Expert Panel Recommendations for a Standardized Ambulatory Glucose Profile Report for Connected Insulin Pens.

BACKGROUND: Connected insulin pens capture data on insulin dosing/timing and can integrate with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices with essential insulin and glucose metrics into a single platform. Standardization of connected insulin pen reports is desirable to enhance clinical utility with a single report. METHODS: An international expert panel was convened to develop a standardized connected insulin pen report incorporating insulin and glucose metrics into a single, clinically useful report. An extensive literature review and identification of examples of current connected insulin pen reports was performed serving as the basis for creation of a draft of a standardized connected insulin pen report. The expert panel participated in three virtual standardization meetings and online surveys. RESULTS: The AGP Report: Connected Insulin Pen brings all clinically relevant CGM-derived glucose and connected insulin pen metrics into a single simplified two-page report. The first page contains the time in ranges bar, summary of key insulin and glucose metrics, the ambulatory glucose profile (AGP) curve, and detailed basal (long-acting) insulin assessment. The second page contains the bolus (mealtime and correction) insulin assessment periods with information on meal timing, insulin-to-carbohydrate ratio (ICR), average bolus insulin dose and number of days with bolus doses recorded. The report's second page contains daily glucose profiles with an overlay of the timing and amount of basal and bolus insulin administered. CONCLUSION: The AGP Report: Connected Insulin Pen is a standardized clinically useful report that should be considered by companies developing connected pen technology as part of their system reporting/output.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring Profiles in Pregnancies With and Without Gestational Diabetes Mellitus.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-derived glycemic patterns can characterize pregnancies with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) as diagnosed by standard oral glucose tolerance test at 24-28 weeks' gestation compared with those without GDM. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The analysis includes 768 individuals enrolled from two sites prior to 17 weeks' gestation between June 2020 and December 2021 in a prospective observational study. Participants wore blinded Dexcom G6 CGMs throughout gestation. Main outcome of interest was a diagnosis of GDM by oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). Glycemic levels in participants with GDM versus without GDM were characterized using CGM-measured glycemic metrics. RESULTS: Participants with GDM (n = 58 [8%]) had higher mean glucose (109 ± 13 vs. 100 ± 8 mg/dL [6.0 ± 0.7 vs. 5.6 ± 0.4 mmol/L], P < 0.001), greater glucose SD (23 ± 4 vs. 19 ± 3 mg/dL [1.3 ± 0.2 vs. 1.1 ± 0.2 mmol/L], P < 0.001), less time in range 63-120 mg/dL (3.5-6.7 mmol/L) (70% ± 17% vs. 84% ± 8%, P < 0.001), greater percent time >120 mg/dL (>6.7 mmol/L) (median 23% vs. 12%, P < 0.001), and greater percent time >140 mg/dL (>7.8 mmol/L) (median 7.4% vs. 2.7%, P < 0.001) than those without GDM throughout gestation prior to OGTT. Median percent time >120 mg/dL (>6.7 mmol/L) and time >140 mg/dL (>7.8 mmol/L) were higher as early as 13-14 weeks of gestation (32% vs. 14%, P < 0.001, and 5.2% vs. 2.0%, P < 0.001, respectively) and persisted during the entire study period prior to OGTT. CONCLUSIONS: Prior to OGTT at 24-34 weeks' gestation, pregnant individuals who develop GDM have higher CGM-measured glucose levels and more hyperglycemia compared with those who do not develop GDM.

Glucose levels measured with continuous glucose monitoring in uncomplicated pregnancies.

