Long-term Cost-Effectiveness of Dexcom G6 Real-time Continuous Glucose Monitoring Versus Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose in Patients With Type 1 Diabetes in the U.K

Technology in the management of diabetes in hospitalised adults

Suboptimal glycaemic management in hospitals has been associated with adverse clinical outcomes and increased financial costs to healthcare systems. Despite the availability of guidelines for inpatient glycaemic management, implementation remains challenging because of the increasing workload of clinical staff and rising prevalence of diabetes. The development of novel and innovative technologies that support the clinical workflow and address the unmet need for effective and safe inpatient diabetes care delivery is still needed. There is robust evidence that the use of diabetes technology such as continuous glucose monitoring and closed-loop insulin delivery can improve glycaemic management in outpatient settings; however, relatively little is known of its potential benefits and application in inpatient diabetes management. Emerging data from clinical studies show that diabetes technologies such as integrated clinical decision support systems can potentially mediate safer and more efficient inpatient diabetes care, while continuous glucose sensors and closed-loop systems show early promise in improving inpatient glycaemic management. This review aims to provide an overview of current evidence related to diabetes technology use in non-critical care adult inpatient settings. We highlight existing barriers that may hinder or delay implementation, as well as strategies and opportunities to facilitate the clinical readiness of inpatient diabetes technology in the future.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

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

Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Versus Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes in Iran

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to determine long-term cost-effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) technology versus self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using multiple daily injections in Iran.

METHODS

According to available data, the long-term costs and clinical outcomes of CGM and SMBG were estimated using the Sheffield Type 1 Diabetes Model, with a lifetime horizon from a payer's perspective. The primary outcome was the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained.

RESULTS

The lifetime cost-effectiveness analysis demonstrated that on average, the use of CGM increased life expectancy by 1.32 years and QALYs by 1.63, compared with SMBG. The CGM group had an average discounted total cost of $40 093 US dollars, whereas the SMBG group had an average discounted total cost of $13 366. This resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $16 386 per QALY gained, which is less than the threshold of 3 times the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita of Iran ($24 561).

CONCLUSIONS

Considering 3 times the GDP per capita as the threshold, CGM is likely to be cost-effective in Iran. However, for CGM to be very cost-effective (ie, have an ICER less than 1 times the GDP per capita) and presumably more accessible, the price of CGM should decrease to $40 per sensor, each with a lifespan of 14 days.

Non-invasive measurements of blood glucose levels by time-gating mid-infrared optoacoustic signals

Non-invasive glucose monitoring (NIGM) represents an attractive alternative to finger pricking for blood glucose assessment and management of diabetes. Nevertheless, current NIGM techniques do not measure glucose concentrations in blood but rely on indirect bulk measurement of glucose in interstitial fluid, where glucose is diluted and glucose dynamics are different from those in the blood, which impairs NIGM accuracy. Here we introduce a new biosensor, termed depth-gated mid-infrared optoacoustic sensor (DIROS), which allows, for the first time, non-invasive glucose detection in blood-rich volumes in the skin. DIROS minimizes interference caused by the stratum corneum and other superficial skin layers by time-gating mid-infrared optoacoustic signals to enable depth-selective localization of glucose readings in skin. In measurements on the ears of (female) mice, DIROS displays improved accuracy over bulk-tissue glucose measurements. Our work demonstrates how signal localization can improve NIGM accuracy and positions DIROS as a holistic approach, with high translational potential, that addresses a key limitation of current NIGM methods.

Cost-utility analysis of Dexcom G6 real-time continuous glucose monitoring versus FreeStyle Libre 1 intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes in Belgium

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

The aim of this study was to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of Dexcom G6 real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) with alert functionality compared with FreeStyle Libre 1 intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) without alerts in adults with type 1 diabetes in Belgium.

METHODS

The IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model was used to estimate cost-effectiveness. Input data for the simulated baseline cohort were sourced from the randomised ALERTT1 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov.

REGISTRATION NO

NCT03772600). The age of the participants was 42.9 ± 14.1 years (mean ± SD), and the baseline HbA1c was 57.8 ± 9.5 mmol/mol (7.4 ± 0.9%). Participants using rtCGM showed a reduction in HbA1c of 3.6 mmol/mol (0.36 percentage points) based on the 6-month mean between-group difference. In the base case, both rtCGM and isCGM were priced at €3.92/day (excluding value-added tax [VAT]) according to the Belgian reimbursement system. The analysis was performed from a Belgian healthcare payer perspective over a lifetime time horizon. Health outcomes were expressed as quality-adjusted life years. Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses were used to account for parameter uncertainty.

