The impact of flash glucose monitoring on glycated hemoglobin in type 2 diabetes managed with basal insulin in Canada: A retrospective real-world chart review study

Diabetes Technology in People with Type 2 Diabetes: Novel Indications

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Diabetes technology has been continuously evolving. Current versions of continuous glucose monitors (CGM) use minimally invasive designs, monitor glucose values with high accuracy, and can be used to guide insulin dosing. Extensive evidence supports the use of diabetes technology for monitoring and insulin administration in people with type 1 diabetes. However, there is emerging evidence for people with type 2 diabetes. In this review, we present the different technological devices used to monitor glucose and deliver insulin and the evidence supporting their use in people with type 2 diabetes.

RECENT FINDINGS

The use of CGMs in people with type 2 diabetes treated with insulin or non-insulin therapies has been associated with improvements in glycemic control and time spent in hypoglycemia. Smart insulin pens and smart connected devices are options to track compliance and guide insulin delivery in people who do not require insulin pump therapy. Mechanical patch pumps can be used to reduce the burden of multiple daily insulin injections. Automated insulin delivery algorithms improve glycemic control without an increase in hypoglycemia. The use of technology in the management of type 2 diabetes generates glycemic data previously inaccessible, reduces barriers for insulin initiation, improves glycemic control, tracks adherence to therapy, and improves user satisfaction.

Continuous glucose monitoring for the routine care of type 2 diabetes mellitus

Although continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices are now considered the standard of care for people with type 1 diabetes mellitus, the uptake among people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) has been slower and is focused on those receiving intensive insulin therapy. However, increasing evidence now supports the inclusion of CGM in the routine care of people with T2DM who are on basal insulin-only regimens or are managed with other medications. Expanding CGM to these groups could minimize hypoglycaemia while allowing efficient adaptation and escalation of therapies. Increasing evidence from randomized controlled trials and observational studies indicates that CGM is of clinical value in people with T2DM on non-intensive treatment regimens. If further studies confirm this finding, CGM could soon become a part of routine care for T2DM. In this Perspective we explore the potential benefits of widening the application of CGM in T2DM, along with the challenges that must be overcome for the evidence-based benefits of this technology to be delivered for all people with T2DM.

Effectiveness and Safety of the Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring System FreeStyle Libre 2 in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Treated with Basal Insulin or Oral Antidiabetic Drugs: An Observational, Retrospective Real-World Study

Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring (isCGM) devices are increasingly being used in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) on insulin therapy for their benefits regarding disease management. Evidence of isCGM use in patients with T2DM on basal or non-insulin therapy is lacking. This study aimed at assessing the efficacy and safety of isCGM in this population. This was an observational, retrospective, real-world study enrolling patients with T2DM who were starting the use of isCGM. Data from medical records (i.e., demographics, clinical characteristics, laboratory assessments, and isCGM metrics) were collected over three time periods (baseline, 3 and 6 months). The endpoints were glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) changes and changes in isCGM metrics as defined by the International Consensus from baseline to 3 months and 6 months. Overall, 132 patients were included (69.5% male; mean age 68.2 ± 11.0 years; mean disease duration 19.0 ± 9.4 years; 79.7% on basal insulin ±non-insulin therapy; mean baseline HbA1c 8.1% ± 1.3%). The estimated mean change in HbA1c was statistically significant at three (-0.4 ± 1.0%; p = 0.003) and six months (-0.6 ± 1.3%; p < 0.0001). In conclusion, isCGM proved to be effective and safe in improving glycaemic control in patients with T2DM on basal insulin or non-insulin therapy.

7. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2024

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, an interprofessional expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Expert Recommendations for Using Time-in-Range and Other Continuous Glucose Monitoring Metrics to Achieve Patient-Centered Glycemic Control in People With Diabetes

New metrics for assessing glycemic control beyond HbA1c have recently emerged due to the increasing use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in diabetes clinical practice. Among them, time in range (TIR) has appeared as a simple and intuitive metric that correlates inversely with HbA1c and has also been newly linked to the risk of long-term diabetes complications. The International Consensus on Time in Range established a series of target glucose ranges (TIR, time below range and time above range) and recommendations for time spent within these ranges for different diabetes populations. These parameters should be evaluated together with the ambulatory glucose profile (AGP). Using standardized visual reporting may help people with diabetes and healthcare professionals in the evaluation of glucose control in frequent clinical situations. The objective of the present review is to provide practical insights to quick interpretation of patient-centered metrics based on flash glucose monitoring data, as well as showing some visual examples of common clinical situations and giving practical recommendations for their management.

