Continuous Glucose Monitoring Users Research Articles

Does Current Diabetes Technology Improve Metabolic Control? A Cross-Sectional Study on the Use of Insulin Pumps and Continuous Glucose Monitoring Devices in a Nationwide Pediatric Population.

ObjectiveTo examine the use of multiple daily injections (MDI), insulin pumps, self-measured blood glucose (SMBG), and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems, and their association with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), and severe hypoglycemia.MethodsIn a pediatric population-based nationwide cross-sectional study, we analyzed data from 2623 participants up to 18 years of age with type 1 diabetes, using 2017 annual data from the Norwegian Childhood Diabetes Registry. HbA1c was adjusted for age, gender, and diabetes duration. Using a linear mixed-effects model, we assessed HbA1c and the incidence of DKA and severe hypoglycemia according to the use of MDI, insulin pumps, SMBG, and CGM.ResultsWe observed that 74.7% of participants were using an insulin pump and 52.6% were using a CGM system. Mean HbA1c was 7.8% (62 mmol/mol). The HbA1c of pump users was 0.14 percentage points (pp) higher than that of MDI users. Fewer pump users than MDI users achieved an HbA1c of < 7.5% (38.3 vs. 41.6%). CGM users had a 0.18 pp lower HbA1c than SMBG users, with 40.5 and 38.0%, respectively, achieving an HbA1c of < 7.5%. The incidence of severe hypoglycemia or hospitalization due to DKA was not different in pump and CGM users compared with nonusers. Compared with other insulin pumps, patch pump use was associated with a significantly lower odds ratio for DKA.ConclusionsDespite the broad use of diabetes technology, as many as 61% of our pediatric cohort did not reach the HbA1c target recommended by the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD). Lower HbA1c was associated with CGM use but not with insulin pump use. Acute complications were not less frequent in the groups using insulin pumps or CGM compared with those using MDI and SMBG. Further research is required to explore the lower incidence of DKA among patch pump users.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04201171.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13300-021-01127-6.

Impact of continuous glucose monitoring on improving emotional well‑being among adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta‑analysis.

Real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has changed the way people with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and health care providers perceive diabetes management and glucose control. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the emotional well-being of adults with T1DM who used CGM and those using conventional self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). The MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Library / Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, and ProQuest databases were searched for relevant publications. Primary outcome measures were health-related quality of life, glycemic control, and fear of hypoglycemia. Randomized controlled trials and survey studies focused on the quality of life and fear of hypoglycemia among adult patients using CGM and SMBG were included in the analysis. The meta-analysis included 11 studies involving a total of 1228 patients with T1DM. Analysis of the Worry subscale of the Hypoglycemia Fear Survey indicated a reduction of hypoglycemia fear in CGM users compared with SMBG users (Cohen d = –0.24; 95% CI, –0.41 to –0.07; mean difference, –3.15; 95% CI, –5.48 to –0.82). Outcome analysis of studies including the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire showed Cohen d of 0.23 (95% CI, –0.18 to 0.63). The overall value of Cohen d equaled –0.24 (95% CI, –0.57 to 0.09), indicating a lack of effect of CGM use on improving HbA1c levels; however, after one of the studies was excluded from calculations, the reduction of HbA1c levels was significantly higher in CGM users (Cohen d = –0.33; 95% CI, –0.66 to 0.00; P = 0.047). This is the first quantitative meta-analysis of studies involving adult patients exclusively with T1DM, providing further evidence for the ability of CGM systems to reduce fear of hypoglycemia and improve quality of life. Continuous glucose monitoring systems have advantage over SMBG in adults with T1DM and improve HbA1c levels.