RESULTS

In the base case, rtCGM dominated isCGM, resulting in lower diabetes-related complication costs and better health outcomes. The associated main drivers favouring rtCGM were lower HbA1c, fewer severe hypoglycaemic events and reduced fear of hypoglycaemia. The results were robust under a wide range of one-way sensitivity analyses. In models where the price of rtCGM is €5.11/day (a price increase of 30.4%) or €12.34/day (a price increase of 214.8%), rtCGM was cost-neutral or reached an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €40,000 per quality-adjusted life year, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

When priced similarly, Dexcom G6 rtCGM with alert functionality has both economic and clinical benefits compared with FreeStyle Libre 1 isCGM without alerts in adults with type 1 diabetes in Belgium, and appears to be a cost-effective glucose monitoring modality. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03772600.

Cost-Effectiveness of Closed-Loop Automated Insulin Delivery Using the Cambridge Hybrid Algorithm in Children and Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes: Results from a Multicenter 6-Month Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

The main objective of this study is to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) of the Cambridge hybrid closed-loop automated insulin delivery (AID) algorithm versus usual care for children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

METHODS

This multicenter, binational, parallel-controlled trial randomized 133 insulin pump using participants aged 6 to 18 years to either AID (n = 65) or usual care (n = 68) for 6 months. Both within-trial and lifetime cost-effectiveness were analyzed. Analysis focused on the treatment subgroup (n = 21) who received the much more reliable CamAPS FX hardware iteration and their contemporaneous control group (n = 24). Lifetime complications and costs were simulated via an updated Sheffield T1D policy model.

RESULTS

Within-trial, both groups had indistinguishable and statistically unchanged health-related quality of life, and statistically similar hypoglycemia, severe hypoglycemia, and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) event rates. Total health care utilization was higher in the treatment group. Both the overall treatment group and CamAPS FX subgroup exhibited improved HbA1C (-0.32%, 95% CI: -0.59 to -0.04; P = .02, and -1.05%, 95% CI: -1.43 to -0.67; P < .001, respectively). Modeling projected increased expected lifespan of 5.36 years and discounted quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 1.16 (U.K. tariffs) and 1.52 (U.S. tariffs) in the CamAPS FX subgroup. Estimated ICERs for the subgroup were £19 324/QALY (United Kingdom) and -$3917/QALY (United States). For subgroup patients already using continuous glucose monitors (CGM), ICERs were £10 096/QALY (United Kingdom) and -$33 616/QALY (United States). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis generated mean ICERs of £19 342/QALY (95% CI: £15 903/QALY to £22 929/QALY) (United Kingdom) and -$28 283/QALY (95% CI: -$59 607/QALY to $1858/QALY) (United States).

CONCLUSIONS

For children and adolescents with T1D on insulin pump therapy, AID using the Cambridge algorithm appears cost-effective below a £20 000/QALY threshold (United Kingdom) and cost saving (United States).

Estimating the cost-effectiveness of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes in England

OBJECTIVE

We previously showed that intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) reduces HbA1c at 24 weeks compared with self-monitoring of blood glucose with finger pricking (SMBG) in adults with type 1 diabetes and high HbA1c levels (58-97 mmol/mol [7.5%-11%]). We aim to assess the economic impact of isCGM compared with SMBG.

METHODS

Participant-level baseline and follow-up health status (EQ-5D-5L) and within-trial healthcare resource-use data were collected. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were derived at 24 weeks, adjusting for baseline EQ-5D-5L. Participant-level costs were generated. Using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model, economic analysis was performed from the National Health Service perspective over a lifetime horizon, discounted at 3.5%.

RESULTS

Within-trial EQ-5D-5L showed non-significant adjusted incremental QALY gain of 0.006 (95% CI: -0.007 to 0.019) for isCGM compared with SMBG and an adjusted cost increase of £548 (95% CI: 381-714) per participant. The lifetime projected incremental cost (95% CI) of isCGM was £1954 (-5108 to 8904) with an incremental QALY (95% CI) gain of 0.436 (0.195-0.652) resulting in an incremental cost-per-QALY of £4477. In all subgroups, isCGM had an incremental cost-per-QALY better than £20,000 compared with SMBG; for people with baseline HbA1c >75 mmol/mol (9.0%), it was cost-saving. Sensitivity analysis suggested that isCGM remains cost-effective if its effectiveness lasts for at least 7 years.