Beyond A1C: exploring continuous glucose monitoring metrics in managing diabetes

Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) has long been considered a cornerstone of diabetes mellitus (DM) management, as both an indicator of average glycemia and a predictor of long-term complications among people with DM. However, HbA1c is subject to non-glycemic influences which confound interpretation and as a measure of average glycemia does not provide information regarding glucose trends or about the occurrence of hypoglycemia and/or hyperglycemia episodes. As such, solitary use of HbA1c, without accompanying glucose data, does not confer actionable information that can be harnessed to guide targeted therapy in many patients with DM. While conventional capillary blood glucose monitoring (BGM) sheds light on momentary glucose levels, in practical use the inherent infrequency of measurement precludes elucidation of glycemic trends or reliable detection of hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia episodes. In contrast, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data reveal glucose trends and potentially undetected hypo- and hyperglycemia patterns that can occur between discrete BGM measurements. The use of CGM has grown significantly over the past decades as an ever-expanding body of literature demonstrates a multitude of clinical benefits for people with DM. Continually improving CGM accuracy and ease of use have further fueled the widespread adoption of CGM. Furthermore, percent time in range correlates well with HbA1c, is accepted as a validated indicator of glycemia, and is associated with the risk of several DM complications. We explore the benefits and limitations of CGM use, the use of CGM in clinical practice, and the application of CGM to advanced diabetes technologies.

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.

Real-life 24-week changes in glycemic parameters among European users of flash glucose monitoring with type 1 and 2 diabetes and different levels of glycemic control

AIM

To evaluate real-life changes of glycemic parameters among flash glucose monitoring (FLASH) users who do not meet glycemic targets.

METHODS

De-identified data were obtained between 2014 and 2021 from patients using FLASH uninterrupted for a 24-week period. Glycemic parameters during first and last sensor use were examined in four identifiable groups: type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM), type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) on basal-bolus insulin, T2DM on basal insulin, and T2DM without insulin treatment. Within each group, subgroup analyses were performed in persons with initial suboptimal glycemic regulation (time in range (TIR; 3.9-10 mmol/L) <70%, time above range (TAR; >10 mmol/L) >25%, or time below range (TBR; <3.9 mmol/L) >4%).

RESULTS

Data were obtained from 1,909 persons with T1DM and 1,813 persons with T2DM (1,499 basal-bolus insulin, 189 basal insulin, and 125 non-insulin users). In most of the performed analyses, both overall and in the various subgroups, significant improvements were observed in virtually all predefined primary (TIR) and secondary endpoints (eHbA1c, TAR, TBR and glucose variability).

CONCLUSIONS

24-weeks FLASH use in real life by persons with T1DM and T2DM with suboptimal glycemic regulation is associated with improvement of glycemic parameters, irrespective of pre-use regulation or treatment modality.

IMpact of flash glucose Monitoring in pEople with type 2 Diabetes Inadequately controlled with non-insulin Antihyperglycaemic ThErapy (IMMEDIATE): A randomized controlled trial

AIM

To examine the efficacy and patient satisfaction of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) in adults using non-insulin therapies for the management of type 2 diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The IMMEDIATE study was a multisite, open label, randomized controlled trial with follow-up at 16 weeks. Adults with type 2 diabetes using at least one non-insulin therapy, with an HbA1c of 7.5% or higher (≥ 58 mmol/mol), were randomized 1:1 to receive an isCGM device plus diabetes self-management education (isCGM + DSME) or DSME alone. Enrolment occurred from 8 September 2020 to 24 December 2021. The primary outcome was percentage mean time in range (TIR), in the final 2-week period, measured via blinded CGM.

RESULTS

One hundred and sixteen participants were randomized (mean age, 58 years; diabetes duration, 10 years; mean HbA1c, 8.6% [70 mmol/mol]). At 16 weeks of follow-up, the isCGM and DSME arm had a significantly greater mean TIR by 9.9% (2.4 hours) (95% CI, -17.3% to -2.5%; P < .01), significantly less time above range by 8.1% (1.9 hours) (95% CI, 0.5% to 15.7%; P = .037), and a greater reduction in mean HbA1c by 0.3% (3 mmol/mol) (95% CI, 0% to 0.7%; P = .048) versus the DSME arm. Time below range was low and not significantly different between groups and hypoglycaemic events were few in both groups. Glucose monitoring satisfaction was higher among isCGM users (adjusted difference -0.5 [95% CI, -0.7 to -0.3], P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

The IMMEDIATE study has shown that among non-insulin-treated individuals with type 2 diabetes, use of isCGM is associated with an improvement in glycaemic outcomes.

Use of the FreeStyle Libre system and diabetes treatment progression in T2DM: Results from a retrospective cohort study using a Canadian private payer claims database

BACKGROUND

Up to one-third of Canadians are estimated to be living with prediabetes or diabetes. A retrospective study using Canadian private drug claims data was conducted to investigate whether flash glucose monitoring using the FreeStyle Libre system (FSL) among people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Canada can be associated with changes in treatment intensification when compared with blood glucose monitoring (BGM) alone.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using a Canadian national private drug claims database comprising approximately 50% coverage of insured individuals in Canada, cohorts of people with T2DM using FSL or BGM were identified algorithmically based on treatment history and followed over a 24-month study period, tracking their progression in diabetes treatment therapy. The Andersen-Gill model for recurrent time-to-event data was used to evaluate whether the rate of treatment progression differs between the FSL and BGM treatment cohorts. The survival function was used to calculate comparative treatment progression probabilities between the cohorts.

