously. Patients were blinded to the IFG levels. The sensor was returned to the investigators after a 2-week period and the data were downloaded for analysis.

RESULTS

There was a total of 69 patients (median age 72 years (IQR = 69-74)) - 40 were sulfonylurea-treated and 29 insulin-treated. In total, 781 low sensor glucose events (<4.0 mmol/L) were detected, of which 254 were very low sensor glucose events (<2.8 mmol/L). Twenty-six out of 29 insulin-treated (89.6%) and 36 out of 40 sulphonylurea-treated patients (90%) contributed to the 781 events of low sensor glucose. Twenty out of 29 insulin-treated (69%) and 26 out of 40 sulphonylurea-treated patients (65.0%) contributed to the 254 very low sensor glucose events. Only 9% of all events were identified by patients. Nocturnal events represented 55.8% of low sensor glucose events and 61.0% of very low sensor glucose events. At a cut-off of <2.8 mmol/L, it was found that the insulin group had a significantly greater number of such events as compared to the sulfonylurea group.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that elderly patients with tightly-controlled T2D have a significant number of low sensor glucose events which go by undetected.

Correlation between glucose measurement parameters of continuous flash monitoring and HbA1c. Real life experience in Asturias

INTRODUCTION

Despite continuous glucose monitoring having been proven useful in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus, A1C remains the gold standard for assessing disease management.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Descriptive, retrospective study which included 252 patients, 40.5% male, mean age 44.91±14.57 years, mean duration of diabetes 22.21±13.12 years, 88.1% on basal-bolus insulin therapy and 11.9% users of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. Glucose measurement, analytical and anthropometric data were obtained.

RESULTS

The mean time in range was 60.18±15.60% and was associated with A1C after adjusting for age, gender, duration of diabetes, BMI, insulin regimen, %CV and time below range (ß: -0.548; p<0.01). The glucose management indicator (GMI) was 7.19±0.69% and was also associated with A1C (ß: 0.957; p<0.01) regardless of age, gender, duration of diabetes, BMI, insulin treatment, %CV and time in range. The average difference between A1C and GMI was 0.17±0.65% (-2.70-3.40%), being higher as A1C increased, in a linear and significant manner, without being influenced by the duration of diabetes or CV.

CONCLUSIONS

Although we found a positive correlation between continuous glucose monitoring glucose measurement parameters and A1C, there is still not enough evidence to replace one parameter with another.

How use of continuous glucose monitoring can address therapeutic inertia in primary care

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

A guide for the use of LibreView digital diabetes platform in clinical practice: Expert paper of the Italian Working Group on Diabetes and Technology

Wider access to continuous glucose monitoring systems, including flash glucose monitoring, has enabled people with diabetes to achieve lower HbA1c levels and reduce the amount of time they spend in hypoglycaemia or hyperglycaemia, and has improved their quality of life. An International Consensus Panel proposed different target glucose ranges and recommendations according to different ages and situations (adults, young people and children with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, as well as elderly people who are at higher risk of hypoglycaemia, and women with diabetes during pregnancy). In this expert opinion, we interpret the international recommendations in the context of established clinical practice for diabetes care, and propose three different step-by-step algorithms to help the healthcare professionals use the most innovative glucose metrics, including time in glucose ranges, glucose management indicator, coefficient of variation, and ambulatory glucose profile. In detail, we focus on glucose metrics as measured by the FreeStyle Libre system and as visualized on the LibreView digital diabetes platform to support appropriate interpretation of flash glucose monitoring data. This is specifically structured for healthcare professionals and general practitioners who may have a low level of confidence with diabetes technology, with the aim of optimizing diabetes management, ensuring effective use of healthcare resources and to maximise outcomes for people with diabetes.

FreeStyle Libre Flash Glucose Monitoring system for people with type 1 diabetes in the UK: a budget impact analysis

INTRODUCTION

This study aims to estimate the budget impact of increased uptake of the FreeStyle Libre Flash Glucose Monitoring system in people with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) in the UK.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A budget impact model was developed, applying real-world data collected in the Association of British Clinical Diabetologists (ABCD) FreeStyle Libre Nationwide Audit. Costs of diabetes glucose monitoring in a T1DM population (n=1790) using self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) or the FreeStyle Libre system were compared with a scenario with increased use of the FreeStyle Libre system.

