Assessing Patterns of CGM use and Metrics of Glycemic Control in T1D and T2D Patients in the Veterans Healthcare System: Integrating CGM Device Data with EHR Data

Tomoki Okuno,Sharon Macwan,Donald Miller,Gregory Norman,Peter Reaven,Jin Zhou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2024.0083

2024-05-21

Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics

Abstract:Diabetes Technology &Therapeutics, Volume 0, Issue ja, -Not available-.

endocrinology & metabolism

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The Potential Impact of CGM Use on Diabetes-Related Attitudes and Behaviors in Adults with T2D: A Qualitative Investigation of the Patient Experience

Taylor Clark,William Polonsky,Emily Soriano

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2023.0612

2024-03-26

Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics

Abstract:Diabetes Technology &Therapeutics, Volume 0, Issue ja, -Not available-.

endocrinology & metabolism
1137-P: Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) Use and Its Impact on Glycemic Control and Acute Complications among Older-Onset Type 1 Diabetes Patients Within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA)

Jin Zhou,Michelle Newell,Salvador Rivas,Xinkai Zhou,Gregory J. Norman,Peter Reaven

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2337/db22-1137-p

IF: 7.7

2022-01-01

Diabetes

Abstract:There is increasing recognition that older onset type 1 diabetes (T1D) is not uncommon. Although CGM use is rising dramatically among those with T1D, little is known regarding its use and benefits within this older T1D population. To address these questions, we identified new CGM users (new CGM sensor prescriptions for T1D developing after military enrollment) and non-users (T1D receiving care and glucose strips from the VHA) during the years 2015-2020 and used national VHA healthcare data and ICD-9/ICD-diagnostic codes from visit encounters to compare baseline characteristics, change in glucose control and new emergency (ER) or hospital admissions. Linear mixed models and Cox proportional models (with propensity score overlap weighting) , were used to compare pre/post changes in HbA1c, and time to acute admissions, respectively. Compared with 4732 nonCGM users, CGM users (n=5,143) had similar HbA1c levels but differed in many ways at initiation of CGM, including: being significantly younger (59 vs. 65 years) , higher proportion White (83 vs. 75%) , and more frequently using glucagon (36 vs. 12 %) , short-acting insulin (99 vs. 86%) and insulin pumps (54 vs.7%) . After propensity overlap weighting, all characteristics were nearly identical between groups. Initiation of CGM was associated with reduced HbA1c levels (- 0.2 and -0.26% at 6 and 12 months (p’s< 0.001) compared with nonCGM users. Similarly, CGM users also had greater declines in risk for total hospitalizations (HR = .88; CI 0.79-0.98) and hypoglycemic (HR = .69; CI 0.53-0.90) and hyperglycemic (HR = .77; CI 0.64-0.94) related ER visits/hospitalizations (all p’s < 0.02) . In this large national study of CGM initiation in older T1D patients, CGM use was linked with improved glucose control as well as reduced ER and/or hospital admissions for hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia or any cause. Disclosure J.Zhou: Research Support; Dexcom, Inc. M.Newell: Research Support; Dexcom, Inc. S.Rivas: None. X.Zhou: None. G.J.Norman: Employee; Dexcom, Inc. P.Reaven: Research Support; AstraZeneca, Dexcom, Inc. Funding DexCom, Inc
CGM-derived glucometrics in adults with type 1 diabetes when switching basal insulins.

Robbe De Groote,Eveline Lefever,Sara Charleer,Phebe Donné,Christophe De Block,Chantal Mathieu,Pieter Gillard

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2023.0616

2024-03-22

Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics

Abstract:Diabetes Technology &Therapeutics, Volume 0, Issue ja, -Not available-.

endocrinology & metabolism
Beyond Glucose Monitoring: Multianalyte Sensor Use in Diabetes.

Kathy Zhou,Steven James,Michele Gaca,Ashani Lecamwasam,Muamer Dervisevic,David N O'Neal,Nicolas Voelcker,Elif Ilhan Ekinci

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2024.0250

2024-07-27

Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics

Abstract:Diabetes Technology &Therapeutics, Volume 0, Issue ja, -Not available-.

endocrinology & metabolism
Clinical Targets for Continuous Glucose Monitoring Data Interpretation: Recommendations From the International Consensus on Time in Range

