Multicenter, Randomized Trial of a Bionic Pancreas in Type 1 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Currently available semiautomated insulin-delivery systems require individualized insulin regimens for the initialization of therapy and meal doses based on carbohydrate counting for routine operation. In contrast, the bionic pancreas is initialized only on the basis of body weight, makes all dose decisions and delivers insulin autonomously, and uses meal announcements without carbohydrate counting. METHODS: In this 13-week, multicenter, randomized trial, we randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio persons at least 6 years of age with type 1 diabetes either to receive bionic pancreas treatment with insulin aspart or insulin lispro or to receive standard care (defined as any insulin-delivery method with unblinded, real-time continuous glucose monitoring). The primary outcome was the glycated hemoglobin level at 13 weeks. The key secondary outcome was the percentage of time that the glucose level as assessed by continuous glucose monitoring was below 54 mg per deciliter; the prespecified noninferiority limit for this outcome was 1 percentage point. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 219 participants 6 to 79 years of age were assigned to the bionic-pancreas group, and 107 to the standard-care group. The glycated hemoglobin level decreased from 7.9% to 7.3% in the bionic-pancreas group and did not change (was at 7.7% at both time points) in the standard-care group (mean adjusted difference at 13 weeks, -0.5 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.6 to -0.3; P<0.001). The percentage of time that the glucose level as assessed by continuous glucose monitoring was below 54 mg per deciliter did not differ significantly between the two groups (13-week adjusted difference, 0.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.1 to 0.04; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The rate of severe hypoglycemia was 17.7 events per 100 participant-years in the bionic-pancreas group and 10.8 events per 100 participant-years in the standard-care group (P = 0.39). No episodes of diabetic ketoacidosis occurred in either group. CONCLUSIONS: In this 13-week, randomized trial involving adults and children with type 1 diabetes, use of a bionic pancreas was associated with a greater reduction than standard care in the glycated hemoglobin level. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04200313.).

Hyperglycaemic crises in adults with diabetes: a consensus report.

The American Diabetes Association (ADA), European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD), Joint British Diabetes Societies for Inpatient Care (JBDS), American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE) and Diabetes Technology Society (DTS) convened a panel of internists and diabetologists to update the ADA consensus statement on hyperglycaemic crises in adults with diabetes, published in 2001 and last updated in 2009. The objective of this consensus report is to provide up-to-date knowledge about the epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical presentation, and recommendations for the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and hyperglycaemic hyperosmolar state (HHS) in adults. A systematic examination of publications since 2009 informed new recommendations. The target audience is the full spectrum of diabetes healthcare professionals and individuals with diabetes.

Discordance between mean glucose and time in range in relation to HbA1c in individuals with type 1 diabetes: results from the GOLD and SILVER trials.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Previous studies have shown that individuals with similar mean glucose levels (MG) or percentage of time in range (TIR) may have different HbA1c values. The aim of this study was to further elucidate how MG and TIR are associated with HbA1c. METHODS: Data from the randomised clinical GOLD trial (n=144) and the follow-up SILVER trial (n=98) of adults with type 1 diabetes followed for 2.5 years were analysed. A total of 596 paired HbA1c/continuous glucose monitoring measurements were included. Linear mixed-effects models were used to account for intra-individual correlations in repeated-measures data. RESULTS: In the GOLD trial, the mean age of the participants (± SD) was 44±13 years, 63 (44%) were female, and the mean HbA1c (± SD) was 72±9.8 mmol/mol (8.7±0.9%). When correlating MG with HbA1c, MG explained 63% of the variation in HbA1c (r=0.79, p<0.001). The variation in HbA1c explained by MG increased to 88% (r=0.94, p value for improvement of fit <0.001) when accounting for person-to-person variation in the MG-HbA1c relationship. Time below range (TBR; <3.9 mmol/l), time above range (TAR) level 2 (>13.9 mmol/l) and glycaemic variability had little or no effect on the association. For a given MG and TIR, the HbA1c of 10% of individuals deviated by >8 mmol/mol (0.8%) from their estimated HbA1c based on the overall association between MG and TIR with HbA1c. TBR and TAR level 2 significantly influenced the association between TIR and HbA1c. At a given TIR, each 1% increase in TBR was related to a 0.6 mmol/mol lower HbA1c (95% CI 0.4, 0.9; p<0.001), and each 2% increase in TAR level 2 was related to a 0.4 mmol/mol higher HbA1c (95% CI 0.1, 0.6; p=0.003). However, neither TIR, TBR nor TAR level 2 were significantly associated with HbA1c when accounting for MG. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Inter-individual variations exist between MG and HbA1c, as well as between TIR and HbA1c, with clinically important deviations in relatively large groups of individuals with type 1 diabetes. These results may provide important information to both healthcare providers and individuals with diabetes in terms of prognosis and when making diabetes management decisions.

