Reductions in HbA1c with Flash Glucose Monitoring Are Sustained for up to 24 Months: A Meta-Analysis of 75 Real-World Observational Studies

Importance of FDA-Integrated Continuous Glucose Monitors to Ensure Accuracy of Continuous Glucose Monitoring

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has been shown to improve glycemic control and self-monitoring, as well as to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia. Integrated CGM (iCGM) FDA-cleared systems with published performance data are established nonadjunctive and accurate CGM tools that can directly inform decision-making in the treatment of diabetes (i.e., insulin dosing). Studies have assessed accuracy and safety data of CGMs that were eventually cleared for iCGM by the FDA and that informed the recommendation for their nonadjunctive use. Subsequent robust clinical trials and real-world studies demonstrated clinical effectiveness with improvements in a range of patient outcomes. In recent years, a number of non-iCGM-approved CGM devices have entered the market outside the United States worldwide. Some of these non-iCGM-approved CGM devices require additional user verification of blood glucose levels to be performed for making treatment decisions, termed adjunctive. Moreover, in many non-iCGM-approved CGM devices, accuracy studies published in peer-reviewed journals are scarce or have many limitations. Consequently, non-iCGM-approved CGM devices cannot be automatically perceived as having the same performance or quality standards than those approved for iCGM by the FDA. As a result, although these devices tend to cost less than iCGMs that carry FDA clearance and could therefore be attractive from the point of view of a health care payer, it must be emphasized that evaluation of costs should not be limited to the device (such as the usability preference that patients have for nonadjunctive sensors compared to adjunctive sensors) but to the wider value of the total benefit that the product provides to the patient.

Effect of switch from flash glucose monitoring to flash glucose monitoring with real-time alarms on hypoglycaemia in people with type 1 diabetes mellitus

We aimed to evaluate the utility of the FreeStyle Libre 2 device for reducing time below range level 1 and level 2 compared with the Freestyle Libre device (without alarms) in people with type 1 diabetes mellitus. We conducted longitudinal observational follow-up study of a cohort of 100 people with type 1 diabetes mellitus who had switched from FreeStyle Libre to FreeStyle Libre 2 as part of routine clinical practice. Three months after switching to FreeStyle Libre 2, compared with results with FreeStyle Libre, there were a significant improvements in time below range level 1 (p = 0.02) and level 2 (p <0.001), time in range (p <0.001), time above range level 1 (p = 0.002), glucose management indicator (p= 0.04) and mean glucose (p= 0.04) during follow-up. Furthermore there was a significant direct association between age and change in TIR with a coefficient of 0.23, and a significant inverse association between age and change in TAR-1 with a coefficient of 0.11. Switching to a flash glucose monitoring system with alarms improves time below range, time in range and coefficient of variation in people with type 1 diabetes mellitus.

Comparing the effects of home visits and telenursing on blood glucose control: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Home visits have often been performed for diabetes management, but with the increased use of the internet and smartphones, people are opting for telenursing as the main method for monitoring and controlling diabetes.

OBJECTIVE

This study compares the effects of home visits and telenursing on diabetes management.

METHODS

Four electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) were used as data sources. Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting blood sugar, and two-hour post-prandial glucose levels were used as outcome measures. A subgroup analysis was performed based on the type of diabetes and follow-up.