Tadej Battelino,Thomas Danne,Richard M. Bergenstal,Stephanie A. Amiel,Roy Beck,Torben Biester,Emanuele Bosi,Bruce A. Buckingham,William T. Cefalu,Kelly L. Close,Claudio Cobelli,Eyal Dassau,J. Hans DeVries,Kim C. Donaghue,Klemen Dovc,Francis J. Doyle,Satish Garg,George Grunberger,Simon Heller,Lutz Heinemann,Irl B. Hirsch,Roman Hovorka,Weiping Jia,Olga Kordonouri,Boris Kovatchev,Aaron Kowalski,Lori Laffel,Brian Levine,Alexander Mayorov,Chantal Mathieu,Helen R. Murphy,Revital Nimri,Kirsten Nørgaard,Christopher G. Parkin,Eric Renard,David Rodbard,Banshi Saboo,Desmond Schatz,Keaton Stoner,Tatsuiko Urakami,Stuart A. Weinzimer,Moshe Phillip

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2337/dci19-0028

2019-06-08

Diabetes Care

Abstract:Improvements in sensor accuracy, greater convenience and ease of use, and expanding reimbursement have led to growing adoption of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). However, successful utilization of CGM technology in routine clinical practice remains relatively low. This may be due in part to the lack of clear and agreed-upon glycemic targets that both diabetes teams and people with diabetes can work toward. Although unified recommendations for use of key CGM metrics have been established in three separate peer-reviewed articles, formal adoption by diabetes professional organizations and guidance in the practical application of these metrics in clinical practice have been lacking. In February 2019, the Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes (ATTD) Congress convened an international panel of physicians, researchers, and individuals with diabetes who are expert in CGM technologies to address this issue. This article summarizes the ATTD consensus recommendations for relevant aspects of CGM data utilization and reporting among the various diabetes populations.

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

Richard Bailey,Sriya Donthi,Sarah Markt,Colin Drummond,Jennifer Cullen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/19322968221091299

Abstract:Background: The 2022 American Diabetes Association (ADA) Standards of Care recommends considering use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for insulin-managed diabetes mellitus (DM), but equitable access remains challenging. This study evaluates socioeconomic and demographic metrics associated with CGM use. Methods: RStudio 2021.09.1+372 was utilized to perform uni- and bivariable analysis, as well as binomial logistic regression modeling for categorical CGM use (yes/no) on the most recent cross-section from the Type 1 Diabetes Exchange (T1DX) Registry 2016-2018 cohort (n = 22 418). Results: Compared with White Non-Hispanic participants, Black Non-Hispanic (OR = 0.45, CI = 0.36-0.57, P < 0.001) and American Indian/Alaskan Native individuals (OR = 0.33, CI = 0.14-0.70, P = 0.008) had lower odds of CGM use. Compared with private insurance, government insurance had reduced odds of CGM use (OR = 0.59, CI = 0.52-0.66, P < 0.001). Individuals earning $100,000 or more were twice as likely to use CGMs (OR = 2.06, CI = 1.75-2.45, P < 0.001) compared with those earning <$25,000 annually. Subgroup analysis based on income bracket demonstrated that government insured individuals earning <$25,000 annually were the least likely to use CGMs (OR = 0.44, CI = 0.32-0.61, P < 0.001), as compared with private insurance. Conclusions: T1DX Registry data demonstrate that CGM use follows the inverse care law, with health technology utilization inversely related to disease burden. Federal policies promoting CGM use in Medicare and Medicaid populations can facilitate the ADA's recommendation for patients with insulin-managed diabetes mellitus.
Exploring the Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Pediatric Diabetes: Current Practices, Innovative Metrics, and Future Implications

Agata Chobot,Claudia Piona,Bruno Bombaci,Olga Kamińska-Jackowiak,Valentina Mancioppi,Stefano Passanisi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/children11080907

2024-07-27

Abstract:Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems, including real-time CGM and intermittently scanned CGM, have revolutionized diabetes management, particularly in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D). These systems provide detailed insights into glucose variability and detect asymptomatic and nocturnal hypoglycemia, addressing limitations of traditional self-monitoring blood glucose methods. CGM devices measure interstitial glucose concentrations constantly, enabling proactive therapeutic decisions and optimization of glycemic control through stored data analysis. CGM metrics such as time in range, time below range, and coefficient of variation are crucial for managing T1D, with emerging metrics like time in tight range and glycemia risk index showing potential for enhanced glycemic assessment. Recent advancements suggest the utility of CGM systems in monitoring the early stages of T1D and individuals with obesity complicated by pre-diabetes, highlighting its therapeutic versatility. This review discusses the current CGM systems for T1D during the pediatric age, established and emerging metrics, and future applications, emphasizing the critical role of CGM devices in improving glycemic control and clinical outcomes in children and adolescents with diabetes.
131-LB: Diabetes and Disparities in Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Community Health Care Settings