163-LB: Differences in Maternal and Fetal Outcomes by CGM Use in a T1D Specialty Clinic

Pregnancies associated with T1D have increased risks of adverse maternal and fetal outcomes, though continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has been associated with significant reductions in the latter. We examined the clinical effectiveness of CGM in T1D pregnancies in a real-world setting. We retrospectively identified T1D pregnancies managed with either CGM therapy (n=81) or self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) (n=77) over a 6.5-year period (1/1/14 to 8/31/20) at the Barbara Davis Center (BDC) for T1D and at obstetric practices in Colorado and Wyoming for obstetric care. CGM use was defined as ≥60% wear in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters of pregnancy. Baseline characteristics and maternal/fetal outcomes data were obtained from the BDC electronic medical record system and the vital statistics departments of Colorado and Wyoming. We used student’s t-test for continuous variables and chi-squared test for categorical variables to compare outcomes between groups. At baseline, a significantly higher proportion of CGM users were commercially insured and CGM users had a lower HbA1C at the first pregnancy visit (Table 1). CGM users had significantly lower levels of mean HbA1C in all trimesters, infants with lower mean birth weights (grams and percentile) and lower rates of large-for-gestational-age infants (Table 2). CGM use was associated with significantly improved maternal glucose control and neonatal outcomes in T1D pregnancies. Disclosure V. Gao: None. L. Sher: None. J. K. Snell-bergeon: Stock/Shareholder; Self; GlaxoSmithKline plc. E. Malecha: None. E. Westfeldt: None. P. Sullivan: Research Support; Self; Dexcom, Inc. S. Polsky: Advisory Panel; Self; Medtronic, Consultant; Self; National Institutes of Health, Research Support; Self; Dexcom, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, JDRF, Medtronic, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Sanofi US, T1D Exchange. Funding Dexcom, Inc. (IIS-2019-096)

28-LB: RTCGM Performance at Different Sensor Wear Sites during Prolonged Aerobic Exercise

Strenuous exercise may disrupt the local equilibria between vascular and interstitial glucose concentrations. We measured interstitial glucose levels during aerobic exercise in different anatomical regions with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) sensors and compared them to capillary blood glucose (BG) levels. We enrolled 10 individuals, 7 with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and 3 without (healthy volunteers), for a 50-mile bicycle ride. Three CGM sensors (Dexcom G6) were placed on each participant, with one each in the upper arm, abdomen and thigh. BG values were obtained at the start of the ride and every 30 minutes thereafter. Accuracy of CGM levels was assessed for each insertion site as the mean absolute relative difference (MARD) and bias versus contemporaneous BG levels. Table shows that arm-worn sensors were more accurate in terms of MARD, and also had smaller numerical bias, than sensors placed in either the abdomen or thigh. Sensor accuracy was not significantly affected by the presence or absence of a diabetes diagnosis and accuracy metrics were consistent with those reported in the device’s instructions for use. CGM users may benefit from wearing sensors on the arm during sustained bicycle rides.View largeDownload slideView largeDownload slide DisclosureM. Mueller-korbsch: Research Support; Self; Dexcom, Inc., Menarini Group, Novo Nordisk Inc. L. Fruehwald: None. M. Heer: None. G. Rega-kaun: None. M. Fangmeyer-binder: None. P. Fasching: None.

147-OR: Use of Closed-Loop Insulin Therapy in Older Adults with Type 1 Diabetes: Real-World Experience

Background: Closed-loop control insulin delivery systems (CLC) have been available to adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) for many years. However, for older adults with T1D, Tandem Control IQ is the first CLC available through Medicare. We evaluated the use of CLC in older adults with T1D in a real-world scenario. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed electronic health record (EHR) data for older adults (&amp;gt;65) with T1D started on CLC in a single tertiary center between January and December 2020. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data from the 2 weeks prior (baseline) and 2 weeks post CLC system (post-CLC) initiation were analyzed. We evaluated glycemic measures, including coefficient of variation (CV) for glucose variability and glucose management indicator (GMI) for overall glycemic control. Demographic, clinical and diabetes technology data were gathered from EHR. Results: We present interim data from 25 older adults (Mean age 69±4 yrs, duration of diabetes 43±13 yrs) who started using CLC over the 12 month period. Overall, 23/25 were prior pump users, and 23/25 were prior CGM users. Only 2/25 discontinued CLC use. Comparison of CGM metrics measured at baseline vs. post-CLC showed an increase in Time in Range (TIR) from 63±13% to 77±9% (p&amp;lt;0.001) and a reduction in time &amp;gt;180 mg/dL from 30±12% to 18±9% (p=0.004). While there was a trend in decrease of time &amp;lt;70 mg/dL from baseline to post-CLC, this change was not statistically significant (2.8±2.4% vs. 2.2±2.5% (p=0.5)). CV improved from 0.33±0.04% to 0.30±0.04% (p=0.04) and GMI decreased from 7.0±0.5% to 6.7±0.4% (p=0.06). CLC use averaged 92% of the time over 2 weeks. Conclusion: In a small cohort of older adults with T1D using CLC in a real-world scenario, the majority of the cohort was able to use the system successfully, resulting in a higher TIR and improved glycemic variability, as seen by a decrease in CV over a 3 month period. Thus, CLC has the potential to improve glycemic outcomes in this elderly population. Disclosure E. Toschi: Consultant; Self; Medtronic. C. Slyne: None. A. Atakov-castillo: None. M. Munshi: Consultant; Self; Sanofi. Funding National Institutes of Health (1DP3DK112214-01)

