Glucagon-Like Peptide 1 Receptor Agonists Have the Potential to Revolutionize the Attainment of Target A1C Levels in Type 2 Diabetes-So Why Is Their Uptake So Low?

A target A1C of <7% is the recommended goal for most people with type 2 diabetes. However, many are not achieving this target with their current treatment. Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are highly efficacious in achieving glycemic control and could aid primary care providers (PCPs) in getting patients to their A1C target. However, despite their potential, use of GLP-1 receptor agonists in the primary care setting is limited. This review provides guidance for PCPs on how to help patients achieve their glycemic target and overcome perceived barriers of GLP-1 receptor agonist use, with the overall goal of improving PCP confidence in prescribing these agents.

Remote Patient Monitoring in Diabetes: How to Acquire, Manage, and Use All of the Data.

The ability of patients and health care providers to use various forms of technology for general health has significantly increased in the past several years with the expansion of telehealth, digital applications, personal digital devices, smartphones, and other internet-connected platforms and devices. For individuals with diabetes, this also includes connected blood glucose meters, continuous glucose monitoring devices, and insulin delivery systems. In this article, the authors outline several steps to facilitate the acquisition, management, and meaningful use of digital diabetes data that can enable successful implementation of both diabetes technology and telehealth services in primary care clinics.

Use of Flash Continuous Glucose Monitoring Is Associated With A1C Reduction in People With Type 2 Diabetes Treated With Basal Insulin or Noninsulin Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Glycemic control is suboptimal in many individuals with type 2 diabetes. Although use of flash continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has demonstrated A1C reductions in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with a multiple daily injection or insulin pump therapy regimen, the glycemic benefit of this technology in patients with type 2 diabetes using nonintensive treatment regimens has not been well studied. METHODS: This retrospective, observational study used the IBM Explorys database to assess changes in A1C after flash CGM prescription in a large population with suboptimally controlled type 2 diabetes treated with nonintensive therapy. Inclusion criteria were diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, age <65 years, treatment with basal insulin or noninsulin therapy, naive to any CGM, baseline A1C ≥8%, and a prescription for the FreeStyle Libre flash CGM system during the period between October 2017 and February 2020. Patients served as their own control subject. RESULTS: A total of 1,034 adults with type 2 diabetes (mean age 51.6 ± 9.2 years, 50.9% male, baseline A1C 10.1 ± 1.7%) were assessed. More patients received noninsulin treatments (n = 728) than basal insulin therapy (n = 306). We observed a significant reduction in A1C within the full cohort: from 10.1 ± 1.7 to 8.6 ± 1.8%; Δ -1.5 ± 2.2% (P <0.001). The largest reductions were seen in patients with a baseline A1C ≥12.0% (n = 181, A1C reduction -3.7%, P <0.001). Significant reductions were seen in both treatment groups (basal insulin -1.1%, noninsulin -1.6%, both P <0.001). CONCLUSION: Prescription of the flash CGM system was associated with significant reductions in A1C in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin or noninsulin therapy. These findings provide evidence for expanding access to flash CGM within the broader population of people with type 2 diabetes.

Using Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Clinical Practice.

Continuous glucose monitoring is poised to radically change the treatment of diabetes and patient engagement of those afflicted with this disease. This article will provide an overview of CGM and equip health care providers to begin integrating this technology into their clinical practice.

Treatment Intensification With Insulin Pumps and Other Technologies in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: Results of a Physician Survey in the United States.

An online survey was conducted to assess the perspectives and use of diabetes technologies by a sample of U.S. primary care physicians (PCPs) and endocrinologists to optimize intensive insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes. Overall, endocrinologists reported using diabetes technologies more frequently than PCPs for patients with type 2 diabetes requiring basal-bolus insulin therapy. PCPs and endocrinologists who were highly focused on diabetes management with insulin therapy reported using insulin delivery devices (insulin pumps and wearable tube-free patches) when patients are not achieving their A1C target while taking basal plus three or more prandial injections of insulin daily.