RESULTS

The ABCD audit demonstrates FreeStyle Libre system use reduces diabetes-related resource utilization. The cost analysis found that higher acquisition costs are offset by healthcare costs avoided (difference £168 per patient per year (PPPY)). Total costs were £1116 PPPY with FreeStyle Libre system compared with £948 PPPY with SMBG. In an average-sized UK local health economy, increasing FreeStyle Libre system uptake from 30% to 50% increased costs by 3.4% (£1 787 345-£1 847 618) and when increased to 70% increased by a further 3.3%.

CONCLUSION

Increased uptake of the FreeStyle Libre system in the T1DM population marginally increases the cost to UK health economies and offers many system benefits.

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.

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.

Risk associations of long-term HbA1c variability and obesity on cancer events and cancer-specific death in 15,286 patients with diabetes - A prospective cohort study

Background

Obesity, cancer and diabetes frequently coexist. The association of glycaemic variability (GV) and obesity with cancer events had not been explored in diabetes.

Methods

In the prospective Hong Kong Diabetes Register cohort (1995-2019), we used cox proportional hazards models to examine the risk associations of GV with all-site cancer (primary outcome) and cause-specific death (secondary outcome). We also explored the joint association of obesity and GV with these outcomes and site-specific cancer. We expressed GV using HbA1c variability score (HVS) defined as percentage of HbA1c values varying by 0.5% compared with values in preceding visit.

Findings

We included 15,286 patients (type 2 diabetes: n=15,054, type 1 diabetes: n=232) with ≥10 years of diabetes and ≥3 years of observation (51.7% men, age (mean±SD): 61.04±10.73 years, HbA1c: 7.54±1.63%, body mass index [BMI]: 25.65±3.92 kg/m², all-site cancer events: n=928, cancer death events: n=404). There were non-linear relationships between HVS and outcomes but there was linearity within the high and low HVS groups stratified by the median (IQR) value of HVS (42.31 [27.27, 56.28]). In the high HVS group, the adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) of each SD of HVS was 1.15 (95% CI: 1.04, 1.26) for all-site cancer (n=874). The respective aHRs for breast (n=77), liver (n=117) and colorectal (n=184) cancer were 1.44 (1.07, 1.94), 1.37 (1.08, 1.74), and 1.09 (0.90, 1.32). In the high GV group, the respective aHRs were 1.21 (1.06, 1.39), 1.27 (1.15, 1.40), and 1.15 (1.09, 1.22) for cancer, vascular, and noncancer nonvascular death. When stratified by obesity (BMI ≥25 kg/m²), the high HVS & obese group had the highest aHRs of 1.42 (1.16, 1.73), 2.44 (1.24, 4.82), and 2.63 (1.45, 4.74) respectively for all-site, breast, and liver cancer versus the low GV & non-obese group. The respective aHRs were 1.45 (1.07, 1.96), 1.47 (1.12, 1.93), and 1.35 (1.16, 1.57) for cancer, vascular, and noncancer nonvascular death.

Interpretation

Obesity and high GV were associated with increased risk of all-site, breast, liver cancer, and cancer-specific death in T2D.

Funding

The Chinese University of Hong Kong Diabetes Research Fund

Continuous glucose monitoring in persons with type 2 diabetes not using insulin

INTRODUCTION

CGM is an evidence-based intervention to improve glycemic control in persons with T1D and T2D using insulin. Use of CGM in persons with T2D not using insulin is not well studied.

AREAS COVERED

Existing clinical evidence for the use of CGM in persons with T2D is reviewed with a focus on persons with T2D not using insulin. Additional perspective and consideration are provided on the role and rationale for using CGM in persons with T2D not using insulin.

EXPERT OPINION

On the basis of available evidence, persons with T2D not using insulin benefit clinically through reduction in HbA1c, and improvement in time in range. Additional benefits include improvement in behavior modification, satisfaction, quality of life, empowerment, and diabetes distress. Drivers of these benefits are independent of insulin use in persons with T2D and may include an improved understanding of how diet, lifestyle, and exercise impact diabetes through CGM use. Clinical benefits from CGM independent of medication use include ability to modify health behavior and subsequently improve self-management.