PDB45 Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) Trends Among US Adults with Type I Diabetes in National Health and Wellness Survey (NHWS)

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), an alternative to self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) for adults with type I or type II diabetes, has continued to improve in both accuracy and accessibility since first approved by the FDA in 1999. This study examined trends in CGM among US adults with type I diabetes from 2017 to 2020. Data on US adults were analyzed from the 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 National Health and Wellness Survey (NHWS), a nationally-representative, cross-sectional online survey. Analysis sample from each year included respondents who self-reported both diagnosis of type I diabetes and use of insulin. Results were weighted to be representative of the US population. Among US adults with type I diabetes, self-reported use of any glucose tester or monitor was 94.3% in 2017, 94.4% in 2018, 91.8% in 2019, and 92.6% in 2020. Among these adults, self-reported use of CGM was 36.0% in 2017, 38.4% in 2018, 44.8% in 2019, and 55.3% in 2020. Overall, across all adults with type I diabetes, use of CGM increased from 33.9% to 51.2% over the last four years. Among US adults with type I diabetes in 2020, those using CGM were younger on average than those using SMBG (43.0±1.07 vs. 47.3±1.54; p=0.004). Similarly, when compared to all other adults with type I diabetes, those using CGM were more likely to be married/living with a partner (62.3% vs. 49.1%; p=0.012) and have a lower average Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) (1.54±0.11 vs. 2.30±0.34; p=0.007). In a broadly representative US population of adults with type I diabetes, self-reported use of CGM increased from 33.9% to 51.2% from 2017 to 2020, becoming the preferred glucose test or monitor. Comparisons of CGM users versus those using SMBG indicated a significant age gap.

Characteristics Associated With Diabetes Device Use Among Youth With Type 1 Diabetes

Type 1 diabetes (T1D) is a common illness of childhood, requiring lifelong, daily complex management to prevent acute and chronic complications. Studies have shown that use of insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitors (CGM) offers benefit for glycemic control. However, such device use is not universal in adolescents. We aimed to compare baseline socio-demographic and diabetes characteristics associated with diabetes technology (pump and CGM) uptake and continued use in 13-17 year old teens with T1D. Data were derived from a multicenter clinical trial aimed at optimizing self-care and glycemic control in teens with T1D. Socio-demographic and diabetes data were collected quarterly by parent-youth interview and electronic medical record review prospectively over 18 months. Chi-square and t-tests compared characteristics of device and non-device users (pump vs no pump; CGM vs no CGM). The study sample comprised 301 teens (41% male) with mean±SD age 15.0±1.3 years, T1D duration 6.5±3.7 years, and A1c 8.5±1.1%. Most (65%) used a pump at entry or initiated pump therapy during the study; 35% used injection therapy at entry or stopped pump therapy. In contrast, 27% used a CGM at entry or started a CGM during the study, while 73% never used or stopped using CGM. Device users at entry and those who began use had similar characteristics, as did those who never used and those who discontinued device use. Pump users were more likely to use CGM than non-pump users (36% vs 10%, p<.0001). Neither age, sex, nor T1D duration was related to pump or CGM use. Pump users (vs non-pump users) were less likely to have another medical condition (44% vs 59%, p=.01) and more likely to be non-Hispanic white (83% vs 61%, p=.0001); have family annual household income ≥$150,000 (34% vs 19%, p=.0003), private health insurance (92% vs 74%, p<.0001), a parent with college education or higher (67% vs 46%, p=.0005), and a 2-parent household (88% vs 78%, p=.03). Pump users also had lower z-BMI (0.73±0.80 vs 0.97±0.79, p=.01), performed more frequent daily BG monitoring (4.8±1.8 vs 3.9±2.0, p<.0001), and were less likely to have HbA1c ≥9% at initial and last visits (25% vs 43%, p=.005; 31% vs 49%, p=.01). CGM users (vs non-CGM users) were more likely to be non-Hispanic white (88% vs 70%, p=.009); have family annual household income ≥$150,000 (44% vs 23%, p=.0001), a parent with college education or higher (78% vs 53%, p=.0004), and private health insurance (95% vs 82%, p=.005). CGM users also performed more frequent daily BG monitoring (5.2±1.9 vs 4.2±1.9, p=.0002) and were less likely to have HbA1c ≥9% after 18 months (27% vs 42%, p=.03). In summary, we found distinct socio-demographic and diabetes-specific factors associated with device use in adolescents with T1D. These findings provide an opportunity to address barriers associated with device non-use in order to expand device implementation, especially in underserved adolescents with T1D.