CONCLUSION

While isCGM is associated with increased short-term costs, compared with SMBG, its benefits in lowering HbA1c will lead to sufficient long-term health-gains and cost-savings to justify costs, so long as the effect lasts into the medium term.

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.

Longitudinal Studies of Wearables in Patients with Diabetes: Key Issues and Solutions

Glucose monitoring is key to the management of diabetes mellitus to maintain optimal glucose control whilst avoiding hypoglycemia. Non-invasive continuous glucose monitoring techniques have evolved considerably to replace finger prick testing, but still require sensor insertion. Physiological variables, such as heart rate and pulse pressure, change with blood glucose, especially during hypoglycemia, and could be used to predict hypoglycemia. To validate this approach, clinical studies that contemporaneously acquire physiological and continuous glucose variables are required. In this work, we provide insights from a clinical study undertaken to study the relationship between physiological variables obtained from a number of wearables and glucose levels. The clinical study included three screening tests to assess neuropathy and acquired data using wearable devices from 60 participants for four days. We highlight the challenges and provide recommendations to mitigate issues that may impact the validity of data capture to enable a valid interpretation of the outcomes.

Continuous glucose monitoring for children with hypoglycaemia: Evidence in 2023

In 2023, childhood hypoglycaemia remains a major public health problem and significant risk factor for consequent adverse neurodevelopment. Irrespective of the underlying cause, key elements of clinical management include the detection, prediction and prevention of episodes of hypoglycaemia. These tasks are increasingly served by Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) devices that measure subcutaneous glucose at near-continuous frequency. While the use of CGM in type 1 diabetes is well established, the evidence for widespread use in rare hypoglycaemia disorders is less than convincing. However, in the few years since our last review there have been multiple developments and increased user feedback, requiring a review of clinical application. Despite advances in device technology, point accuracy of CGM remains low for children with non-diabetes hypoglycaemia. Simple provision of CGM devices has not replicated the efficacy seen in those with diabetes and is yet to show benefit. Machine learning techniques for hypoglycaemia prevention have so far failed to demonstrate sufficient prediction accuracy for real world use even in those with diabetes. Furthermore, access to CGM globally is restricted by costs kept high by the commercially-driven speed of technical innovation. Nonetheless, the ability of CGM to digitally phenotype disease groups has led to a better understanding of natural history of disease, facilitated diagnoses and informed changes in clinical management. Large CGM datasets have prompted re-evaluation of hypoglycaemia incidence and facilitated improved trial design. Importantly, an individualised approach and focus on the behavioural determinants of hypoglycaemia has led to real world reduction in hypoglycaemia. In this state of the art review, we critically analyse the updated evidence for use of CGM in non-diabetic childhood hypoglycaemia disorders since 2020 and provide suggestions for qualified use.

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

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

Population-Level Impact and Cost-effectiveness of Continuous Glucose Monitoring and Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring Technologies for Adults With Type 1 Diabetes in Canada: A Modeling Study

OBJECTIVE

Maintaining healthy glucose levels is critical for the management of type 1 diabetes (T1D), but the most efficacious and cost-effective approach (capillary self-monitoring of blood glucose [SMBG] or continuous [CGM] or intermittently scanned [isCGM] glucose monitoring) is not clear. We modeled the population-level impact of these three glucose monitoring systems on diabetes-related complications, mortality, and cost-effectiveness in adults with T1D in Canada.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We used a Markov cost-effectiveness model based on nine complication states for adults aged 18-64 years with T1D. We performed the cost-effectiveness analysis from a single-payer health care system perspective over a 20-year horizon, assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of CAD 50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Primary outcomes were the number of complications and deaths and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CGM and isCGM relative to SMBG.

RESULTS

An initial cohort of 180,000 with baseline HbA1c of 8.1% was used to represent all Canadians aged 18-64 years with T1D. Universal SMBG use was associated with ∼11,200 people (6.2%) living without complications and ∼89,400 (49.7%) deaths after 20 years. Universal CGM use was associated with an additional ∼7,400 (4.1%) people living complications free and ∼11,500 (6.4%) fewer deaths compared with SMBG, while universal isCGM use was associated with ∼3,400 (1.9%) more people living complications free and ∼4,600 (2.6%) fewer deaths. Relative to SMBG, CGM and isCGM had ICERs of CAD 35,017/QALY and 17,488/QALY, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Universal use of CGM or isCGM in the Canadian T1D population is anticipated to reduce diabetes-related complications and mortality at an acceptable cost-effectiveness threshold.