Real-World Studies Support Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes Independently of Treatment Regimen

Numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated the glycemic benefits of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in management of type 1 diabetes (T1D) and type 2 diabetes. Although RCTs remain the gold standard clinical study design, findings from these trials do not necessarily reflect the effectiveness of CGM or reveal the feasibility and wider applications for use in broader real-life settings. This review evaluates recent real-world evidence (RWE) demonstrating the value of CGM to improve clinical outcomes, such as avoidance of severe hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic crises, and improved measures of psychological health and quality of life. Additionally, this review considers recent RWE for the role of CGM to enhance health care resource utilization, including prediction of T1D and applications in gestational diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and monitoring during surgery.

Insurance Coverage for Emerging Diabetes Technologies: Payers' Perspective

Advances in glucose monitoring and insulin delivery technologies have led to the development of innovative self-management tools, such as continuous glucose monitoring, automated insulin delivery systems, and smart connected insulin pens. Although the clinical advantages of today's emerging diabetes technologies are well documented, the cost of integrating these tools into clinical practice must be considered to sustain the financial viability of both public and private insurers. Most clinicians are unfamiliar with the process the commercial insurers follow when making these decisions. This article reviews the key factors the insurers consider when determining eligibility criteria.

Telemonitoring, Telemedicine and Time in Range During the Pandemic: Paradigm Change for Diabetes Risk Management in the Post-COVID Future

People with diabetes are at greater risk for negative outcomes from COVID-19. Though this risk is multifactorial, poor glycaemic control before and during admission to hospital for COVID-19 is likely to contribute to the increased risk. The COVID-19 pandemic and restrictions on mobility and interaction can also be expected to impact on daily glucose management of people with diabetes. Telemonitoring of glucose metrics has been widely used during the pandemic in people with diabetes, including adults and children with T1D, allowing an exploration of the impact of COVID-19 inside and outside the hospital setting on glycaemic control. To date, 27 studies including 69,294 individuals with T1D have reported the effect of glycaemic control during the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite restricted access to diabetes clinics, glycaemic control has not deteriorated for 25/27 cohorts and improved in 23/27 study groups. Significantly, time in range (TIR) 70-180 mg/dL (3.9-10 mmol/L) increased across 19/27 cohorts with a median 3.3% (- 6.0% to 11.2%) change. Thirty per cent of the cohorts with TIR data reported an average clinically significant TIR improvement of 5% or more, possibly as a consequence of more accurate glucose monitoring and improved connectivity through telemedicine. Periodic consultations using telemedicine enables care of people with diabetes while limiting the need for in-person attendance at diabetes clinics. Reports that sustained hyperglycaemia and early-stage diabetic ketoacidosis may go untreated because of the lockdown and concerns about potential exposure to the risk of infection argue for wider access to glucose telemonitoring. Therefore, in this paper we have critically reviewed reports concerning use of telemonitoring in the acute hospitalized setting as well as during daily diabetes management. Furthermore, we discuss the indications and implications of adopting telemonitoring and telemedicine in the present challenging time, as well as their potential for the future.

Landscape of Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) and Integrated CGM: Accuracy Considerations

Continuous glucose monitoring devices have significantly improved in many respects compared with earlier versions. As sensor accuracy improved, U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved a nonadjunctive indication for use that no longer required confirmatory blood glucose monitoring. This article discusses the performance characteristics and regulatory classifications for the current systems that are relevant to informed clinical decision-making.

Budget Impact of the Flash Continuous Glucose Monitoring System in Medicaid Diabetes Beneficiaries Treated with Intensive Insulin Therapy