Addressing Therapeutic Inertia in 2020 and Beyond: A 3-Year Initiative of the American Diabetes Association.

Research has shown that getting to glycemic targets early on leads to better outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes; yet, there has been no improvement in the attainment of A1C targets in the past decade. One reason is therapeutic inertia: the lack of timely adjustment to the treatment regimen when a person's therapeutic targets are not met. This article describes the scope and priorities of the American Diabetes Association's 3-year Overcoming Therapeutic Inertia Initiative. Its planned activities include publishing a systematic review and meta-analysis of approaches to reducing therapeutic inertia, developing a registry of effective strategies, launching clinician awareness and education campaigns, leveraging electronic health record and clinical decision-support tools, influencing payer policies, and potentially executing pragmatic research to test promising interventions.

IDegLira improves patient-reported outcomes while using a simple regimen with fewer injections and dose adjustments compared with basal-bolus therapy.

AIMS: Basal-bolus therapy is associated with greater treatment burden and lower adherence compared with more simplified regimens. This post hoc analysis studied the difference between insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) and basal-bolus therapy on number of injections, dose adjustments and patient outcomes in the DUAL VII trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: DUAL VII was a 26-week, open-label trial in which patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes who were using metformin and insulin glargine 100 units/mL (20-50 U) were randomized 1:1 to IDegLira (N = 252) or basal-bolus (insulin glargine U100 + insulin aspart ≤4 times/day) (N = 254). This post hoc analysis reports the observed mean number of injections and cumulative dose adjustments during 26 weeks of treatment. Patient-reported outcomes (Treatment-Related Impact Measure - Diabetes [TRIM-D] and Short Form-36 Health Survey version 2 [SF-36v2]) were collected at scheduled visits and change from baseline scores calculated. RESULTS: The clinical benefits (non-inferior HbA1c reductions, weight benefit, less hypoglycaemia) of IDegLira vs basal-bolus therapy were achieved with fewer cumulative dose adjustments (16.6 vs 217.2, respectively) and fewer injections (1 vs ≥3 per day, respectively). Patients treated with IDegLira experienced significant improvements across all TRIM-D domains compared with those undergoing basal-bolus therapy. The SF-36v2 showed improvements in both treatment arms with no significant difference between arms in the physical component summary, but there was a significant improvement in patients treated with IDegLira in the mental component summary (P = .0228). CONCLUSIONS: These findings, combined with the DUAL VII results, suggest that IDegLira, through a more simplified regimen versus basal-bolus therapy, may help improve patient adherence and improve patient outcomes related to diabetes management, treatment burden and mental health, which in turn may assist in the timely achievement of glycaemic control in clinical practice.

Opportunities to overcome underutilization of enhanced insulin delivery technologies in people with type 2 diabetes: a narrative review.

Use of innovative technologies such as continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and insulin delivery systems have been shown to be safe and effective in helping patients with diabetes achieve significantly improved glycemic outcomes compared to their previous therapies. However, these technologies are underutilized in many primary care practices. This narrative review discusses some of the clinical and economic benefits of tubeless insulin delivery devices and discusses how this technology can overcome the main obstacles inherent to use of conventional insulin delivery devices.