Personalized Digital Health Beyond the Pandemic

The effectiveness of telehealth and personalized digital health became evident during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. This article defines what personalized digital health is and provides selected examples of the various personalized digital health devices patients may be using. The article also delves into how to implement and incorporate these personalized digital health devices in practice and presents suggestions on political actions that nurse practitioners need to advocate for with regard to telehealth and personalized digital health policy.

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.

Racial Disparities in Diabetes Technology Use and Outcomes in Type 1 Diabetes in a Safety-Net Hospital

BACKGROUND

Limited data exist regarding diabetes technology use among adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in urban racially/ethnically diverse safety-net hospitals. We examined racial/ethnic differences in the use of continuous glucose monitor (CGM) and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) in this setting.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 227 patients ≥ 18 years of age with T1D seen in an urban, safety-net endocrinology clinic during 2016-2017 was completed (mean age: 39; 80% English-speaking; 50% had public insurance). Diabetes technology use, defined as either CGM or CSII or both CGM and CSII, and clinical outcomes were examined by race/ethnicity.

RESULTS

Overall, 30% used CGM and 26% used CSII. After adjusting for age, language, insurance, and annual income, diabetes technology use in non-White patients was significantly lower than in White patients, predominantly lower in Black (aOR 0.25 [95% CI 0.11-0.56]) and patients identified as other race/ethnicity (aOR 0.30 [95% CI 0.11-0.77]). At the highest household income level (≥$75,000/y), Black and Hispanic individuals were significantly less likely than White individuals to use diabetes technology (P < .0007). Mean hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was lower in patients using any diabetes technology compared with patients using no technology (P < .0001). Use of CGM and CSII together was associated with the lowest HbA1c across all racial/ethnic groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Racial/ethnic disparities in diabetes technology use and glycemic control were observed even after adjusting for sociodemographic factors. Further research should explore barriers to accessing diabetes technology in non-White populations.

Sustainable Use of a Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring System from 2018 to 2020

We aimed to describe patterns of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system use and glycemic outcomes from 2018 to 2020 in a large real-world cohort by analyzing anonymized data from US-based CGM users who transitioned from the G5 to the G6 System (Dexcom) in 2018. The main end points were persistent use, within-day and between-day utilization, hypoglycemia, time in range (TIR, 70-180 mg/dL [3.9-10 mmol/L]), and use of the optional calibration feature in 2019 and 2020. In a cohort of 31,034 individuals, rates of persistent use were high, with 27,932 (90.0%) and 26,861 (86.6%) continuing to upload data in 2019 and 2020, respectively. Compared with G5 use, G6 use was associated with higher device utilization, less hypoglycemia, higher TIR (in 2020), and >80% fewer calibrations in both 2019 and 2020 (P's < 0.001). High persistence and utilization of the G6 system may contribute to sustainable glycemic outcomes and decreased user burden.

Association of Real-time Continuous Glucose Monitoring With Glycemic Control and Acute Metabolic Events Among Patients With Insulin-Treated Diabetes

IMPORTANCE

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is recommended for patients with type 1 diabetes; observational evidence for CGM in patients with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate clinical outcomes of real-time CGM initiation.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Exploratory retrospective cohort study of changes in outcomes associated with real-time CGM initiation, estimated using a difference-in-differences analysis. A total of 41 753 participants with insulin-treated diabetes (5673 type 1; 36 080 type 2) receiving care from a Northern California integrated health care delivery system (2014-2019), being treated with insulin, self-monitoring their blood glucose levels, and having no prior CGM use were included.

EXPOSURES

Initiation vs noninitiation of real-time CGM (reference group).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Ten end points measured during the 12 months before and 12 months after baseline: hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c); hypoglycemia (emergency department or hospital utilization); hyperglycemia (emergency department or hospital utilization); HbA1c levels lower than 7%, lower than 8%, and higher than 9%; 1 emergency department encounter or more for any reason; 1 hospitalization or more for any reason; and number of outpatient visits and telephone visits.