The Use of Omnipod® 5 Automated Insulin Delivery System in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes With Suboptimal Glycemic Management: From Injections to Closed-Loop Therapy

Advances in automated insulin delivery (AID), integrating continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), insulin pump therapy, and dynamic insulin modulation, have mostly centered on type 1 diabetes. Very little data exists to characterize the use of AID in adults with type 2 diabetes in the outpatient setting despite the significant burden of disease. The increasing adoption of diabetes technology by this heterogenous population suggests that clinical evaluation of AID in type 2 diabetes is necessary. In this study, we seek to enroll adults with type 2 diabetes, previously on either multiple daily injections (MDI) or basal insulin only (pump naïve), both CGM users and CGM naïve, with A1C > 8%, to start AID using the tubeless, on-body Omnipod 5 system with insulin pod and Dexcom G6 sensor. This system has the novel feature1 of customizable glucose targets from 110-150mg/dL, which is useful for gradual reduction of mean glucose levels in patients acclimated to hyperglycemic ranges. In addition, the system adapts to the persistent hyperglycemia commonly seen in type 2 diabetes by increasing insulin delivery with each pod change. This feasibility study will enroll a minimum of 24 participants, following them through a 2-week baseline assessment and then an 8-week period of Omnipod 5 use in Automated Mode, all via the outpatient setting.To date, 3 participants have enrolled and are currently using the system: age (mean±SD) 54±12y, weight 79.7±9.0kg, baseline A1C 9.3±0.2% (range 9.1–9.5%), and duration of diabetes 18.3±12.4y. Previous anti-hyperglycemic agents including metformin and GLP-1R agonists were continued.Participants have used Omnipod 5 in Automated Mode ranging from 26 to 53 days. In the preliminary analysis of Automated Mode use, mean glucose of 194±33 mg/dL was achieved, corresponding to a glucose management indicator (GMI) of 8.0±0.8%. Time in range, 70-180mg/dL, was 49.0±19.2%, time <70mg/dL was 0.2±0.2%, >180mg/dL was 50.8±19.4%, and ≥250mg/dL was 19.3±15.6%. Average total daily insulin use was 77.9±41.4 units/day. In the most recent 14 days of use, GMI was further decreased to 7.6±0.5%, and time in range further increased to 57.6±14.1%. There have been no serious adverse events, including severe hypoglycemia, reported in over 110 person-days of system use to date.At completion, this study will provide a novel evaluation of the safety and effectiveness of AID in adults with type 2 diabetes with suboptimal glycemic management, despite the concomitant use of adjuvant anti-hyperglycemic agents.Reference: 1. Forlenza et. al. First outpatient evaluation of a tubeless automated insulin delivery system with customizable glucose targets in children and adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther 2021.

Should Target Glucose Values Be Increased to Avoid Severe Hypoglycemia? Real-World Data Say “No.”