INTRODUCTION: To characterize glucose levels during uncomplicated pregnancies, defined as pregnancy with a hemoglobin A1c <5.7% (<39 mmol/mol) in early pregnancy, and without a large-for-gestational-age birth, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, or gestational diabetes mellitus (ie, abnormal oral glucose tolerance test). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Two sites enrolled 937 pregnant individuals aged 18 years and older prior to reaching 17 gestational weeks; 413 had an uncomplicated pregnancy (mean±SD body mass index (BMI) of 25.3±5.0 kg/m2) and wore Dexcom G6 continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices throughout the observed gestational period. Mealtimes were voluntarily recorded. Glycemic levels during gestation were characterized using CGM-measured glycemic metrics. RESULTS: Participants wore CGM for a median of 123 days each. Glucose levels were nearly stable throughout all three trimesters in uncomplicated pregnancies. Overall mean±SD glucose during gestation was 98±7 mg/dL (5.4±0.4 mmol/L), median per cent time 63-120 mg/dL (3.5-6.7 mmol/L) was 86% (IQR: 82-89%), median per cent time <63 mg/dL (3.5 mmol/L) was 1.8%, median per cent time >120 mg/dL (6.7 mmol/L) was 11%, and median per cent time >140 mg/dL (7.8 mmol/L) was 2.5%. Mean post-prandial peak glucose was 126±22 mg/dL (7.0±1.2 mmol/L), and mean post-prandial glycemic excursion was 36±22 mg/dL (2.0±1.2 mmol/L). Higher mean glucose levels were low to moderately associated with pregnant individuals with higher BMIs (103±6 mg/dL (5.7±0.3 mmol/L) for BMI ≥30.0 kg/m2 vs 96±7 mg/dL (5.3±0.4 mmol/L) for BMI 18.5-<25 kg/m2, r=0.35). CONCLUSIONS: Mean glucose levels and time 63-120 mg/dL (3.5-6.7 mmol/L) remained nearly stable throughout pregnancy and values above 140 mg/dL (7.8 mmol/L) were rare. Mean glucose levels in pregnancy trend higher as BMI increases into the overweight/obesity range. The glycemic metrics reported during uncomplicated pregnancies represent treatment targets for pregnant individuals.

Once-weekly insulin efsitora alfa: Design and rationale for the QWINT phase 3 clinical development programme.

AIMS: Insulin efsitora alfa (efsitora) is a once-weekly basal insulin. This review describes the study design and rationale of the efsitora phase 3 Once Weekly (QW) Insulin Therapy (QWINT) clinical development programme, including the five trials, QWINT-1 through QWINT-5. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The five trials included insulin-naïve adults (QWINT-1 and -2) with type 2 diabetes (T2D), adults with T2D previously treated with basal insulin (QWINT-3 and -4), and QWINT-5 in adults with type 1 diabetes. All five trials were designed as multicentre, randomized, controlled, open-label, treat-to-target studies to investigate the efficacy and safety of efsitora versus active once-daily basal insulin comparators (insulin glargine U100 or insulin degludec U100). The primary objective of each trial is to compare the change in HbA1c from baseline to week 26 or 52 between efsitora and the active comparator. The key secondary objectives include change in fasting glucose, insulin dose and continuous glucose monitoring variables, and patient-reported outcome questionnaires. CONCLUSIONS: The QWINT development programme includes a racially and geographically diverse population to provide important information regarding the efficacy and safety of efsitora and its clinical management of people with diabetes.

A scalable application of Artificial Intelligence-Driven Insulin Titration Program to transform Type 2 Diabetes Management.

BACKGROUND: Despite new pharmacotherapy, most patients with long-term Type 2 Diabetes are still hyperglycemic. This could have been solved by insulin with its unlimited potential efficacy, but its dynamic physiology demands frequent titrations which are overdemanding. This report provides a real-life account for a scalable transformation of diabetes care in a community-based endocrinology center by harnessing AI-based autonomous insulin titration. METHODS: The center embedded the d-Nav® technology and its dedicated clinical support. Reported outcomes include treatment efficacy/safety in the first 600 patients and use of cardiorenal-risk reduction pharmacotherapy. FINDINGS: Patients used d-Nav for 8.2±3.0 months with 82% retention. Age was 67.1±11.5 years and duration of diabetes was 19.8±11.0 years. During the last 3 years before d-Nav, HbA1c had been overall higher than 8% and at the beginning of the program it was as high as 8.6%±2.1% with 29.3% of the patients with HbA1c>9%. With d-Nav, HbA1c decreased to 7.3%±1.2% with 5.7% of patients with HbA1c>9%. During the first 3 months, d-Nav reduced total daily dose of insulin in 1 of every 5 patients due to relatively low glucose levels to minimize the risk of hypoglycemia. GLP-1 or dual GLP-1 and GIP receptor agonists were prescribed in about a half of the patients and SGLT2 inhibitor in a third. The frequency of hypoglycemia (<54mg/dl) was 0.4±0.6/month and severe hypoglycemia 1.7/100-patient-years. INTERPRETATION: The use of d-Nav allowed for improvement in overall diabetes management with appropriate use of both insulin and non-insulin pharmacologic agents in a scalable way.

Is It Time to Move Beyond TIR to TITR? Real-World Data from Over 20,000 Users of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Patients with Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes.