RESULTS

The real-time CGM initiators included 3806 patients (mean age, 42.4 years [SD, 19.9 years]; 51% female; 91% type 1, 9% type 2); the noninitiators included 37 947 patients (mean age, 63.4 years [SD, 13.4 years]; 49% female; 6% type 1, 94% type 2). The prebaseline mean HbA1c was lower among real-time CGM initiators than among noninitiators, but real-time CGM initiators had higher prebaseline rates of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia. Mean HbA1c declined among real-time CGM initiators from 8.17% to 7.76% and from 8.28% to 8.19% among noninitiators (adjusted difference-in-differences estimate, -0.40%; 95% CI, -0.48% to -0.32%; P < .001). Hypoglycemia rates declined among real-time CGM initiators from 5.1% to 3.0% and increased among noninitiators from 1.9% to 2.3% (difference-in-differences estimate, -2.7%; 95% CI, -4.4% to -1.1%; P = .001). There were also statistically significant differences in the adjusted net changes in the proportion of patients with HbA1c lower than 7% (adjusted difference-in-differences estimate, 9.6%; 95% CI, 7.1% to 12.2%; P < .001), lower than 8% (adjusted difference-in-differences estimate, 13.1%; 95% CI, 10.2% to 16.1%; P < .001), and higher than 9% (adjusted difference-in-differences estimate, -7.1%; 95% CI, -9.5% to -4.6%; P < .001) and in the number of outpatient visits (adjusted difference-in-differences estimate, -0.4; 95% CI, -0.6 to -0.2; P < .001) and telephone visits (adjusted difference-in-differences estimate, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.8 to 1.4; P < .001). Initiation of real-time CGM was not associated with statistically significant changes in rates of hyperglycemia, emergency department visits for any reason, or hospitalizations for any reason.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this retrospective cohort study, insulin-treated patients with diabetes selected by physicians for real-time continuous glucose monitoring compared with noninitiators had significant improvements in hemoglobin A1c and reductions in emergency department visits and hospitalizations for hypoglycemia, but no significant change in emergency department visits or hospitalizations for hyperglycemia or for any reason. Because of the observational study design, findings may have been susceptible to selection bias.

American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline: The Use of Advanced Technology in the Management of Persons With Diabetes Mellitus

OBJECTIVE

To provide evidence-based recommendations regarding the use of advanced technology in the management of persons with diabetes mellitus to clinicians, diabetes-care teams, health care professionals, and other stakeholders.

METHODS

The American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE) conducted literature searches for relevant articles published from 2012 to 2021. A task force of medical experts developed evidence-based guideline recommendations based on a review of clinical evidence, expertise, and informal consensus, according to established AACE protocol for guideline development.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcomes of interest included hemoglobin A1C, rates and severity of hypoglycemia, time in range, time above range, and time below range.

RESULTS

This guideline includes 37 evidence-based clinical practice recommendations for advanced diabetes technology and contains 357 citations that inform the evidence base.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Evidence-based recommendations were developed regarding the efficacy and safety of devices for the management of persons with diabetes mellitus, metrics used to aide with the assessment of advanced diabetes technology, and standards for the implementation of this technology.

CONCLUSIONS

Advanced diabetes technology can assist persons with diabetes to safely and effectively achieve glycemic targets, improve quality of life, add greater convenience, potentially reduce burden of care, and offer a personalized approach to self-management. Furthermore, diabetes technology can improve the efficiency and effectiveness of clinical decision-making. Successful integration of these technologies into care requires knowledge about the functionality of devices in this rapidly changing field. This information will allow health care professionals to provide necessary education and training to persons accessing these treatments and have the required expertise to interpret data and make appropriate treatment adjustments.

Advances, Challenges, and Cost Associated with Continuous Glucose Monitor Use in Adolescents and Young Adults with Type 1 Diabetes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Continuous glucose monitors (CGM) are transforming diabetes management, yet adolescents and young adults (AYA) with type 1 diabetes (T1D) do not experience the same benefits seen with CGM use in adults. The purpose of this review is to explore advances, challenges, and the financial impact of CGM use in AYA with T1D.

RECENT FINDINGS

CGM studies in young adults highlight challenges and suggest unique barriers to CGM use in this population. Recent studies also demonstrate differences in CGM use related to race and ethnicity, raising questions about potential bias and emphasizing the importance of patient-provider communication. Cost of these devices remains a significant barrier, especially in countries without nationalized reimbursement of CGM. More research is needed to understand and address the differences in CGM utilization and to increase the accessibility of CGM therapy given the significant potential benefits of CGM in this high-risk group.