RESULTS

Of 1890 studies, 24 (2801 participants) were selected and meta-analyzed. The nursing interventions provided during nursing visits or telenursing mainly included education on diabetes and blood sugar control. It was seen that HbA1c decreased with a weighted mean difference of -0.66 (95 % confidence interval -0.82 to -0.51, p < .001) % in home visits and -0.56 (95 % confidence interval -0.81 to -0.31, p < .001) % in telenursing. The fasting blood sugar reported only in telenursing was reduced by a weighted mean difference of -14.23 (95 % confidence interval 27.59 to -0.88, p = .04) mg/dL and two-hour post-prandial glucose was reduced with a mean difference of -15.84 (95 % confidence interval -24.45 to -7.24, p = .003) mg/dL. Furthermore, low heterogeneity was found among the studies. In a subgroup analysis of diabetes type, HbA1c in home visits was reduced by -0.86 % in type 1 diabetes and -0.62 % in type 2 diabetes, while in telenursing, the reductions were -0.65 % and -0.53 %, respectively. Fasting blood glucose was reduced by -6.08 mg/dL and -18.50 mg/dL, respectively, whereas two-hour postprandial blood sugar was reduced by -14.49 mg/dL and -30.30 mg/dL, respectively, in telenursing. In the subgroup analysis of the follow-up period, HbA1c during home visits decreased by -0.63 % at 10 to 16 weeks, -0.73 % at 24 to 36 weeks, and -0.64 % at 52 weeks or more, while in telenursing, the reductions were -0.80 %, -0.44 %, and -0.07 %, respectively. Home visits were not statistically significant between 10 and 16 weeks, whereas telenursing was not significant at 52 weeks or more.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite telenursing reducing HbA1c slightly less than home visits, evidence from this systematic review suggests that telenursing is a similarly effective approach for controlling blood glucose levels in patients with diabetes. Telenursing is a nursing intervention that can be used as an alternative to home visits for patients requiring diabetes management.

Blood glucose monitoring devices: current considerations

Measuring blood glucose concentrations via capillary (fingerprick) blood glucose monitoring or continuous (interstitial) glucose monitoring is an important aspect of management for many people with diabetes. Blood glucose monitoring informs patient self-management strategies, which can improve the patient's engagement in their own care and reduce barriers to achieving recommended blood glucose targets. Blood glucose monitoring also informs clinician-guided management plans. Compared to capillary blood glucose monitoring, continuous glucose monitoring in people using insulin significantly improves glycaemic metrics and is associated with improved patient-reported outcomes. Even with good glycaemic metrics, patients using continuous glucose monitoring should still have access to capillary blood glucose monitoring for correlation of hypoglycaemic readings when accuracy may be compromised or if there is a malfunction with the continuous blood glucose monitor.

Perceptions of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems in the T1D Exchange Diabetes Registry: Satisfaction, Concerns, and Areas for Future Improvement

Manufacturers continue to improve performance and usability of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems. As CGM becomes a standard of care, especially for people on insulin therapy, it is important to routinely gauge how satisfied people with diabetes are with this technology. This article describes survey feedback from a large cohort of people with diabetes using older and current CGM systems and highlights areas of current satisfaction, concern, and future system improvement.

2023 UPDATE: Luso-Brazilian evidence-based guideline for the management of antidiabetic therapy in type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

The management of antidiabetic therapy in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) has evolved beyond glycemic control. In this context, Brazil and Portugal defined a joint panel of four leading diabetes societies to update the guideline published in 2020.

METHODS

The panelists searched MEDLINE (via PubMed) for the best evidence from clinical studies on treating T2D and its cardiorenal complications. The panel searched for evidence on antidiabetic therapy in people with T2D without cardiorenal disease and in patients with T2D and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), heart failure (HF), or diabetic kidney disease (DKD). The degree of recommendation and the level of evidence were determined using predefined criteria.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

All people with T2D need to have their cardiovascular (CV) risk status stratified and HbA1c, BMI, and eGFR assessed before defining therapy. An HbA1c target of less than 7% is adequate for most adults, and a more flexible target (up to 8%) should be considered in frail older people. Non-pharmacological approaches are recommended during all phases of treatment. In treatment naïve T2D individuals without cardiorenal complications, metformin is the agent of choice when HbA1c is 7.5% or below. When HbA1c is above 7.5% to 9%, starting with dual therapy is recommended, and triple therapy may be considered. When HbA1c is above 9%, starting with dual therapyt is recommended, and triple therapy should be considered. Antidiabetic drugs with proven CV benefit (AD1) are recommended to reduce CV events if the patient is at high or very high CV risk, and antidiabetic agents with proven efficacy in weight reduction should be considered when obesity is present. If HbA1c remains above target, intensification is recommended with triple, quadruple therapy, or even insulin-based therapy. In people with T2D and established ASCVD, AD1 agents (SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 RA with proven CV benefit) are initially recommended to reduce CV outcomes, and metformin or a second AD1 may be necessary to improve glycemic control if HbA1c is above the target. In T2D with HF, SGLT2 inhibitors are recommended to reduce HF hospitalizations and mortality and to improve HbA1c. In patients with DKD, SGLT2 inhibitors in combination with metformin are recommended when eGFR is above 30 mL/min/1.73 m2. SGLT2 inhibitors can be continued until end-stage kidney disease.