Bridging dose of U-100 glargine with first dose of insulin degludec improves glycaemia in the 48 h after transition in twice-daily glargine users.

AIMS: To study the effects of a bridging dose of U-100 glargine (U-100G) with the first dose of degludec in type 1 diabetes (T1D) patients transitioning from glargine to degludec, by comparing the glucose metrics 48 h before and after the transition. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with T1D on a stable U-100G regimen and with glycated haemoglobin concentration <75 mmol/mol were randomized (double-blind) to one dose of placebo or U-100G with first dose of degludec, administered at 9:00 pm. Patients on once-daily U-100G at baseline received 50% of total U-100G dose (bridging dose), while patients on twice-daily U-100G received 50% of the evening U-100G dose. Participants wore a continuous glucose monitor during the study. RESULTS: Forty participants were randomized, of whom 37 completed the study. The cohort was 65% male, the mean age was 47 years, duration of T1D 22 years, BMI 26 kg/m2, HbA1c 51 mmol/mol and total daily insulin dose 0.7 units/kg body weight. The bridging group included 19 participants (once-daily U-100G: n = 12; twice-daily U-100G: n = 7) and the placebo group included 18 participants (once-daily U-100G: n = 12; twice-daily U-100G: n = 6). Change in time in range (TIR) was not significantly different between the two treatment groups. In secondary analyses, among twice-daily U-100G users, TIR (3.9-10 mmol/L) increased 8% in the bridging group in the 48 h after first dose of degludec compared to the preceding 48 h, while participants in the placebo group had a 9.5% decrease (p = 0.027). CONCLUSIONS: A subgroup of well-controlled twice-daily U-100G users transitioning to degludec benefited from a 50% bridging dose of evening U-100G with the first dose of degludec in a small pilot study.

Perioperative Care of Patients Using Wearable Diabetes Devices.

The increasing prevalence of diabetes mellitus has been accompanied by a rapid expansion in wearable continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices and insulin pumps. Systems combining these components in a "closed loop," where interstitial glucose measurement guides automated insulin delivery (AID, or closed loop) based on sophisticated algorithms, are increasingly common. While these devices' efficacy in achieving near-normoglycemia is contributing to increasing usage among patients with diabetes, the management of these patients in operative and procedural environments remains understudied with limited published guidance available, particularly regarding AID systems. With their growing prevalence, practical management advice is needed for their utilization, or for the rational temporary substitution of alternative diabetes monitoring and treatments, during surgical care. CGM devices monitor interstitial glucose in real time; however, there are potential limitations to use and accuracy in the perioperative period, and, at the present time, their use should not replace regular point-of-care glucose monitoring. Avoiding perioperative removal of CGMs when possible is important, as removal of these prescribed devices can result in prolonged interruptions in CGM-informed treatments during and after procedures, particularly AID system use. Standalone insulin pumps provide continuous subcutaneous insulin delivery without automated adjustments for glucose concentrations and can be continued during some procedures. The safe intraoperative use of AID devices in their hybrid closed-loop mode (AID mode) requires the CGM component of the system to continue to communicate valid blood glucose data, and thus introduces the additional need to ensure this portion of the system is functioning appropriately to enable intraprocedural use. AID devices revert to non-AID insulin therapy modes when paired CGMs are disconnected or when the closed-loop mode is intentionally disabled. For patients using insulin pumps, we describe procedural factors that may compromise CGM, insulin pump, and AID use, necessitating a proactive transition to an alternative insulin regimen. Procedure duration and invasiveness is an important factor as longer procedures increase the risk of stress hyperglycemia, tissue malperfusion, and device malfunction. Whether insulin pumps should be continued through procedures, or substituted by alternative insulin delivery methods, is a complex decision that requires all parties to understand potential risks and contingency plans relating to patient and procedural factors. Currently available CGMs and insulin pumps are reviewed, and practical recommendations for safe glycemic management during the phases of perioperative care are provided.