Early studies such as the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial showed a strong inverse relationship between A1C and the risk of severe hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetes. This risk has historically limited insulin therapy intensification efforts, and some treatment guidelines (e.g., Rosenzweig et al., J Clin Endocrinol Metab 105:969, 2020) suggest that A1C values <7% confer an increased risk of hypoglycemia. Nowadays, real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems can flatten and attenuate the relationship between overall glucose control and hypoglycemia (Oliver et al., Diabetes Care 43:53, 2020). The glucose management indicator (GMI) is an estimate of A1C derived from the CGM system’s mean estimated glucose value (EGV) (Bergenstal et al., Diabetes Care 41:2275, 2018). We analyzed real-world evidence of the relationship between the GMI and exposure to hypoglycemia. Data were from an anonymized convenience sample of US-based users of the G6 CGM system (Dexcom, Inc., San Diego, CA) who used a mobile device to upload EGVs in the third quarter of 2020. Only data from people who had uploaded ≥80% of possible values were included. Each person’s GMI was calculated as GMI = 3.31 + (0.02392 × mean EGV [mg/dL]). Each person’s exposure to hypoglycemia was estimated as the percentage of EGVs <70 mg/dL or <54 mg/dL (%<70 and %<54, respectively). Patients were grouped into 6 categories according to GMI values <6.5%, 6.5 to 6.9%, 7.0 to 7.4%, 7.5 to 7.9%, 8.0 to 8.4%, and ≥8.5%. Mean %<70 mg/dL and %<54 mg/dL were both inversely correlated with GMI, decreasing monotonically as the GMI category increased. GMI category, %<70, and %<54 are as follows: (<6.5%: 5.27%, 1.13%); (6.5 to 6.9%: 2.84%, 0.59%); (7.0 to 7.4%: 1.95%, 0.41%); (7.5 to 7.9%: 1.46%, 0.31%); (8.0 to 8.4%: 1.14%, 0.25%); (≥8.5%: 0.69%, 0.17%). However, in all GMI categories except for the “<6.5%” category, the extent of hypoglycemic exposure was below the consensus targets proposed by Battelino et al. (Diabetes Care 42:1593, 2019) of <4% for EGVs <70 mg/dL and <1% for EGVs <54 mg/dL. The approach of elevating A1C targets to reduce hypoglycemia risk is not supported by real-world evidence for CGM users who have GMI or A1C values ≥6.5%. CGM users can safely strive for A1C values <7.0%.

The CGM Experience of Minority Adults With Type 1 Diabetes in the South Bronx

Objective: To describe the state of type 1 diabetes (T1D) in minority adults in the South Bronx, and their experience with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). Introduction: In a recent analysis of data from the Type 1 Diabetes Exchange Registry, one notable finding was the difference in metabolic control and use of diabetes technology in patients of different socioeconomic status and racial/ethnic backgrounds. With limited data available on Hispanic and Black patients, we sought to examine the use of and experience with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in our hospital system, which primarily serves a low-income, minority population in the South Bronx. Methods: 68 adults with T1D who attended the Endocrinology clinic at our hospital from 2017 to 2019 were identified. Patients were contacted by telephone to complete a questionnaire regarding CGM use and satisfaction. A retrospective chart review was conducted to obtain additional demographic and clinical information. Results: Out of 68 patients with T1D in the hospital database who were contacted, 47 patients completed the questionnaire. The age range was 23 to 63 years. 42.6% were male. 59.6% were Hispanic, 19.1% Black/African American (AA), 4.3% Caucasian, and 17% not specified. 87.2% had public insurance. Overall, 48.9% of patients were actively using CGM, 19.1% had discontinued use of CGM, and 31.9% had never used CGM. In Hispanic patients using CGM, mean HbA1C was 8.2% compared to 10.1% in Hispanic non-users. In Black/AA patients using CGM, mean HbA1C was 9.2% compared to 9.9% in Black/AA non-users. Hospitalizations for acute diabetes complications were lower in CGM users (4.3%) compared to non-CGM users (16.7%). Among active CGM users, 74% rated their satisfaction as “extremely satisfied” or “very satisfied.” Perceived benefits included the prevention of hypoglycemia and awareness of inappropriate food intake. Discussion: Our study population, mainly comprised of Hispanic and Black T1D adults, showed a higher CGM utilization rate than previously reported. After stratification by socioeconomic status, CGM utilization was reported to be as low as 16% in Hispanic and 10% in Black patients with household income <$50,000/year in the T1D Exchange Registry. By comparison, 49% of our studied population possessing similar demographics was actively using CGM. This study demonstrated that CGM acceptance was high in this largely minority, low-income population in the South Bronx, and was associated with lower A1C levels, high degree of patient satisfaction and reduction in diabetes-related hospitalizations. However, glycemic control remained suboptimal overall despite CGM access. Additional strategies to optimize the utility of CGM are needed to improve clinical outcomes such as HbA1C levels in minority T1D patients.