The growing use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has been supported by expert consensus and clinical guidelines on glycemic management in diabetes with time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) representing a key CGM-derived glucose metric. Time in tight range (TITR) has also been proposed for clinical use, spanning largely normal glucose levels of 70-140 mg/dL. However, keeping such narrow glucose ranges can be challenging, and understanding the factors modulating TITR can help achieve these tight glycemic targets. Our real-life study aimed to evaluate the relationship between average glucose (AG) and TIR/TITR in a large cohort (n = 22,006) of CGM users, divided into four groups: self-identified as having type 1 diabetes (T1D) treated with insulin using multiple daily injections (MDI) or pumps; type 2 diabetes (T2D) on MDI or insulin pumps; T2D on basal insulin only; and T2D not on insulin treatment. The T2D groups, regardless of treatment type, displayed the highest TIR and TITR values, associated with lowest glycemic variability measured as glucose coefficient of variation (CV; 23-30%). The T1D group showed the lowest TIR and TITR, associated with the highest CVs (36-38%). Overall, higher CV was associated with lower TIR and TITR for AG values below 180 and 140 mg/dL, respectively, with the reverse holding true for AG values above these thresholds. The discordance between AG and TIR/TITR was less pronounced in T2D compared with T1D, attributed to lower CV in the former group. It was also observed that TITR has advantages over TIR for assessing glycemia status and progress toward more stringent A1C, particularly when approaching normal glucose levels. The data detail how CV affects the AG relationship with TIR/TITR, which has implications for CGM interpretation. In many instances TITR, rather than TIR, may be preferable to employ once AG falls below 140 mg/dL and near-normal glucose levels are required clinically.

Control-IQ Technology Use in Individuals With High Insulin Requirements: Results From the Multicenter Higher-IQ Trial.

BACKGROUND: Control-IQ technology version 1.5 allows for a wider range of weight and total daily insulin (TDI) entry, in addition to other changes to enhance performance for users with high basal rates. This study evaluated the safety and performance of the updated Control-IQ system for users with basal rates >3 units/h and high TDI in a multicenter, single arm, prospective study. METHODS: Adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and at least one basal rate over 3 units/h (N = 34, mean age = 39.9 years, 41.2% female, diabetes duration = 21.8 years) used the t:slim X2 insulin pump with Control-IQ technology version 1.5 for 13 weeks. Primary outcome was safety events (severe hypoglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA)). Central laboratory hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was measured at system initiation and 13 weeks. Participants continued using glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, sodium-glucose transport protein 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors, or other medications for glycemic control and/or weight loss if on a stable dose. RESULTS: All 34 participants completed the study. Fifteen participants used a basal rate >3 units/h for all 24 hours of the day. Nine participants used >300 units TDI on at least one day during the study. There were no severe hypoglycemia or DKA events. Time in range 70-180 mg/dL was 64.8% over the 13 weeks, with 1.0% time <70 mg/dL. Hemoglobin A1c decreased from 7.69% at baseline to 6.87% at 13 weeks (-0.82%, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Control-IQ technology version 1.5, with wider range of weight and TDI input and enhancements for users with high insulin requirements, was safe in individuals with T1D in this study.

Time in Range, Time in Tight Range, and Average Glucose Relationships Are Modulated by Glycemic Variability: Identification of a Glucose Distribution Model Connecting Glycemic Parameters Using Real-World Data.

Background: Time in range (TIR), time in tight range (TITR), and average glucose (AG) are used to adjust glycemic therapies in diabetes. However, TIR/TITR and AG can show a disconnect, which may create management difficulties. We aimed to understand the factors influencing the relationships between these glycemic markers. Materials and Methods: Real-world glucose data were collected from self-identified diabetes type 1 and type 2 diabetes (T1D and T2D) individuals using flash continuous glucose monitoring (FCGM). The effects of glycemic variability, assessed as glucose coefficient of variation (CV), on the relationship between AG and TIR/TITR were investigated together with the best-fit glucose distribution model that addresses these relationships. Results: Of 29,164 FCGM users (16,367 T1D, 11,061 T2D, and 1736 others), 38,259 glucose readings/individual were available. Comparing low and high CV tertiles, TIR at AG of 150 mg/dL varied from 80% ± 5.6% to 62% ± 6.8%, respectively (P < 0.001), while TITR at AG of 130 mg/dL varied from 65% ± 7.5% to 49% ± 7.0%, respectively (P < 0.001). In contrast, higher CV was associated with increased TIR and TITR at AG levels outside the upper limit of these ranges. Gamma distribution was superior to six other models at explaining AG and TIR/TITR interactions and demonstrated nonlinear interplay between these metrics. Conclusions: The gamma model accurately predicts interactions between CGM-derived glycemic metrics and reveals that glycemic variability can significantly influence the relationship between AG and TIR with opposing effects according to AG levels. Our findings potentially help with clinical diabetes management, particularly when AG and TIR appear mismatched.