Serum Urate Lowering with Allopurinol and Kidney Function in Type 1 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Higher serum urate levels are associated with an increased risk of diabetic kidney disease. Lowering of the serum urate level with allopurinol may slow the decrease in the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) in persons with type 1 diabetes and early-to-moderate diabetic kidney disease. METHODS: In a double-blind trial, we randomly assigned participants with type 1 diabetes, a serum urate level of at least 4.5 mg per deciliter, an estimated GFR of 40.0 to 99.9 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 of body-surface area, and evidence of diabetic kidney disease to receive allopurinol or placebo. The primary outcome was the baseline-adjusted GFR, as measured with iohexol, after 3 years plus a 2-month washout period. Secondary outcomes included the decrease in the iohexol-based GFR per year and the urinary albumin excretion rate after washout. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 267 patients were assigned to receive allopurinol and 263 to receive placebo. The mean age was 51.1 years, the mean duration of diabetes 34.6 years, and the mean glycated hemoglobin level 8.2%. The mean baseline iohexol-based GFR was 68.7 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 in the allopurinol group and 67.3 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 in the placebo group. During the intervention period, the mean serum urate level decreased from 6.1 to 3.9 mg per deciliter with allopurinol and remained at 6.1 mg per deciliter with placebo. After washout, the between-group difference in the mean iohexol-based GFR was 0.001 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.9 to 1.9; P = 0.99). The mean decrease in the iohexol-based GFR was -3.0 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 per year with allopurinol and -2.5 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 per year with placebo (between-group difference, -0.6 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 per year; 95% CI, -1.5 to 0.4). The mean urinary albumin excretion rate after washout was 40% (95% CI, 0 to 80) higher with allopurinol than with placebo. The frequency of serious adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence of clinically meaningful benefits of serum urate reduction with allopurinol on kidney outcomes among patients with type 1 diabetes and early-to-moderate diabetic kidney disease. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and others; PERL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02017171.).

American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Consensus Statement: Comprehensive Type 2 Diabetes Management Algorithm - 2023 Update.

OBJECTIVE: This consensus statement provides (1) visual guidance in concise graphic algorithms to assist with clinical decision-making of health care professionals in the management of persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus to improve patient care and (2) a summary of details to support the visual guidance found in each algorithm. METHODS: The American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE) selected a task force of medical experts who updated the 2020 AACE Comprehensive Type 2 Diabetes Management Algorithm based on the 2022 AACE Clinical Practice Guideline: Developing a Diabetes Mellitus Comprehensive Care Plan and consensus of task force authors. RESULTS: This algorithm for management of persons with type 2 diabetes includes 11 distinct sections: (1) Principles for the Management of Type 2 Diabetes; (2) Complications-Centric Model for the Care of Persons with Overweight/Obesity; (3) Prediabetes Algorithm; (4) Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk Reduction Algorithm: Dyslipidemia; (5) Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk Reduction Algorithm: Hypertension; (6) Complications-Centric Algorithm for Glycemic Control; (7) Glucose-Centric Algorithm for Glycemic Control; (8) Algorithm for Adding/Intensifying Insulin; (9) Profiles of Antihyperglycemic Medications; (10) Profiles of Weight-Loss Medications (new); and (11) Vaccine Recommendations for Persons with Diabetes Mellitus (new), which summarizes recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CONCLUSIONS: Aligning with the 2022 AACE diabetes guideline update, this 2023 diabetes algorithm update emphasizes lifestyle modification and treatment of overweight/obesity as key pillars in the management of prediabetes and diabetes mellitus and highlights the importance of appropriate management of atherosclerotic risk factors of dyslipidemia and hypertension. One notable new theme is an emphasis on a complication-centric approach, beyond glucose levels, to frame decisions regarding first-line pharmacologic choices for the treatment of persons with diabetes. The algorithm also includes access/cost of medications as factors related to health equity to consider in clinical decision-making.