2020 NICE guideline update: Good news for pregnant women with type 1 diabetes and past or current gestational diabetes.

In December 2020, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) reviewed the evidence and updated their recommendations on intermittently scanned (commonly known as Flash) and Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) during pregnancy for women with type 1 diabetes (1). The NICE guidelines now recommend offering CGM to all pregnant women with type 1 diabetes to help them meet their pregnancy glucose targets and improve neonatal outcomes. Their evidence review, based on the CONCEPTT randomised trial (2) and a Swedish observational study (3) found that, compared to capillary glucose monitoring, CGM resulted in more women achieving their blood glucose targets, fewer caesarean sections and fewer neonatal intensive care admissions.

Effect of an Integrated, Multidisciplinary Nationwide Approach to Type 1 Diabetes Care on Metabolic Outcomes: An Observational Real-World Study.

Objective: Achieving good metabolic control in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) remains a challenge, despite the evolutions in diabetes technologies over the past decade. Here we investigate the evolution of metabolic control in people with T1D, where care is provided by specialized centers with access to technology, diabetes education, and regular follow-up. Methods: Data were cross-sectionally collected between 2010 and 2018 from more than 100 centers in Belgium. The evolutions over time of hemoglobin A1C (HbA1c), low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, and systolic blood pressure (SBP) were investigated, together with the evolutions of use of insulin pump (continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion [CSII]), continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), and lipid-lowering and antihypertensive drugs. Association of HbA1c with gender, age, diabetes duration, and technology use was analyzed on the most recent cohort. Results: The study population contained data from 89,834 people with T1D (age 1-80 years). Mean HbA1c decreased from 65 mmol/mol (8.1%) in 2010-2011 to 61 mmol/mol (7.7%) in 2017-2018 (P < 0.0001, adjusted for gender, age, diabetes duration, and technology use). Respectively, mean LDL cholesterol decreased from 2.45 mmol/L (94.6 mg/dL) to 2.29 mmol/L (88.5 mg/dL) (P < 0.0001, adjusted for gender, age, and diabetes duration), and mean SBP remained stable. CGM usage increased, whereas the use of CSII and lipid-lowering and antihypertensive drugs remained stable. Gender, age, diabetes duration, and technology use were independently associated with HbA1c. Conclusions: Our real-world data show that metabolic and lipid control improved over time in a system where T1D care is organized through specialized multidisciplinary centers with emphasis on linking education to provision of technology, and its quality is monitored.

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.

Spanish Translation and Linguistic Validation of the Glucose Monitoring Experiences Questionnaire (GME-Q) in Continuous Glucose Monitoring Users.

The use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has become standard practice in people with type 1 diabetes. The evaluation of user satisfaction is crucial. The Glucose Monitoring Experiences questionnaire (GME-Q) includes 23 items with a 5-point Likert scale to produce a total satisfaction score and three subscale scores. The study aimed to translate the GME-Q from English into Spanish and to validate its use in Spanish-speaking CGM users with type 1 diabetes. The linguistic translation and validation process of the GME-Q was established. T1D CGM users were asked to complete the produced Spanish version of the GME-Q and interviewed about difficulties or misunderstandings. Total satisfaction, effectiveness, convenience and intrusiveness subscales and internal consistency reliability were computed. Forward and backward translations and cognitive debriefing produced a final version of the GME-Q in Spanish. Ninety-eight subjects with type 1 diabetes were selected (age: 40 ± 12 years, 63% females, Hb1c: 7.2 ± 0.9% (55 ± 10 mmol/l), pump users: 78%, CGM use: 3.7 ± 2.6 years). The completion rate was 99% and the Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.8. The total satisfaction score was 3.9 ± 0.4 (effectiveness: 4.1 ± 0.6, convenience: 3.8 ± 0.6, intrusiveness: 2.2 ± 0.7). The GME-Q was translated into Spanish and validated for Spanish-speaking CGM users with type 1 diabetes.