AMISHA WALLIA,SHIVANI AGARWAL,ANDREW L. OWEN,EMILY L. LAM,KA'DERRICKA DAVIS,STACY BAILEY,SEAN E. DELACEY,ALLISON PACK,JUAN ESPINOZA,DANA BRIGHT,ALICE EGGLESTON,MATTHEW J. O'BRIEN

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2337/db23-131-lb

IF: 7.7

2023-06-20

Diabetes

Abstract:Federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) serve vulnerable DM patients in primary care in underserved settings. The state of DM (glycemic control, complications) may differ and utilization of technologies (e.g. continuous glucose monitoring [CGM]) may be essential. But the current state of DM and CGM is poorly characterized. Using EHR data from a national FQHC network (2015-2021) we examined baseline demographic characteristics, CGM prescriptions, and their association. We included 47,579 with DM: n=1630 with T1D [3%], n= 45,949 T2D [97%], 38% Hispanic, 34% Black (Table 1). Notably, T1D pts [mean age 43 SD 16], had poor glycemic control (HbA1c 9.4 SD 2.4) with elevated DM complications severity index scores [mean DSCI 2.3 SD 4.7]. Overall CGM prescriptions were extremely low; 9% in T1D and only 1% in T2D. Among T1D, those who were Hispanic [OR 0.39, (CI 0.23, 0.66), p < 0.001] or Black [OR 0.52, (CI 0.33, 0.81), p = 0.003] were less likely to have CGM prescribed than White adults, after adjustment. Among T2D, those who were Hispanic [OR 0.42, CI 0.33, 0.55, p < 0.001] or Black [OR 0.68, CI 0.54, 0.85, p = 0.001] were similarly less likely to have CGM. Non-private insurance was also a significant factor. DM severity (poor control, complications) is notable in FQHCs, yet CGM is exceptionally low. These findings underscore the major translation gap in standard of care for FQHCs and the critical need to understand inequities. Disclosure A. Wallia: Research Support; UnitedHealth Group, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly and Company. D. Bright: None. A. Eggleston: None. M. J. O'brien: None. S. Agarwal: Advisory Panel; Medtronic, Consultant; Beta Bionics, Inc., Research Support; Abbott Diabetes, Dexcom, Inc. A. L. Owen: None. E. L. Lam: None. K. Davis: None. S. Bailey: Advisory Panel; Gilead Sciences, Inc., Consultant; Lundbeck, Pfizer Inc., Research Support; Eli Lilly and Company, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Gilead Sciences, Inc., Lundbeck, Pfizer Inc. S. E. Delacey: None. A. Pack: Consultant; Gilead Sciences, Inc., Research Support; Merck & Co., Inc., Pfizer Inc., Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, RRF Foundation for Aging, Lundbeck, Eli Lilly and Company, Gilead Sciences, Inc. J. Espinoza: Consultant; Sanofi, Research Support; NIH - National Institutes of Health, FDA, Speaker's Bureau; Glooko, Inc. Funding Centers for Diabetes Translation Research (5P30DK020541, 472P30DK092949-11A); National Pilot and Feasibility Grant for Diabetes Research Centers; Center for Diabetes Translation Research

endocrinology & metabolism
Monitoring Technologies – Continuous Glucose Monitoring, Mobile Technology, Biomarkers of Glycemic Control

K. Dungan

2014-04-30

Abstract:It is recognized that traditional measures of glucose control (such as hemoglobin A1c [A1C]) provide little information regarding the need for day to day changes in therapies. While intermittent self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG) provides additional information with which to make treatment decisions, significant barriers to its use exist, such as inconvenience and lack of timely and regular feedback. Furthermore, important information regarding glucose trends may be missed. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has become increasingly reliable and has demonstrated efficacy in terms of improving A1C, reducing hypoglycemia, and improving the time in target glucose range. Incremental progress continues to be made toward a fully functional artificial pancreas, of which CGM will play a vital role. As more and more data are presented to patients and providers, it has become increasingly paramount that the data are organized in a standardized way and that communication of data is streamlined using patients’ mobile devices where available and within the existing clinic infrastructure. Systems that provide immediate feedback to patients and decision support tools for patients and providers have demonstrated superior outcomes compared to routine SMBG alone. Alternate markers of glucose control may provide complementary information about glucose control and long-term prognosis. This chapter will review the latest evidence for use of professional and personal CGM, mobile glucose monitoring approaches, and biomarkers of glycemic control. For complete coverage of all related areas of Endocrinology, please visit our on-line FREE web-text, WWW.ENDOTEXT.ORG .