Relative Hypoglycemia and Lower Hemoglobin A1c-Adjusted Time in Band Are Strongly Associated With Increased Mortality in Critically Ill Patients.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the associations of relative hypoglycemia and hemoglobin A1c-adjusted time in blood glucose (BG) band (HA-TIB) with mortality in critically ill patients. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort investigation. SETTING: University-affiliated adult medical-surgical ICU. PATIENTS: Three thousand six hundred fifty-five patients with at least four BG tests and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level admitted between September 14, 2014, and November 30, 2019. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Patients were stratified for HbA1c bands of <6.5%; 6.5-7.9%; greater than or equal to 8.0% with optimal affiliated glucose target ranges of 70-140, 140-180, and 180-250 mg/dL, respectively. HA-TIB, a new glycemic metric, defined the HbA1c-adjusted time in band. Relative hypoglycemia was defined as BG 70-110 mg/dL for patients with HbA1c ≥ 8.0%. Further stratification included diabetes status-no diabetes (NO-DM, n = 2,616) and preadmission treatment with or without insulin (DM-INS, n = 352; DM-No-INS, n = 687, respectively). Severity-adjusted mortality was calculated as the observed:expected mortality ratio (O:EMR), using the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation IV prediction of mortality. Among NO-DM, mortality and O:EMR, decreased with higher TIB 70-140 mg/dL ( p < 0.0001) and were lowest with TIB 90-100%. O:EMR was lower for HA-TIB greater than or equal to 50% than less than 50% and among all DM-No-INS but for DM-INS only those with HbA1 greater than or equal to 8.0%.Among all patients with hba1c greater than or equal to 8.0% And no bg less than 70 mg/dl, mortality was 18.0% For patients with relative hypoglycemia (bg, 70-110 mg/dl) ( p < 0.0001) And was 0.0%, 12.9%, 13.0%, And 34.8% For patients with 0, 0.1-2.9, 3.0-11.9, And greater than or equal to 12.0 Hours of relative hypoglycemia ( p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: These findings have considerable bearing on interpretation of previous trials of intensive insulin therapy in the critically ill. Moreover, they suggest that BG values in the 70-110 range may be deleterious for patients with HbA1c greater than or equal to 8.0% and that the appropriate target for BG should be individualized to HbA1c levels. These conclusions need to be tested in randomized trials.

American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline: Developing a Diabetes Mellitus Comprehensive Care Plan-2022 Update.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this clinical practice guideline is to provide updated and new evidence-based recommendations for the comprehensive care of persons with diabetes mellitus to clinicians, diabetes-care teams, other health care professionals and stakeholders, and individuals with diabetes and their caregivers. METHODS: The American Association of Clinical Endocrinology selected a task force of medical experts and staff who updated and assessed clinical questions and recommendations from the prior 2015 version of this guideline and conducted literature searches for relevant scientific papers published from January 1, 2015, through May 15, 2022. Selected studies from results of literature searches composed the evidence base to update 2015 recommendations as well as to develop new recommendations based on review of clinical evidence, current practice, expertise, and consensus, according to established American Association of Clinical Endocrinology protocol for guideline development. RESULTS: This guideline includes 170 updated and new evidence-based clinical practice recommendations for the comprehensive care of persons with diabetes. Recommendations are divided into four sections: (1) screening, diagnosis, glycemic targets, and glycemic monitoring; (2) comorbidities and complications, including obesity and management with lifestyle, nutrition, and bariatric surgery, hypertension, dyslipidemia, retinopathy, neuropathy, diabetic kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease; (3) management of prediabetes, type 2 diabetes with antihyperglycemic pharmacotherapy and glycemic targets, type 1 diabetes with insulin therapy, hypoglycemia, hospitalized persons, and women with diabetes in pregnancy; (4) education and new topics regarding diabetes and infertility, nutritional supplements, secondary diabetes, social determinants of health, and virtual care, as well as updated recommendations on cancer risk, nonpharmacologic components of pediatric care plans, depression, education and team approach, occupational risk, role of sleep medicine, and vaccinations in persons with diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: This updated clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations to assist with person-centered, team-based clinical decision-making to improve the care of persons with diabetes mellitus.

The management of type 1 diabetes in adults. A consensus report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD).

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) convened a writing group to develop a consensus statement on the management of type 1 diabetes in adults. The writing group has considered the rapid development of new treatments and technologies and addressed the following topics: diagnosis, aims of management, schedule of care, diabetes self-management education and support, glucose monitoring, insulin therapy, hypoglycaemia, behavioural considerations, psychosocial care, diabetic ketoacidosis, pancreas and islet transplantation, adjunctive therapies, special populations, inpatient management and future perspectives. Although we discuss the schedule for follow-up examinations and testing, we have not included the evaluation and treatment of the chronic microvascular and macrovascular complications of diabetes as these are well-reviewed and discussed elsewhere. The writing group was aware of both national and international guidance on type 1 diabetes and did not seek to replicate this but rather aimed to highlight the major areas that healthcare professionals should consider when managing adults with type 1 diabetes. Though evidence-based where possible, the recommendations in the report represent the consensus opinion of the authors. Graphical abstract.