Budget Impact Analysis of the FreeStyle Libre Flash Continuous Glucose Monitoring System® in Patients with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus with Multiple Daily Insulin Injections in Argentina

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the budget impact of the potential coverage of FreeStyle Libre Flash Continuous Glucose Monitoring System (FSL) for glycemia monitoring in all type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) patients and in those with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) with multiple daily insulin injections, from the social security and the private third-party payer's perspective in Argentina.

METHODS

A budget impact model was developed to estimate the cost difference between the self-monitoring of blood glucose (standard of care) and FSL over 5 years. Input parameters were retrieved from local literature complemented by expert opinion. Health care costs were estimated by a micro-costing approach and reported in USD as of April 2022 (1 USD = 113.34 Argentine pesos). One-way sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

From a social security third-party payer perspective, the incorporation of FSL was associated with net savings per member per month (PMPM) of $0.026 (Year 1) to $0.097 (Year 5) and net savings PMPM of $0.002 (Year 1) to $0.008 (Year 5) for T1DM and T2DM patients, respectively. Similar findings are reported from the private third-party payer perspective. The budget impact results were more sensitive to the acquisition costs of the FSL and test strips.

CONCLUSION

The potential coverage of FSL in patients with T1DM and T2DM with multiple daily insulin injections could be associated with small financial savings considering current technology acquisition costs (FSL and test strips) for social security and the private sector third-party payers in Argentina.

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.

Budget impact analysis of the freestyle libre flash continuous glucose monitoring system® in patients with diabetes mellitus type 1 in Chile

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the budget impact of covering the FreeStyle Libre Flash Continuous Glucose Monitoring System (FSL) for type 1 Diabetes Mellitus patients (T1DM), compared to self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG), from the perspective of public and private third-party payers in Chile.

METHODS

A budget impact model was developed to estimate the cost difference between SMBG and FSL over five years. Two FSL coverage schemes were assessed. Input parameters were retrieved from the literature review and complemented by expert opinion. Healthcare costs were estimated by a micro-costing approach and reported in USD.

RESULTS

For a public sector third-party payer, incorporating FSL implied a cost increase up to USD 0.013 per member per month (PMPM) for the fifth year under the broad coverage scheme and a net saving of 0.0001 PMPM (all years) under the restricted coverage scheme. From a private sector third-party payer, incorporating FSL implied savings up to USD 0.028 PMPM (fifth year) for the broad coverage scheme and up to USD 0.012 PMPM (fifth year) for the restricted scheme.

CONCLUSION

Incorporating the FSL for T1DM patients was associated with a marginal incremental cost for the public sector third-party payer and cost savings in Chile's private healthcare sector.

Utilizing the New Glucometrics: A Practical Guide to Ambulatory Glucose Profile Interpretation

Traditional continuous glucose monitoring and flash glucose monitoring systems are proven to lower glycated haemoglobin levels, decrease the time and impact of hypoglycaemia or hyperglycaemia and, consequently, improve the quality of life for children and adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). These glucose-sensing devices can generate large amounts of glucose data that can be used to define a detailed glycaemic profile for each user, which can be compared with targets for glucose control set by an International Consensus Panel of diabetes experts. Targets have been agreed upon for adults, children and adolescents with T1DM and adults with T2DM; separate targets have been agreed upon for older adults with diabetes, who are at higher risk of hypoglycaemia, and women with pregestational T1DM during pregnancy. Along with the objective measures and targets identified by the International Consensus Panel, the dense glucose data delivered by traditional continuous glucose monitoring and flash glucose monitoring systems is used to generate an ambulatory glucose profile, which summarizes the data in a visually impactful format that can be used to identify patterns and trends in daily glucose control, including those that raise clinical concerns. In this article, we provide a practical guide on how to interpret these new glucometrics using a straightforward algorithm, and clear visual examples that demystify the process of reviewing the glycaemic health of people with T1DM or T2DM such that forward-looking goals for diabetes management can be agreed.