RESULTS

In total, 373 871 people with T2DM met the inclusion criteria. Across treatment (FSL) and control (BGM) groups, people using FSL had a higher probability of treatment progression compared with BGM alone, with a relative risk ranging between 1.86 and 2.81 (p < .001). A higher probability of treatment progression was independent of the diabetes treatment at the enrolment date (index date) or the patient status, and independent of whether patients were treatment naïve or on established diabetes therapy. Assessment of the ending treatment relative to the starting therapy indicated that dynamic treatment changes were most evident for patients in the FSL cohort and that the FSL cohort had a much greater portion of patients who ended with insulin treatment (when they started with non-insulin treatment) compared with the BGM cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

People with T2DM using FSL had a greater probability for treatment progression compared with BGM alone, irrespective of the starting therapy, which may suggest that FSL can be used to support escalation of diabetes therapy to improve therapeutic inertia in T2DM.

7. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2023

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Important Decrease in Hospitalizations for Acute Diabetes Events Following FreeStyle Libre System Initiation in People with Type 2 Diabetes on Basal Insulin Therapy in France

Aims/Hypothesis: Initiation of insulin therapy in people with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) may be necessary to achieve glycemic targets but is associated with acute diabetes events (ADEs), including severe hypoglycemia (SH) or diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). We assessed the impact of initiating FreeStyle Libre^® system (FSL) on hospitalizations for ADEs in people with T2DM on basal insulin only regimen±noninsulin antidiabetic drugs. Materials and Methods: A retrospective study of the French national Système National des Données de Santé reimbursement claims database (≈66 million French people) identified people with T2DM on basal insulin therapy receiving a first reimbursement of FSL between August 1, 2017 and December 31, 2018. Claims data for the 12 months before, and up to 24 months after FSL initiation, were analyzed. Hospitalizations for ADEs were identified, using ICD-10 codes as main or related diagnosis, for: SH events; DKA events; comas; and hyperglycemia-related admissions. Results: A total of 5933 people with T2DM on basal insulin therapy initiated FSL during the selection period. Of the patients, 78.9% were on basal insulin and other hypoglycemic agents. Among the 5933 patients identified, 2.01% had at least one hospitalization for any ADE in the year before FSL initiation, compared to 0.75% (1 year) and 0.60% (2 years). Reductions in ADEs were driven by 75% fewer DKA admissions, with a 44% reduction in SH admissions. These patterns of reduced ADEs persisted after 2 years, with a further 43% reduction in DKA rates. Conclusions/Interpretation: This study emphasizes the value of the FSL system in reducing ADEs in people with T2DM in France not on intensive insulin therapy and initially treated with basal-only insulin therapy.

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.

Flash glucose monitoring in type 2 diabetes managed with basal insulin in the USA: a retrospective real-world chart review study and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Evidence supporting use of continuous glucose monitoring in type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin is unclear. This real-world study aimed to assess the impact on glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) of flash glucose monitoring use in adults with type 2 diabetes managed with basal insulin.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Medical records were reviewed for adult individuals with type 2 diabetes using basal insulin for ≥1 year with or without additional antihyperglycemic medication, HbA1c 8.0%-12.0% prior to FreeStyle Libre Flash Glucose Monitoring use for ≥90 days and an HbA1c measurement recorded between 90 and 194 days after device use. Exclusion criteria included utilization of bolus insulin. Meta-analysis data are from the current study (USA) and a similar Canadian cohort.

RESULTS

Medical record analysis (n=100) from 8 USA study sites showed significant HbA1c decrease of 1.4%±1.3%, from 9.4%±1.0% at baseline to 8.0%±1.2% after device use, p<0.0001 (mean±SD).Meta-analysis of medical records from USA and Canada sites (n=191) showed HbA1c significantly decreased by 1.1%±0.14% (mean±SE), from baseline 9.2%±1.0% to 8.1%±1.1%, p≤0.0001, with moderate to high heterogeneity between sites (Q=43.9, I²=74.9, p<0.0001) explained by differences in baseline HbA1c between sites.The HbA1c improvement in both groups was observed by age group, body mass index, duration of insulin use and sex at birth.

CONCLUSIONS

In a real-world retrospective USA study and a meta-analysis of a larger USA and Canada cohort, HbA1c significantly reduced in basal insulin-treated type 2 diabetes, without bolus insulin initiation and following the commencement of flash glucose monitoring technology.

7. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2022

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.