Perspectives in Managing Kidney Disease and Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) share a complex and dependent link with each other and other cardiometabolic conditions. Currently, there is insufficient data regarding patient and provider perceptions about this important clinical overlap. This study sought to evaluate healthcare provider (HCP) and patient attitudes and perceptions about CKD and ASCVD, including risk, diagnosis, and management of both conditions. METHODS: Cross-sectional surveys of 58 nephrologists and 74 cardiologists who treat patients with CKD and ASCVD and 195 patients who self-reported having CKD and ASCVD were conducted in the US between May and June 2021. RESULTS: Most nephrologists agreed that the presence of cardiometabolic comorbidities increased patients' risk of developing CKD; 86% agreed that type 2 diabetes (T2D) increased the risk, and 67% agreed that ASCVD increased the risk. However, only 52% of the nephrologists reported they typically discuss the risk of developing CKD with patients prior to diagnosing them. Slightly more than one-third of patients (35%) reported their HCP discussed other conditions' impact on the development of CKD; of all HCPs surveyed, nephrologists were the least likely to discuss CKD risk with their patients. Most nephrologists (83%) also reported they recommended lifestyle modification to patients; however, only about half of patients (53%) reported they were currently using a lifestyle change to treat CKD and/or ASCVD. CONCLUSIONS: Although CKD and ASCVD are known to have a bidirectional relationship, HCPs in our study did not report routinely educating patients about the risk of developing one or both conditions. As HCPs with perhaps the deepest understanding of the interplay between CKD and cardiorenal comorbidities, nephrologists are well positioned to help patients understand the link between cardiovascular and renal health, help identify strategies to limit risk, and appropriately treat the conditions.

Initiating GLP-1 Therapy in Combination with FreeStyle Libre Provides Greater Benefit Compared with GLP-1 Therapy Alone.

Background and Aim: Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) therapy provides glycemic benefits to individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, the effects of GLP-1 RA therapy in combination with FreeStyle Libre systems (FSL) are unknown. This study aimed to compare changes in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) between people acquiring GLP-1 with FSL (GLP-1+FSL) versus GLP-1 without FSL (GLP-1). Methods: This real-world study used Optum's de-identified Market Clarity Data, a linked electronic health records (EHR)-claims database, and included adults with T2D and HbA1c ≥8% who acquired their first GLP-1 RA medication between 2018 and 2022. GLP-1+FSL subjects acquired their first FSL within ±30 days of their first GLP-1 acquisition. Cohorts were matched 1:5 on baseline insulin therapy, age, sex, baseline HbA1c, and GLP-1 type. Paired changes in HbA1c were compared between unmatched and matched groups at 6 months. Results: The study included 24,724 adults in the unmatched cohort (GLP-1+FSL, n = 478; GLP-1, n = 24,246). The matched cohort included 478 GLP-1+FSL users and 2,390 GLP-1 users: mean age 53.5 ± 11.8 and 53.5 ± 11.3 years, HbA1c 10.25 ± 1.68% and 10.22 ± 1.69%, respectively. HbA1c reduction was greater in the GLP-1+FSL group compared with the GLP-1 group in the unmatched cohort (-2.43% vs. -1.73%, difference 0.70%, P < 0.001, respectively) and in the matched cohort (-2.43% vs. -2.06%, difference 0.37%, P < 0.001). GLP-1+FSL vs. GLP-1 treatment was associated with greater HbA1c reduction in the intensive insulin (-2.32% vs. -1.50%), nonintensive insulin (-2.50% vs. -1.74%), and noninsulin group (-2.46% vs. -1.78%), as well as in patients using semaglutide (-2.73% vs. -1.92%) and dulaglutide (-2.45% vs. -1.71%) GLP-1 RA, all P < 0.001. Conclusions: Adults with suboptimally controlled T2D, initiating GLP-1 RA with FreeStyle Libre, had greater improvement in HbA1c compared with those treated with GLP-1 RA only. These results suggest an additional glycemic benefit of FSL when used with a GLP-1 RA in T2D treatment.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Practice.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES: After reading this review article, participants should be able to: Prepare the practice for continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). Understand options available to the practice for professional (practice-owned) and personal (patient-owned) CGM. Locate and interpret CGM data, using the ambulatory glucose profile (AGP), to determine if the patient is achieving targets established by the International Consensus on Time in Range. Modify a patient's treatment plan based on CGM data to improve patient outcomes.

What Role Might There Be for Continuous Glucose Monitoring in the Assessment of Diabetes Risk?

