A modelling study of the budget impact of improved glycaemic control in adults with Type 1 diabetes in the UK

Criteria for Personalised Choice of a Continuous Glucose Monitoring System: An Expert Opinion

Despite the growing evidence supporting the outpatient use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for improving glycaemic control and reducing hypoglycaemia, there is a need for a detailed understanding of the specific features of CGM devices that best meet individual patient needs. This expert opinion, based on a comprehensive literature review and the personal perspectives of clinicians, aims to provide the healthcare professionals (HCPs) with a comprehensive framework for selecting CGM devices. It evaluates the current state of CGM technology, categorizing features into essential features, major drivers of choice, and additional/useful features. Moreover, the practical model presented outlines a patient's journey with CGM, emphasising the importance of aligning device features with patient needs. This includes understanding the patient's lifestyle, clinical conditions, and personal preferences to optimize CGM use and improve diabetes management outcomes.

A biobehavioural and social-structural model of inflammation and executive function in pediatric chronic health conditions

Evidence indicates that pediatric chronic health conditions (CHCs) often impair executive functioning (EF) and impaired EF undermines pediatric CHC management. This bidirectional relationship likely occurs due to biobehavioural and social-structural factors that serve to maintain this feedback loop. Specifically, biobehavioural research suggests that inflammation may sustain a feedback loop that links together increased CHC severity, challenges with EF, and lower engagement in health promoting behaviours. Experiencing social and environmental inequity also maintains pressure on this feedback loop as experiencing inequities is associated with greater inflammation, increased CHC severity, as well as challenges with EF and engagement in health promoting behaviours. Amidst this growing body of research, a model of biobehavioural and social-structural factors that centres inflammation and EF is warranted to better identify individual and structural targets to ameliorate the effects of CHCs on children, families, and society at large. This paper proposes this model, reviews relevant literature, and delineates actionable research and clinical implications.

The Benefits Of Continuous Glucose Monitoring In Pregnancy

Previous studies have consistently demonstrated the positive effects of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) on glycemic outcomes and complications of diabetes in people with type 1 diabetes. Guidelines now consider CGM to be an essential and cost-effective device for managing type 1 diabetes. As a result, insurance coverage for it is available. Evidence supporting CGM continues to grow and expand to broader populations, such as pregnant people with type 1 diabetes, people with type 2 diabetes treated only with basal insulin therapy, and even type 2 diabetes that does not require insulin treatment. However, despite the significant risk of hyperglycemia in pregnancy, which leads to complications in more than half of affected newborns, CGM indications and insurance coverage for those patients are unresolved. In this review article, we discuss the latest evidence for using CGM to offer glycemic control and reduce perinatal complications, along with its cost-effectiveness in pregestational type 1 and type 2 diabetes and gestational diabetes mellitus. In addition, we discuss future prospects for CGM coverage and indications based on this evidence.

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.

Cost of Treating Skin Problems in Patients with Diabetes Who Use Insulin Pumps and/or Glucose Sensors

Background: The use of insulin pump and glucose sensor is advantageous, but unfortunately many experience skin problems. To reduce or overcome skin problems, patients use additional products or change their sets preterm. Therefore, the aim was to investigate costs related to skin problems. Materials and Methods: Two hundred sixty-three patients from four different hospitals in Denmark participated in a cross-sectional survey about skin problems related to insulin pump and/or glucose sensor use. Additional costs aside technology and diabetes treatment were calculated based on adhesives, patches, lotion, and preterm shifts of infusion or sensor sets due to skin problems. Descriptive statistics and linear regression were used. Results: The total costs for all these expenses were 11493.9 U.S. dollars (USD) in 145 pediatric patients and 4843 USD in 118 adult patients. The costs were higher in patients with, than without, skin problems and for skin problems due to the glucose sensor compared with insulin pump. Pediatric patients with eczema and/or wound due to the glucose sensor did cost 154.3 USD more, than patients without these skin problems (P < 0.01). We found a clear dose/response relationship between costs and severity of skin problems, especially in pediatric patients. Conclusions: Our data show that skin problems due to use of insulin pump and/or glucose sensor have significant costs on the Danish welfare system. This leaves an economic incentive for developing more skin-sensitive adhesive for the infusion set and sensors, at least for a certain subgroup of patients.

Frequency and awareness of hypoglycemia in patients with Type 2 Diabetes treated with two or more insulin injections in primary care outpatient clinics

AIMS

To assess the frequency of hypoglycemia events, patient characteristics and the prevalence of impaired awareness of hypoglycemia (IAH) in patients with Type 2 Diabetes (T2D) using two or more insulin injections in primary care.

METHODS

Cross-sectional study performed at 9 Primary Care Centers including review of electronic medical records and an on-site visit to patients using >2 insulin injections with suboptimal control. Episodes of severe hypoglycemia (SH) in the last 12months were recorded. Non-severe hypoglycemia (NSH) was considered as self-monitoring blood glucose <70mg/dl. IAH was evaluated and HbA_1c was obtained.

RESULTS

157 subjects were included (age 68.4+10.7years, 82 women, T2D duration 18.3+8.7years). 57% used multiple daily injections. Total insulin was 66.9+43.4 units/day. The mean HbA_1c was 9.2±1.4% (77±12mmol/mol) and only 13.4% had HbA_1c <8% (64mmol/mol). The frequency of NSH was 0.74±1.37 episodes/week. Only one patient had a SH the last 12months. Around 10-12% of patients had IAH. In comparison with normal awareness, those with IAH had a longer duration of T2D (25.3±11.6 vs. 16.1±8.2 years, respectively, p<0.01). In the multiple linear regression analysis, only the IAH score and the total insulin dose independently determined the NSH number.

CONCLUSIONS

NSH/SH in patients with T2D treated with two or more insulin injections in primary care settings seems to be relatively common. Although hypoglycemia awareness is predominantly preserved, the presence of IAH should not be ignored as it increases the risk of hypoglycemia and constitutes an additional barrier to recognize and address this burden in T2D.