5040 Leveraging Continuous Glucose Monitoring Data as an Additional Source for Glucagon Prescription Behavior

Abstract

Abstract Disclosure: J. Ambalavanan: None. J. Rusticelli: None. D. Isaacs: Consulting Fee; Self; Medtronic Diabetes, Lilly USA, LLC, Novo Nordisk, Insulet Corporation, Abbott Laboratories, Dexcom. H. Xiao: None. J. Bena: None. Z. Jin: None. C. Babiuch: None. M. Lansang: Consulting Fee; Self; Glooko. Research Investigator; Self; Abbott Laboratories, Dexcom, Xeris. Background: Hypoglycemia is a major source of anxiety in, and can be life-threatening for, patients with diabetes (DM). Even though the American Diabetes Association (ADA) recommends glucagon be made available to all individuals taking insulin or at high risk for hypoglycemia (level E evidence), few patients have access to this life-saving medication. Given the rapid adoption of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in the management of DM, we aimed to 1) evaluate glucagon prescription by identifying patients with hypoglycemia on CGM reports, and 2) deliver an educational letter to the providers. Methods: Our study had a retrospective chart review and a quality improvement (QI) component. From Mar-Oct 2023, we identified adult patients in the Cleveland Clinic Ohio health system with type 1 or type 2 DM on insulin (including insulin pumps), sulfonylurea, or meglitinide, and hypoglycemia defined as time below range (TBR) ≥4% on CGM reports. We evaluated the percentages of pre-existing and incident glucagon prescription among those patients. For the QI component, we contacted providers individually via letter if the patients did not have a glucagon prescription and shared with them the ADA Standards of Care on hypoglycemia along with information about various forms of glucagon. Whether to prescribe glucagon was left to the clinical judgement of the providers. Information was collected 4 weeks later to see whether there was any change in the prescription practice. Results: Patients numbered 1543, with170 patients having TBR ≥4%. Among patients with hypoglycemia, 37% had pre-existing prescription and 14% incident glucagon prescription, compared with patients without hypoglycemia (p<0.001). Significant (p<0.001) risk factors for hypoglycemia included type 1 DM, insulin-only therapy, use of conventional insulin pumps, and lower A1c. Among patients with TBR ≥4%, 66 (39%) had level 1 hypoglycemia (54 to <70 mg/dl), 88 (52%) had level 2, and 16 (9%) had level 3 (hospitalization or ER admission for hypoglycemia). Pre-existing or incident glucagon prescription was seen in 28% without hypoglycemia, 38% with level 1 hypoglycemia, 49% with level 2, and 63% with level 3 (p<0.001 level 1 vs level 3; level 2 vs no hypoglycemia; level 3 vs no hypoglycemia). Among 70 patients whose providers received education letters, 27 (39%) prescribed glucagon after education. Glucagon emergency kit, glucagon autoinjector, and inhaled glucagon were the top prescription choices. A greater proportion of advanced practice providers responded to our education than physicians (p=0.021). Conclusion: Glucagon prescription remains suboptimal though better than in other studies even among patients with documented hypoglycemia on CGM reports. Effective provider education and communication can increase glucagon prescription. Provider and patient factors should be studied next to determine steps for further improvement. Presentation: 6/1/2024