The term "prediabetes" has traditionally been used to describe the state of abnormal glucose homeostasis (dysglycemia) that could eventually lead to developing clinical type 2 diabetes. The HbA1c, oral glucose tolerance testing, and fasting glucose measurements represent the standard approaches for assessing risk. However, they do not predict with complete accuracy, nor do they provide individualized risk assessment to determine who will develop diabetes. Use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) provides a more complete picture of inter- and intraday glucose excursions that may help clinicians and patients quickly identify dysglycemia and make informed personalized intervention decisions. This article discusses the utility of CGM as a tool for both risk assessment and risk management.

Cardiorenal care coordination: holistic patient care opportunities in the primary care setting for patients with chronic kidney disease and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

OBJECTIVES: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) are closely linked conditions, and the presence of each condition promotes incidence and progression of the other. In this study, we sought to better understand the medical journey of patients with CKD and ASCVD and to uncover patients' and healthcare providers' (HCPs) perceptions and attitudes toward CKD and ASCVD diagnosis, treatment, and care coordination. METHODS: Cross-sectional, US-population-based online surveys were conducted between May 18, 2021, and June 17, 2021, among 239 HCPs (70 of whom were primary care physicians, or PCPs) and 195 patients with CKD and ASCVD. RESULTS: PCPs reported personally diagnosing CKD in 78% and ASVD in 64% of their patients, respectively. PCPs reported they are more likely to serve as the overall coordinator of their patient's care (89%), while slightly more than half of PCPs self-identified as a patient's coordinator of care specifically for CKD (54%) or ASCVD (59%). In contrast, patients viewed their PCP as their coordinator of care for CKD (25%) or ASCVD (9%). PCPs who personally treated patients with CKD and ASCVD most often recalled primarily prescribing or recommending pharmacologic treatments for CKD and ASCVD; however, patients reported that lifestyle modification was the most common treatment modality they had ever used to manage CKD and ASCVD. CONCLUSION: CKD and ASCVD are interrelated cardiometabolic conditions with underlying risk factors that can be managed in a primary care setting. However, few patients in our study considered their PCP to be the coordinator of their care for CKD or ASCVD. PCPs can and should take a more active role in educating patients and coordinating care for those with CKD and ASCVD.

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a medical condition where the kidneys are damaged, and their function is reduced. CKD is often linked to other health problems. Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) is a condition where cholesterol builds up in the arteries, leading to reduced blood flow and heart issues. This study wanted to understand what patients and healthcare providers (HCPs) know about these two conditions and how they are managed. We sent questionnaires to 195 patients with CKD and ASCVD as well as 239 HCPs who treat patients with CKD and ASCVD. The results showed primary care physicians (PCPs) are the main healthcare providers for most patients, but specialists are often involved in managing CKD and ASCVD. PCPs play a crucial role in helping patients understand how other health care conditions can impact their risk for CKD and ASCVD. PCPs can also guide patients on making lifestyle changes to lower their risk of these diseases and can refer patients to specialists, while still providing guidance on management of these conditions.

Common Questions on Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Primary Care.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES: Identify patients who are good candidates for a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) vs fingerstick self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) Discuss the information provided by CGM systems Generate and interpret patient CGM data using the ambulatory glucose profile (AGP) to assess time targets established by the International Consensus on Time in Range Modify the treatment plan based on CGM data to improve patient outcomes.

Update on the Gut Microbiome for the Primary Care Clinician.

KEY TAKEAWAYS: The gut microbiome, sometimes referred to as the "organ" we do not know we have, is a dynamic ecosystem that plays an important role in human health and disease. Alterations in the gut microbiome (dysbiosis) are associated with wide-ranging disease states, including metabolic diseases like type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D). Growing evidence suggests improved gut microbiome composition from targeted microbiome interventions leads to improvement in glycemic control in patients with T2D.