Medicine
Impact of continuous glucose monitoring on hospitalizations and glucose control in people with type 2 diabetes: real‐world analysis

Satish K. Garg,Irl B. Hirsch,Enrico Repetto,Janet Snell‐Bergeon,Brian Ulmer,Christopher Perkins,Richard M. Bergenstal

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/dom.15866

2024-09-14

Diabetes Obesity and Metabolism

Abstract:Aim The real‐world benefits of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in the broad type 2 diabetes (T2D) population are not well studied. Our study evaluated the impact of CGM use on health care resource utilization over 12 months in adults with T2D. Materials and Methods This retrospective cohort analysis used Optum's de‐identified Market Clarity data of >79 million people to evaluate CGM use in people with T2D who were treated with non‐insulin (NIT), basal insulin (BIT) and prandial insulin therapy (PIT). The primary outcomes were changes in all‐cause hospitalizations, acute diabetes‐related hospitalizations and acute diabetes‐related emergency room visits during the 6‐ and 12‐month post‐index period following transition from blood glucose monitoring to CGM. A pre‐specified subgroup analysis assessed glucose control and medication changes among people with T2D over 1 year. Results The analysis included 74 679 adults with T2D (NIT; n = 25 269), (BIT; n = 16 264) and (PIT; n = 33 146). Significant reductions in all‐cause hospitalizations, acute diabetes‐related hospitalizations and acute diabetes‐related emergency room visits were observed in the 6‐month post‐index period that were sustained during the 6–12 month post‐index period (NIT, −10.1%, −31.0%, −30.7%; BIT, −13.9%, −47.6%, −28.2%; and PIT, −22.6%, −52.7%, −36.6%, respectively). A subgroup analysis of 6030 people showed mean glycated haemoglobin reductions at approximately 3 months, which were also sustained throughout the post‐index period: NIT, −1.1 (0.05)%; BIT, −1.1 (0.06)%; and PIT, −0.9 (0.04)%, p

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

Robert Dowd,Lauren H Jepson,Courtney R Green,Gregory J Norman,Roy Thomas,Keri Leone

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/43991

2023-01-18

JMIR Diabetes

Abstract:Background: The benefits of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (RT-CGM) are well established for patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and patients with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, the usage and effectiveness of RT-CGM in the context of non–insulin-treated T2D has not been well studied. Objective: We aimed to assess glycemic metrics and rates of RT-CGM feature utilization in users with T1D and non–insulin-treated T2D. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from 33,685 US-based users of an RT-CGM system (Dexcom G6; Dexcom, Inc) who self-identified as having either T1D (n=26,706) or T2D and not using insulin (n=6979). Data included glucose concentrations, alarm settings, feature usage, and event logs. Results: The T1D cohort had lower proportions of glucose values in the 70 mg/dl to 180 mg/dl range than the T2D cohort (52.1% vs 70.8%, respectively), with more values indicating hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia and higher glycemic variability. Discretionary alarms were enabled by a large majority in both cohorts. The data sharing feature was used by 38.7% (10,327/26,706) of those with T1D and 10.4% (727/6979) of those with T2D, and the mean number of followers was higher in the T1D cohort. Large proportions of patients with T1D or T2D enabled and customized their glucose alerts. Retrospective analysis features were used by the majority in both cohorts (T1D: 15,783/26,706, 59.1%; T2D: 3751/6979, 53.8%). Conclusions: Similar to patients with T1D, patients with non–insulin-treated T2D used RT-CGM system features, suggesting beneficial, routine engagement with data by patients and others involved in their care. Motivated patients with diabetes could benefit from RT-CGM coverage.
947-P: Glycemic Control Utilizing Continuous Glucose Monitoring vs. Point-of-Care Testing in Older Adults with Type 2 Diabetes in Long-Term Care Facilities

THAER IDREES,IRIS A. CASTRO-REVOREDO,MONICA D. GAVALLER,HYUNGSEOK OH,ZOHYRA ZABALA,EMMELIN M. MORENO,BOBAK MOAZZAMI,RODOLFO J. GALINDO,ELENA CABB,THEODORE M. JOHNSON,LIMIN PENG,GUILLERMO UMPIERREZ