Decreasing the Burden of Carbohydrate Counting and Meal Announcement with Automated Insulin Delivery, Meal Recognition, and Autocorrection Doses: A Case Study.

The use of automated insulin delivery (AID) has led to a decrease in the burden of diabetes, allowing for better sleep, decreased anxiety about hypoglycemia, and automatic corrections doses, and meal recognition algorithms have provided "forgiveness" for imprecise carbohydrate (CHO) entries and missed or late meal boluses. We provide a case report and review of the current literature assessing the effect of AID on the burden of meal bolus. The case also demonstrates how sensor and pump data provide insight into insulin bolus behavior, and access to integrated cloud-based data has allowed for virtual patient visits. Glucose sensor metrics provides time in range and time below range, and the sensor-derived glucose management indicator provides an assessment of the long-term risk of complications when a laboratory glycated hemoglobin is not available.

Impact of Insulin Sensitivity and ß-Cell Function Over Time on Glycemic Outcomes in the Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness Study (GRADE): Differential Treatment Effects of Dual Therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of insulin sensitivity and ß-cell function over time on HbA1c and durability of glycemic control in response to dual therapy. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: GRADE participants were randomized to glimepiride (n = 1,254), liraglutide (n = 1,262), or sitagliptin (n = 1,268) added to baseline metformin and followed for mean ± SD 5.0 ± 1.3 years, with HbA1c assessed quarterly and oral glucose tolerance tests at baseline, 1, 3, and 5 years. We related time-varying insulin sensitivity (HOMA 2 of insulin sensitivity [HOMA2-%S]) and early (0-30 min) and total (0-120 min) C-peptide (CP) responses to changes in HbA1c and glycemic failure (primary outcome HbA1c ≥7% [53 mmol/mol] and secondary outcome HbA1c >7.5% [58 mmol/mol]) and examined differential treatment responses. RESULTS: Higher HOMA2-%S was associated with greater initial HbA1c lowering (3 months) but not subsequent HbA1c rise. Greater CP responses were associated with a greater initial treatment response and slower subsequent HbA1c rise. Higher HOMA2-%S and CP responses were each associated with lower risk of primary and secondary outcomes. These associations differed by treatment. In the sitagliptin group, HOMA2-%S and CP responses had greater impact on initial HbA1c reduction (test of heterogeneity, P = 0.009 HOMA2-%S, P = 0.018 early CP, P = 0.001 total CP) and risk of primary outcome (P = 0.005 HOMA2-%S, P = 0.11 early CP, P = 0.025 total CP) but lesser impact on HbA1c rise (P = 0.175 HOMA2-%S, P = 0.006 early CP, P < 0.001 total CP) in comparisons with the glimepiride and liraglutide groups. There were no differential treatment effects on secondary outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Insulin sensitivity and ß-cell function affected treatment outcomes irrespective of drug assignment, with greater impact in the sitagliptin group on initial (short-term) HbA1c response in comparison with the glimepiride and liraglutide groups.

Two Years with a Tubeless Automated Insulin Delivery System: A Single-Arm Multicenter Trial in Children, Adolescents, and Adults with Type 1 Diabetes.

Background: The Omnipod® 5 Automated Insulin Delivery (AID) System was shown to be safe and effective following 3 months of use in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D); however, data on the durability of these results are limited. This study evaluated the long-term safety and effectiveness of Omnipod 5 use in people with T1D during up to 2 years of use. Materials and Methods: After a 3-month single-arm, multicenter, pivotal trial in children (6-13.9 years) and adolescents/adults (14-70 years), participants could continue system use in an extension phase. HbA1c was measured every 3 months for up to 15 months; continuous glucose monitor metrics were collected for up to 2 years. Results: Participants (N = 224) completed median (interquartile range) 22.3 (21.7, 22.7) months of AID. HbA1c was reduced in the pivotal trial from 7.7% ± 0.9% in children and 7.2% ± 0.9% in adolescents/adults to 7.0% ± 0.6% and 6.8% ± 0.7%, respectively, (P < 0.0001), and was maintained at 7.2% ± 0.7% and 6.9% ± 0.6% after 15 months (P < 0.0001 from baseline). Time in target range (70-180 mg/dL) increased from 52.4% ± 15.6% in children and 63.6% ± 16.5% in adolescents/adults at baseline to 67.9% ± 8.0% and 73.8% ± 10.8%, respectively, during the pivotal trial (P < 0.0001) and was maintained at 65.9% ± 8.9% and 72.9% ± 11.3% during the extension (P < 0.0001 from baseline). One episode of diabetic ketoacidosis and seven episodes of severe hypoglycemia occurred during the extension. Children and adolescents/adults spent median 96.1% and 96.3% of time in Automated Mode, respectively. Conclusion: Our study supports that long-term use of the Omnipod 5 AID System can safely maintain improvements in glycemic outcomes for up to 2 years of use in people with T1D. Clinical Trials Registration Number: NCT04196140.