The majority of people with type 1 diabetes and multiple daily insulin injections benefit from using continuous glucose monitoring: An analysis based on the GOLD randomized trial (GOLD-5).

AIM: To identify responders to continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in relation to reductions in HbA1c and percentage of time spent in hypoglycaemia after initiation of CGM for individuals with type 1 diabetes treated with multiple daily insulin injections. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analysed data from 142 participants in the GOLD randomized clinical trial. We evaluated how many lowered their HbA1c by more than 0.4% (>4.7 mmol/mol) or decreased the time spent in hypoglycaemia over 24 hours by more than 20 or 30 minutes, and which baseline variables were associated with those improvements. RESULTS: Lower reduction of HbA1c was associated with greater reduction of hypoglycaemia (r = -0.52; P < .0001). During CGM, 47% of participants lowered their HbA1c values by more than 0.4% (>4.7 mmol/mol) than with self-measurement of blood glucose, and 47% decreased the time spent in hypoglycaemia by more than 20 minutes over 24 hours. Overall, 78% either reduced their HbA1c by more than 0.4% (>4.7 mmol/mol) or the time spent in hypoglycaemia by more than 20 minutes over 24 hours, but only 14% improved both. Higher HbA1c, a lower percentage of time at less than 3.0 or 3.9 mmol/L, a lower coefficient of variation (CV) and a higher percentage of time above 13.9 mmol/L (P = .016) were associated with greater HbA1c reduction during CGM. The variables associated with a greater reduction of time in hypoglycaemia were female sex, greater time with glucose levels at less than 3.0 mmol/L, higher CV, and higher hypoglycaemia confidence as evaluated by a hypoglycaemic confidence questionnaire. CONCLUSION: The majority of people with type 1 diabetes managed by multiple daily insulin injections benefit from CGM; some experienced reduced HbA1c while others reduced the time spent in hypoglycaemia. These factors need to be considered by healthcare professionals and decision-makers for reimbursement and diabetes guidelines.

Effect of Continuous Glucose Monitoring on Hypoglycemia in Older Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) provides real-time assessment of glucose levels and may be beneficial in reducing hypoglycemia in older adults with type 1 diabetes. Objective: To determine whether CGM is effective in reducing hypoglycemia compared with standard blood glucose monitoring (BGM) in older adults with type 1 diabetes. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial conducted at 22 endocrinology practices in the United States among 203 adults at least 60 years of age with type 1 diabetes. Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to use CGM (n = 103) or standard BGM (n = 100). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was CGM-measured percentage of time that sensor glucose values were less than 70 mg/dL during 6 months of follow-up. There were 31 prespecified secondary outcomes, including additional CGM metrics for hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, and glucose control; hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c); and cognition and patient-reported outcomes, with adjustment for multiple comparisons to control for false-discovery rate. Results: Of the 203 participants (median age, 68 [interquartile range {IQR}, 65-71] years; median type 1 diabetes duration, 36 [IQR, 25-48] years; 52% female; 53% insulin pump use; mean HbA1c, 7.5% [SD, 0.9%]), 83% used CGM at least 6 days per week during month 6. Median time with glucose levels less than 70 mg/dL was 5.1% (73 minutes per day) at baseline and 2.7% (39 minutes per day) during follow-up in the CGM group vs 4.7% (68 minutes per day) and 4.9% (70 minutes per day), respectively, in the standard BGM group (adjusted treatment difference, -1.9% (-27 minutes per day); 95% CI, -2.8% to -1.1% [-40 to -16 minutes per day]; P <.001). Of the 31 prespecified secondary end points, there were statistically significant differences for all 9 CGM metrics, 6 of 7 HbA1c outcomes, and none of the 15 cognitive and patient-reported outcomes. Mean HbA1c decreased in the CGM group compared with the standard BGM group (adjusted group difference, -0.3%; 95% CI, -0.4% to -0.1%; P <.001). The most commonly reported adverse events using CGM and standard BGM, respectively, were severe hypoglycemia (1 and 10), fractures (5 and 1), falls (4 and 3), and emergency department visits (6 and 8). Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults aged 60 years or older with type 1 diabetes, continuous glucose monitoring compared with standard blood glucose monitoring resulted in a small but statistically significant improvement in hypoglycemia over 6 months. Further research is needed to understand the long-term clinical benefit. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03240432.