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2337/db23-947-p

IF: 7.7

2023-06-20

Diabetes

Abstract:We compared the efficacy of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and point of care (POC) testing (standard of care) in assessing glycemic control in older adults with T2D treated with either basal insulin or insulin secretagogues plus sliding scale in long-term care facilities (LTCF). All 97 subjects underwent POC testing before meals and bedtime and wore a Dexcom CGM. Treatment adjustment was performed by the primary care team, with a target glucose of 140-180 mg/dL, and for a duration of intervention up to 60 days. Study endpoints included differences in hypoglycemia < 70 and 54 mg/dL and hyperglycemia > 180 and 250 mg/dL by POC and CGM. Participants baseline characteristics (age: 74.7±11 years, BMI: 29.6±7.9, HbA1c: 8.06±2.2%) admitted to skilled nursing care/subacute rehab (80%) or long-term care (20%) facilities with a median length of participation of 17 (interquartile range 11, 29) days. The mean daily glucose by POC was lower than CGM (171±45 vs. 188±45 mg/dL, p<0.01). CGM detected significant greater proportions of subjects with hypoglycemia <70 mg/dL (40% vs. 14%) and <54 mg/dL (21% vs. 1.0%); as well as hyperglycemia >250 mg/dL (77% vs. 56%) compared to POC testing, all p<0.001. Conclusion: In older adults with T2D admitted to long-term care facilities, the use of CGM significantly improved detection of hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic events compared to POC. Disclosure T.Idrees: None. T.M.Johnson: Consultant; Astellas Pharma Inc., Research Support; Dexcom, Inc. L.Peng: None. G.Umpierrez: Research Support; Abbott, Dexcom, Inc., Baxter. I.A.Castro-revoredo: None. M.D.Gavaller: None. H.Oh: None. Z.Zabala: None. E.M.Moreno: None. B.Moazzami: None. R.J.Galindo: Consultant; Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly and Company, Sanofi, Pfizer Inc., Bayer Inc., WW (Weight Watchers), Research Support; Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly and Company, Dexcom, Inc. E.Cabb: None. Funding Dexcom, Inc. (IIS-2020-119_6X)

endocrinology & metabolism
Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring in the Hospital: A Real-World Experience

Samantha R. Spierling Bagsic,Addie L. Fortmann,Rebekah Belasco,Alessandra Bastian,Suzanne Lohnes,Anna Ritko,Haley Sandoval,Mariya Chichmarenko,Emily C. Soriano,Laura Talavera,Athena Philis-Tsimikas

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/19322968231165982

2023-04-16

Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology

Abstract:Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, Ahead of Print. Background:Glycemic control in the hospital setting is imperative for improving outcomes among patients with diabetes. Bedside point-of-care (POC) glucose monitoring has remained the gold standard for decades, while only providing momentary glimpses into a patient's glycemic control. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has been shown to improve glycemic control in the ambulatory setting. However, a paucity of inpatient experience and data remains a barrier to US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval and expanded/non-research use in the hospital setting.Method:Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the FDA exercised its enforcement discretion to not object to the use of CGM systems for the treatment of patients in hospital settings to support COVID-19 health care–related efforts to reduce viral exposure of health care workers. Following this announcement, Scripps Health, a large not-for-profit health care system in San Diego, California, implemented CGM as the new "standard of care" (CGM as SOC) for glucose monitoring and management in the hospital.Results:The present report serves to (1) detail the implementation procedures for employing this new SOC; (2) describe the patients receiving CGM as SOC, their glycemic control, and hospital outcomes; and (3) share lessons learned over two years and nearly 900 hospital encounters involving CGM.Conclusions:Here, we conclude that CGM is feasible in the hospital setting by using a dedicated diabetes care team and the CGM technology with remote monitoring.

English Else
647-P: Improved Glycemic Control and Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) Utilization: A Comparison of Real-Time CGM and Intermittent Scanning CGM

KATIA HANNAH,POORVA NEMLEKAR,DAVID A. PRICE,GREGORY J. NORMAN

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2337/db22-647-p

IF: 7.7

2022-06-01

Diabetes

Abstract:Evolution of CGM technology has equipped the market with different systems. This study compared two types of CGM devices, real-time (rt) CGM and intermittently scanned (is) CGM on clinical outcomes among persons with diabetes using intensive insulin therapy. A retrospective analysis was performed using Optum Clinformatics® Database comprised of administrative claims data. CGM naïve patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes initiated rtCGM (Dexcom G6®) or isCGM (FreeStyle Libre®) between 8/1/2018 through 3/31/2020 (index date = earliest observed pharmacy claim) . Patients with continuous health plan enrollment 12-months pre and post index date, age ≥18 years, with ≥1 sensor pharmacy claim, with A1C lab values during baseline and follow up were included in the study. Outcomes were the proportion reaching a target A1C of < 7% and the change in number of severe hypoglycemia (SH) inpatient/ER visits. A total of 272 rtCGM (average age = 47.3 (sd = 13.1) years, 46.7% female) and 467 isCGM (average age = 50.9 (sd = 12.7) years, 37.5% female) patients on intensive insulin therapy met inclusion criteria. After adjusting for baseline, rtCGM users were nearly twice as likely, compared to isCGM users, to reach an A1C of < 7% (OR = 1.97, 95% CI, 1.32 to 2.95, p<0.01) . A significant reduction was found in SH events from 40 to 13 after rtCGM initiation (baseline mean = 0.15, sd=0.49; and follow up mean = 0.05, sd=0.23, p<0.01) . For isCGM users SH events reduced from 42 to 32 (mean = 0.09, sd=0.44; and follow up mean 0.07, sd=0.35, p=0.239) . Findings suggest CGM naïve patients benefit from rtCGM compared to isCGM through significantly greater numbers achieving A1C < 7%. Improved access to rtCGM should help more patients achieve optimal glycemic control and reduce health care encounters due to SH. Disclosure K.Hannah: Employee; Dexcom, Inc. P.Nemlekar: None. D.A.Price: Employee; Dexcom, Inc. G.J.Norman: Employee; Dexcom, Inc.