Objective: We assessed the economic impact of using the newest flash continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) among Medicaid beneficiaries with diabetes treated with intensive insulin therapy (IIT). Research Design and Methods: A budget impact analysis was created to assess the impact of increasing the proportion of Medicaid beneficiaries with diabetes on IIT, who use flash CGM by 10%. The analysis included glucose monitoring device costs, cost savings due to reductions in glycated hemoglobin, severe hypoglycemia events, and hyperglycemic emergencies such as diabetic ketoacidosis. The net change in costs per person to adopt flash CGM for three populations treated with IIT (adults with type 1 diabetes [T1D] or type 2 diabetes [T2D], and children and adolescents with T1D or T2D) was calculated; these costs were used to estimate the impact of increasing flash CGM use by 10% to the U.S. Medicaid budget over 1-3 years. Results: The analysis found that flash CGM demonstrated cost savings in all populations on a per patient basis. Increasing use of flash CGM by 10% was associated with a $19.4 million overall decrease in costs over the year and continued to reduce costs by $25.3 million in years 2 and 3. Conclusions: Our results suggest that the new flash CGM system can offer cost savings compared to blood glucose monitoring in Medicaid beneficiaries treated with IIT, especially T1D adults, and children and adolescents. These findings support expanding access to CGM by Medicaid plans.

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.

The Challenge of Sustainable Access to Telemonitoring Tools for People with Diabetes in Europe: Lessons from COVID-19 and Beyond

Telemedicine in diabetes care has been evolving over several years, particularly since the advent of cloud-connected technologies for diabetes management, such as glucose monitoring devices, including continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems, that facilitate sharing of glucose data between people with diabetes and their healthcare professionals in near-real time. Extreme social distancing and shielding in place for vulnerable patients during the COVID-19 pandemic has created both the challenge and the opportunity to provide care at a distance on a large scale. Available evidence suggests that glucose control has in fact improved during this period for people with diabetes who are able to use CGM devices for remote glucose monitoring. The development of telemedicine as part of the standard of care in diabetes faces significant challenges in the European context, particularly in terms of providing consistent and effective care at a distance to large populations of patients while using robust systems that can be supported by large regional and national healthcare services. These challenges include a fragmented approach to healthcare technology assessment and reimbursement, lack of eHealth education and literacy, particularly amongst healthcare professionals, lack of data integration, as well as concerns about electronic health records, patient consent and privacy. Here we review the benefits of and challenges to wider application of telemedicine and telemonitoring in the post-pandemic future, with the aim to ensure that the value of these eHealth services is provided to patients, healthcare providers and health systems.

Just Because You Can, Doesn't Mean You Should … Now. A Practical Approach to Counseling Persons with Diabetes on Use of Optional CGM Alarms

Advances in glucose monitoring technologies have led to the development of different types of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) platforms: traditional CGM and flash CGM. Both platforms provide critical glucose data that enable persons with diabetes (PwDs) to make more informed decisions in their self-management. Until recently, a key advantage of traditional CGM over flash CGM was the availability of automatic alarms that warn users about current or impending hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia. However, with the introduction of the FreeStyle Libre 2 (FSL2) system (Abbott Diabetes Care, Alameda, CA), PwD can now utilize flash CGM with the option to set low and high glycemic thresholds and receive alarms when these thresholds are crossed. In addition, having the option to use or not use the alarms may attract previous traditional CGM users who grew fatigued by constant alarms. However, despite the additional layer of safety that alarms provide, many PwD are reluctant to switch from self-monitoring of blood glucose to CGM due to concerns about how alarms could impact the quality of their daily lives. This reluctance is heightened by their perceptions that use of alarms is mandatory. Because the functionality of the FSL2 alarms differs from current traditional CGM devices, it is important that clinicians become familiar with these differences. Moreover, clinicians will be challenged to help PwD overcome their concerns about the use of alarms. This article presents a comprehensive description of the FSL2 alarms function and provides guidance to clinicians when counseling PwDs about the strengths, limitations, and various ways that the FSL2 alarms can be used in daily diabetes self-management.

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.

Integrating Continuous Glucose Monitoring Into Clinical Practices and Patients' Lives

Numerous studies have demonstrated the clinical benefits of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in individuals with diabetes. Within ongoing innovations in CGM technology, individuals now have an expanding array of options that allow them to select the device that meets their individual needs and preferences. Although demand for CGM in primary care continues to grow, many clinicians are reluctant to prescribe this technology due to their unfamiliarity with the various devices, uncertainty about which devices are best suited to each patient and the feasibility of using CGM. This article reviews the features and functionality of the most recent commercially available CGM devices and provides guidance for integrating CGM use into clinical practices.

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.