Flash Continuous Glucose Monitoring: Implications for Use of Continuous Data in Daily Diabetes Management.

Full realization of the benefits of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) depends on addressing barriers such as cost, accuracy, burdens of daily use, and uncertainty about applying the data. Lack of systematic education has also hampered widespread adoption among patients and health care professionals. This article describes the practical application of an affordable and intuitive category of CGM called "flash" that requires users to scan the sensor with a handheld reader for on-demand access to continuous data. The data may be used for in-the-moment therapy adjustment, retrospective review of glucose patterns, and observation of glucose trending in response to behavior. Higher rates of flash CGM scanning have been associated with increased time in the glycemic target range and reduced time in hyper- and hypoglycemia. Growing interest in this technology suggests new opportunities for helping more patients incorporate CGM into their daily self-care.

Using Flash Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Primary Practice.

IN BRIEF Obstacles to realizing the clinical benefits of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for daily diabetes management are being overcome with more affordable, user-friendly technologies. This article describes a novel category of CGM known as "flash" that may allow more routine use of continuous data for greater numbers of patients treated in primary care.

Diabetic Kidney Disease: Is There a Role for Glycemic Variability?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Diabetes is the leading cause of kidney disease globally. Diabetic kidney disease (DKD) is a heterogeneous disorder manifested as albuminuria and/or decreasing GFR. Hyperglycemic burden is the major contributor to the development of DKD. In this article, we review the evidence for the contribution of glycemic variability and the pitfalls associated with use of hemoglobin A1c (A1C), the gold standard for assessment of glucose control, in the setting of DKD. RECENT FINDINGS: Glycemic variability, characterized by swings in blood glucose levels, can result in generation of mitochondrial reactive oxygen species, a putative inciting factor for hyperglycemia-induced alterations in intracellular metabolic pathways. While there is indirect evidence supporting the role of glycemic variability in the pathogenesis of DKD, definitive data are lacking. A1C has many limitations and is a particularly suboptimal measure in patients with kidney disease, because its accuracy is compromised by variables affecting RBC survival and other factors. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) technology has the potential to enable us to use glucose as a more important clinical tool, for a more definitive understanding of glucose variability and its role in DKD. Glycemic variability may be a factor in the development of DKD, but definitive evidence is lacking. Currently, all available glycemic biomarkers, including A1C, have limitations and in the setting of DKD and should be used cautiously. Emerging data suggest that personal and professional CGM will play an important role in managing diabetes in patients with DKD, where risk of hypoglycemia is high.

Availability and Affordability of Essential Medicines: Implications for Global Diabetes Treatment.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this review is to highlight the key issues with regard to the value, affordability, and availability of diabetes treatments. RECENT FINDINGS: Many of the medicines needed to manage diabetes are available as generics and, if purchased appropriately, can be made affordable to many individuals and systems. With new treatments for diabetes, additional costs to individuals and systems need to be assessed in terms of added clinical benefit and financial impact. As healthcare finances are limited, increased spending on diabetes medicines means fewer resources for other areas of diabetes care or for the population as a whole. This increased expenditure is driven by rising prevalence as well as the cost of newer treatments. With an increasing burden of disease and changing patterns of medicines in the market, we stress the need to focus attention on ensuring access for individuals to essential medicines. Universal health care offers unique opportunity to address the issue of access to medicines and the wider issues surrounding access to diabetes care, but this will require concerted action bringing together governments, civil society and the private sector.

Does Time-in-Range Matter? Perspectives From People With Diabetes on the Success of Current Therapies and the Drivers of Improved Outcomes.

IN BRIEF After assessing patient perspectives on the success of current diabetes therapies and the factors that have the greatest impact on daily life, we show that time-in-range is a crucial outcome for people with diabetes and that current therapies are falling short on this metric. We also show that patients feel significant stress and worry, and they believe they are falling short in diet, exercise, and weight maintenance. In addition, they believe diet and exercise and in-range blood glucose are the biggest drivers of improved diabetes management and mindset. Together, these findings support the need for therapies that improve outcomes including and beyond A1C.