endocrinology & metabolism
Enhancement of Ambulatory Glucose Profile for Decision Assistance and Treatment Adjustments

V. K. R. Rajeswari Satuluri,Vijayakumar Ponnusamy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14040436

IF: 3.6

2024-02-17

Diagnostics

Abstract:The ambulatory glucose profile (AGP) lacks sufficient statistical metrics and insightful graphs; indeed, it is missing important information on the temporal patterns of glucose variations. The AGP graph is difficult to interpret due to the overlapping metrics and fluctuations in glucose levels over 14 days. The objective of this proposed work is to overcome these challenges, specifically the lack of insightful information and difficulty in interpreting AGP graphs, to create a platform for decision assistance. The present work proposes 20 findings built from decision rules that were developed from a combination of AGP metrics and additional statistical metrics, which have the potential to identify patterns and insightful information on hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia. The "CGM Trace" webpage was developed, in which insightful metrics and graphical representations can be used to make inferences regarding the glucose data of any user. However, doctors (endocrinologists) can access the "Findings" tab for a summarized presentation of their patients' glycemic control. The findings were implemented for 67 patients' data, in which the data of 15 patients were collected from a clinical study and the data of 52 patients were gathered from a public dataset. The findings were validated by means of MANOVA (multivariate analysis of variance), wherein a p value of < 0.05 was obtained, depicting a strong significant correlation between the findings and the metrics. The proposed work from "CGM Trace" offers a deeper understanding of the CGM data, enhancing AGP reports for doctors to make treatment adjustments based on insightful information and hidden patterns for better diabetic management.

medicine, general & internal
1050-P: Implementation of Professional Continuous Glucose Monitoring in VA Primary Care Clinics

KATHLEEN SAREN,APRIL L. RAULERSON,SYLVIA FINCH,JULIO A. LEEY

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2337/db23-1050-p

IF: 7.7

2023-06-20

Diabetes

Abstract:Background: Professional continuous glucose monitoring (proCGM) can be used sporadically for patients who do not meet criteria for Personal CGM. The interdisciplinary nature of primary care teams from Veterans Affairs Community Based Outpatient Clinics (CBOCs) represents a good opportunity for implementation of proCGM technology to improve glycemic control. Objectives: To assess treatment changes prompted by proCGM implementation. Methods: Veterans with suboptimal glycemic control (A1c >7.5% or hypoglycemia) who did not qualify for a personal CGM had a proCGM placed during office visit. Two weeks later, the proCGM was downloaded during a follow-up visit and changes were implemented as needed. Results: Thirty-eight sensors were placed in 36 patients (two patients repeat after sensor fell off) seen by clinical pharmacists from 5 CBOCs from North Florida/South Georgia VA Health System. Baseline A1c was 8.1% (SD 1.3), proCGM data was available in 91% of patients. Mean duration of sensors was 13 days (SD 3.3). In 36% of patients, there was insulin de-intensification, mainly because of hypoglycemic events. In 6% of patients, an oral agent was discontinued because their time in range was above 90% and side effect profile (weight gain). About 18% of veterans needed insulin intensification, either adding short acting insulin or increasing basal insulin. Overall, significant treatments changes were implemented in 60% of patients, thus, avoiding clinical inertia. High glucose variability (% coefficient of variation >33%) was present in 45% of veterans and two thirds of them required de-intensification of their insulin regimen due to hypoglycemia. Conclusions: Implementation of proCGM in primary care clinics led to treatment changes in 60% of patients. This improvement project demonstrated feasibility of deploying new diabetes technologies in primary care setting. Disclosure K.Saren: None. A.L.Raulerson: None. S.Finch: None. J.A.Leey: None. Funding U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Rural Health

endocrinology & metabolism
Continuous glucose monitoring and metrics for clinical trials: an international consensus statement