Use of continuous glucose monitoring and its association with type 1 diabetes control in children over the first 3 years of reimbursement approval: Population data from the ČENDA registry.

Increased access to modern technologies is not always accompanied by a decrease in HbA1c. The aim of this study was to identify changes in the proportion of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) users since 2017, when general reimbursement for CGM became effective in Czechia, and to test whether HbA1c is associated with the percentage of time spent on CGM. All T1D children in the Czech national ČENDA registry (3197 children) were categorized according to their time spent on CGM and associations with age, sex, center size, and HbA1c were tested with calendar year as a stratification factor. The proportion of children with any CGM use increased from 37.9% in 2017 to 50.3% in 2018 and 74.8% in 2019. Of the CGM users, 16%, 28%, and 41% of the children spent >70% of their time on CGM over the 3 years of the study period, with an overrepresentation of children in the <10 years age group versus the older age groups (p < 0.001). The proportion of CGM users differed among centers and was positively associated with a large center size (>100 patients) (p < 0.001). HbA1c was negatively associated with the time spent on CGM (p < 0.001). A rapid increase in CGM use was reported over the 3 years after general reimbursement. HbA1c was associated with time spent on CGM, a continuing decrease was observed in the >70% category. Reimbursement for CGM likely contributes to the improvement of T1D control at the population level.

Type 1 Diabetes Management With Technology: Patterns of Utilization and Effects on Glucose Control Using Real-World Evidence.

This retrospective cohort study evaluated diabetes device utilization and the effectiveness of these devices for newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes. Investigators examined the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems, self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG), continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), and multiple daily injection (MDI) insulin regimens and their effects on A1C. The researchers identified 6,250 patients with type 1 diabetes, of whom 32% used CGM and 37.1% used CSII. A higher adoption rate of either CGM or CSII in newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes was noted among White patients and those with private health insurance. CGM users had lower A1C levels than nonusers (P = 0.039), whereas no difference was noted between CSII users and nonusers (P = 0.057). Furthermore, CGM use combined with CSII yielded lower A1C than MDI regimens plus SMBG (P <0.001).

DYNAMIC: Dynamic glucose management strategies delivered through a structured education program improves time in range in a socioeconomically deprived cohort of children and young people with type 1 diabetes with a history of hypoglycemia.

Create and evaluate the effectiveness of a structured education program in children and young people (CYP) with type 1 diabetes using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). Step 1: CGM devices were evaluated for predetermined criteria using a composite score. Step 2: The education program was developed following review of international structured education guidance, dynamic glucose management (DynamicGM) literature, award-winning diabetes educators' websites, and CGM user feedback. Step 3: Program effectiveness was assessed at six months by change in time below range (TBR) (<3.9mmol/L), time in range (TIR) (3.9-10.0mmol/L), time above range level 2 (TAR2) (>13.9mmol/L), severe hypoglycemia and HbA1c using a paired T-test. A DynamicGM score was developed to assess proactive glucose management. Factors predicting TBR and TIR were assessed using regression analysis. Dexcom G6 was chosen for integrated CGM (iCGM) status and highest composite score (29/30). Progressive DynamicGM strategies were taught through five sessions delivered over two months. Fifty CYP (23 male) with a mean (±SD) age and diabetes duration of 10.2 (±4.8) and 5.2 (±3.7) years respectively, who completed the education program were prospectively evaluated. Evaluation at six months showed a significant reduction in TBR (10.4% to 2.1%, p<.001), TAR2 (14.1% to 7.3%, p<.001), HbA1c [7.4 to 7.1% (57.7 to 53.8 mmol/mol), p<.001] and severe hypoglycemic episodes (10 to 1, p<.05); TIR increased (47.4% to 57.0%, p<.001). Number of Dexcom followers (p<.05) predicted reduction in TBR and DynamicGM score (p<.001) predicted increased TIR. Teaching DynamicGM strategies successfully improves TIR and reduces hypoglycemia.

Continuous glucose monitoring systems in well-controlled children with type 1 diabetes mellitus.