Tadej Battelino,Charles M Alexander,Stephanie A Amiel,Guillermo Arreaza-Rubin,Roy W Beck,Richard M Bergenstal,Bruce A Buckingham,James Carroll,Antonio Ceriello,Elaine Chow,Pratik Choudhary,Kelly Close,Thomas Danne,Sanjoy Dutta,Robert Gabbay,Satish Garg,Julie Heverly,Irl B Hirsch,Tina Kader,Julia Kenney,Boris Kovatchev,Lori Laffel,David Maahs,Chantal Mathieu,Dídac Mauricio,Revital Nimri,Rimei Nishimura,Mauro Scharf,Stefano Del Prato,Eric Renard,Julio Rosenstock,Banshi Saboo,Kohjiro Ueki,Guillermo E Umpierrez,Stuart A Weinzimer,Moshe Phillip

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(22)00319-9

Abstract:Randomised controlled trials and other prospective clinical studies for novel medical interventions in people with diabetes have traditionally reported HbA1c as the measure of average blood glucose levels for the 3 months preceding the HbA1c test date. The use of this measure highlights the long-established correlation between HbA1c and relative risk of diabetes complications; the change in the measure, before and after the therapeutic intervention, is used by regulators for the approval of medications for diabetes. However, with the increasing use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in clinical practice, prospective clinical studies are also increasingly using CGM devices to collect data and evaluate glucose profiles among study participants, complementing HbA1c findings, and further assess the effects of therapeutic interventions on HbA1c. Data is collected by CGM devices at 1-5 min intervals, which obtains data on glycaemic excursions and periods of asymptomatic hypoglycaemia or hyperglycaemia (ie, details of glycaemic control that are not provided by HbA1c concentrations alone that are measured continuously and can be analysed in daily, weekly, or monthly timeframes). These CGM-derived metrics are the subject of standardised, internationally agreed reporting formats and should, therefore, be considered for use in all clinical studies in diabetes. The purpose of this consensus statement is to recommend the ways CGM data might be used in prospective clinical studies, either as a specified study endpoint or as supportive complementary glucose metrics, to provide clinical information that can be considered by investigators, regulators, companies, clinicians, and individuals with diabetes who are stakeholders in trial outcomes. In this consensus statement, we provide recommendations on how to optimise CGM-derived glucose data collection in clinical studies, including the specific glucose metrics and specific glucose metrics that should be evaluated. These recommendations have been endorsed by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the American Diabetes Association, the Association of Diabetes Care and Education Specialists, DiabetesIndia, the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes, the Japanese Diabetes Society, and the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. A standardised approach to CGM data collection and reporting in clinical trials will encourage the use of these metrics and enhance the interpretability of CGM data, which could provide useful information other than HbA1c for informing therapeutic and treatment decisions, particularly related to hypoglycaemia, postprandial hyperglycaemia, and glucose variability.
Health Care Costs, Hospital Admissions, and Glycemic Control Using a Standalone, Real-Time, Continuous Glucose Monitoring System in Commercially Insured Patients With Type 1 Diabetes

Max Gill,Cyrus Zhu,Mona Shah,Harmeet Chhabra

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1932296818777265

2018-05-08

Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology

Abstract:Background: Studies comparing standalone real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) to self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) have found that rtCGM is associated with lower glycated hemoglobin (A1C) levels, yet does not increase the risk of severe hypoglycemia. However, little is known about the relationship between rtCGM and health care costs and utilization. The objective of this study was to compare health care spending, hospital admissions, and A1C levels of patients using rtCGM to that of patients not using rtCGM. Methods: This retrospective, cross-sectional analysis used a large repository of health plan administrative data to compare average health care costs (excluding durable medical equipment), hospital admissions, and A1C levels of those using rtCGM (N = 1027) versus not using rtCGM (N = 32 583). To control for potentially confounding variables, a propensity score method was used to match patients using rtCGM to those not using rtCGM, based on characteristics such as age, gender, and comorbidities. Results: Patients using rtCGM spent an average of approximately $4200 less in total health care costs, when compared to patients not using rtCGM ( P < .05). They also experienced fewer hospital admissions ( P < .05) and lower A1C ( P < .05) during the postindex year. Conclusions: Use of rtCGM by patients with T1DM is associated with lower health care costs, fewer hospital admissions, and better glycemic control.
Continuous and Intermittent Glucose Monitoring in 2023

Klemen Dovc,Bruce W Bode,Tadej Battelino,Bruce W. Bode

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2024.2502

2024-03-06

Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics

Abstract:In the last few years, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has established its pivotal role in individuals with diabetes treated with insulin. Recently, studies have evaluated a broadening role of CGM beyond insulin dosing titration guidance: CGM has been considered as a diagnostic tool for staging of (pre)type 1 diabetes (T1D), for therapy modification guidance for non-insulin-treated individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D), or as an outcome measure for clinical trials.

endocrinology & metabolism
Association of Race and Ethnicity with Prescriptions for Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems Among a National Sample of Veterans with Diabetes on Insulin Therapy

Kasia J Lipska,Carol Oladele,Kelson Zawack,Barbara Gulanski,Pradeep Mutalik,Peter Reaven,Julie A Lynch,Kyung Min Lee,Mei-Chiung Shih,Jennifer S Lee,Mihaela Aslan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2024.0152

2024-08-23

Abstract:Introduction and Objective: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) can improve glycemic control in people with diabetes on insulin therapy. We assessed rates of prescriptions for CGM in a national sample of Veterans across subgroups defined by race and ethnicity. Methods: This cross-sectional analysis of data from the U.S. Veterans Health Administration included adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes on insulin therapy. Main exposures included self-reported race and ethnicity, and primary outcome was the percentage of patients with at least one CGM prescription between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2021. Association of race and ethnicity categories with CGM prescription was examined using multilevel, multivariable mixed-effects models. Results: Among 368,794 patients on insulin (mean age, 68.5 years; 96% male; 96.8% type 2 diabetes; 0.8% American Indian or Alaska Native, 0.7% Asian, 18.9% Black or African American, 0.9% Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, 70.2% White, 2.8% multiracial, 5.7% with unknown race, and 7.0% Hispanic or Latino ethnicity), 11.2% were prescribed CGM. CGM was prescribed for 10.4% American Indian or Alaska Native, 9.7% Asian, 9.2% Black or African American, 9.3% Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, 11.8% White, 11.8% multiracial, and 10.1% patients with unknown race. CGM was prescribed for 8.3% Hispanic or Latino, 11.4% non-Hispanic, and 11.5% of patients with unknown ethnicity. After accounting for patient-, clinical-, and system-level factors, Black or African American patients had significantly lower odds of CGM prescription compared with White patients (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59-0.64), whereas Hispanic or Latino patients had significantly lower odds compared with non-Hispanic patients (aOR 0.79, 95% CI 0.74-0.84). Findings were consistent across subgroups with clinical indications for CGM use. Conclusions: Among Veterans with diabetes on insulin therapy, there were significant disparities in prescribing of CGM technology by race and ethnicity, which require further study and intervention.

Assessing Patterns of CGM use and Metrics of Glycemic Control in T1D and T2D Patients in the Veterans Healthcare System: Integrating CGM Device Data with EHR Data

The Potential Impact of CGM Use on Diabetes-Related Attitudes and Behaviors in Adults with T2D: A Qualitative Investigation of the Patient Experience

1137-P: Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) Use and Its Impact on Glycemic Control and Acute Complications among Older-Onset Type 1 Diabetes Patients Within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA)

CGM-derived glucometrics in adults with type 1 diabetes when switching basal insulins.

Beyond Glucose Monitoring: Multianalyte Sensor Use in Diabetes.

Clinical Targets for Continuous Glucose Monitoring Data Interpretation: Recommendations From the International Consensus on Time in Range

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

Exploring the Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Pediatric Diabetes: Current Practices, Innovative Metrics, and Future Implications

131-LB: Diabetes and Disparities in Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Community Health Care Settings

Monitoring Technologies – Continuous Glucose Monitoring, Mobile Technology, Biomarkers of Glycemic Control

Impact of continuous glucose monitoring on hospitalizations and glucose control in people with type 2 diabetes: real‐world analysis

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

947-P: Glycemic Control Utilizing Continuous Glucose Monitoring vs. Point-of-Care Testing in Older Adults with Type 2 Diabetes in Long-Term Care Facilities

Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring in the Hospital: A Real-World Experience

647-P: Improved Glycemic Control and Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) Utilization: A Comparison of Real-Time CGM and Intermittent Scanning CGM

Enhancement of Ambulatory Glucose Profile for Decision Assistance and Treatment Adjustments

1050-P: Implementation of Professional Continuous Glucose Monitoring in VA Primary Care Clinics

Continuous glucose monitoring and metrics for clinical trials: an international consensus statement

Health Care Costs, Hospital Admissions, and Glycemic Control Using a Standalone, Real-Time, Continuous Glucose Monitoring System in Commercially Insured Patients With Type 1 Diabetes

Continuous and Intermittent Glucose Monitoring in 2023

Association of Race and Ethnicity with Prescriptions for Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems Among a National Sample of Veterans with Diabetes on Insulin Therapy