Numerous studies have demonstrated the clinical benefits of using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems among patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Aim of the study was to assess the effectiveness of CGM on metabolic control in children with T1D and well-controlled disease prior to the study. This prospective analysis included 99 children (46 girls) at the median age of 11.23 years and diabetes duration of at least 1 year (median: 5.16 years), generally well controlled metabolically (median HbA1c: 7.0%), and treated with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII). The patients had used CGM for at least 150 days. We analysed the participants in subgroups based on baseline HbA1c<7%, ≥ 7%, age, and sex. Children with baseline HbA1c<7% were characterized by significantly increased HbA1c after the median of 273 days (217; 320) of CGM usage (6.3% vs. 6.6%, respectively; p=0.002). No significant change in HbA1c was noted in children with baseline HbA1c ≥ 7% (7.5% vs. 7.4%, respectively; p=0.191), but 20% of the group reached the target of HbA1c<7.0%. The analysis of CGM data revealed that no group achieved the CGM targets of good metabolic control. Total daily insulin requirements remained stable in both groups (p=0.752; p=0.274), but the amount of basal insulin increased statistically in both groups (p=0.009; p ≤ 0.001). The application of CGM provides detailed information concerning glycaemic control and is beneficial in some, but not all, T1D children with good diabetes control.

Perceived Burdens and Benefits Associated With Continuous Glucose Monitor Use in Type 1 Diabetes Across the Lifespan.

Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) help people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) improve their glycemic profiles but are underutilized. To better understand why, perceived CGM burdens and benefits in nonusers versus users with type 1 diabetes across the lifespan were assessed. Burdens (BurCGM) and benefits of CGM (BenCGM) questionnaires were completed during T1D outpatient visits (n = 1334) from February 2019 to February 2020. Mean scores were calculated (scale one to five; higher scores reflect greater perceived burdens/benefits). Data were collected from medical records including glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) within 3 months of the visit. Individuals of all ages using CGM described more benefits and less burdens (mean scores 4.48 and 1.69, respectively) when compared with those who were not using CGM (mean score 4.19 and 2.35, respectively) (P < .001). There were no differences in burdens or benefits by sex. Non-CGM users aged ≥50 years had higher mean BurCGM scores than those aged <50 years (P = .004); the cost was the greatest barrier in those aged 27+ years. Other burdens were readings not trusted, painful to wear, and takes too much time to use. For those aged 65+, nonusers versus users, 18.5% versus 3.1% agreed with "it was too hard to understand CGM information," and 21.4% versus 7.7% agreed that CGM causes too much worry. Mean HbA1C was lower in CGM users (8.1%) versus non-CGM users (mean A1c 9.1%; P < .001). CGM was perceived as having more burdens and less benefits in nonusers, with differences in concerns varying across the lifespan. Lower costs and age-appropriate education are needed to address these barriers.

Self-management among pre-teen and adolescent diabetes device users.

Despite increased diabetes device use, few adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D) meet glycemic targets. We examine associations between utilization of insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and glycemic control. This prospective cohort study included 80 youths (10-18 years of age) with T1D. Multiple linear regression and linear mixed models (LMM) were used to estimate the effects of device self-management on HbA1c and daily time in range (70-180 mg/dL), respectively. Every blood glucose (BG) input/day was associated with a 0.2% decrease in HbA1c (95% CI: -0.297, -0.013), each bolus/day was associated with a 0.2% decrease (-0.327, -0.057), and use of CGM was associated with a 0.5% decrease (-1.00, -0.075). Among CGM users (n = 45) every 10% increase in CGM use was associated with a 0.3% decrease in HbA1c (-0.390, -0.180). In LMM accounting for within subject and between subject variability, there was a negative association between BG input/day frequency (coefficient = -1.880, [-2.640, -1.117]) and time in range. Residual random effects for CGM users were large showing time in range varied between youth with a SD of 15.0% (3 hours and 36 minutes) (SE 2.029, [11.484, 19.530]). Time in range varied significantly from day-to-day with SD of 18.6% (4 hours and 40 minutes) (SE0.455, [17.690, 19.473]). Device self-management behaviors among youth are significantly associated with both HbA1c and time in range. Our findings showing an association between reduced time in range and increased self-management behaviors is novel and deserves further investigation.