A Comparison of Continuous Glucose Monitoring-Measured Time-in-Range 70-180 mg/dL Versus Time-in-Tight-Range 70-140 mg/dL.

Objective: To evaluate the relationship between continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-measured time-in-range 70-180 mg/dL (TIR) and time-in-tight-range 70-140 mg/dL (TITR). Methods: TIR and TITR were calculated from CGM data collected using blinded or unblinded Dexcom sensors from 9 studies with 912 participants with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and 2 studies with 184 participants with type 2 diabetes (T2D). The TIR-TITR relationship was assessed overall and stratified by coefficient of variation (CV) and by time below range <70 mg/dL (TBR). Results: The correlation between TIR and TITR was 0.94. TITR was higher for a given TIR for T2D compared with T1D. However, after adjusting for the differences in CV or TBR, both of which were higher with T1D than T2D, the differences were minimized. The TIR-TITR relationship was nonlinear, with a higher ratio of TITR:TIR observed as TIR increased ranging from 0.42 when TIR was 20% to 0.66 when TIR was 80%. Similarly, as TITR increased, the ratio of TIR:TITR decreased, varying from 2.6 with TITR of 10% to 1.3 for TITR of 70%. The TIR-TITR relationship varied according to CV and TBR, such that the higher the CV or higher the amount of TBR the greater was TITR for a given TIR. Conclusions: TIR and TITR are highly correlated, although the relationship is nonlinear. With knowledge of TIR, TITR can be estimated with reasonable precision.

Roadmap to the Effective Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring: Innovation, Investigation, and Implementation.

For 25 years, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has been evolving into what it is now: a key tool to both measure individuals' glycemic status and to help guide their day-to-day management of diabetes. Through a series of engineering innovations, clinical investigations, and efforts to optimize workflow implementation, the use of CGM is helping to transform diabetes care. This article presents a roadmap to the effective use of CGM that outlines past, present, and possible future advances in harnessing the potential of CGM to improve the lives of many people with diabetes, with an emphasis on ensuring that CGM technology is available to all who could benefit from its use.

The Role of Ultra-Rapid-Acting Insulin Analogs in Diabetes: An Expert Consensus.

Ultra-rapid-acting insulin analogs (URAA) are a further development and refinement of rapid-acting insulin analogs. Because of their adapted formulation, URAA provide an even faster pharmacokinetics and thus an accelerated onset of insulin action than conventional rapid-acting insulin analogs, allowing for a more physiologic delivery of exogenously applied insulin. Clinical trials have confirmed the superiority of URAA in controlling postprandial glucose excursions, with a safety profile that is comparable to the rapid-acting insulins. Consequently, many individuals with diabetes mellitus may benefit from URAA in terms of prandial glycemic control. Unfortunately, there are only few available recommendations from authoritative sources for use of URAA in clinical practice. Therefore, this expert consensus report aims to define populations of people with diabetes mellitus for whom URAA may be beneficial and to provide health care professionals with concrete, practical recommendations on how best to use URAA in this context.

Comprehensive Telehealth Model to Support Diabetes Self-Management.

Importance: As the number of patients with diabetes continues to increase in the United States, novel approaches to clinical care access should be considered to meet the care needs for this population, including support for diabetes-related technology. Objective: To evaluate a virtual clinic to facilitate comprehensive diabetes care, support continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) integration into diabetes self-management, and provide behavioral health support for diabetes-related issues. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was a prospective, single-arm, remote study involving adult participants with type 1 or type 2 diabetes who were referred through community resources. The study was conducted virtually from August 24, 2020, to May 26, 2022; analysis was conducted at the clinical coordinating center. Intervention: Training and education led by a Certified Diabetes Care and Education Specialist for CGM use through a virtual endocrinology clinic structure, which included endocrinologists and behavioral health team members. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcomes included CGM-measured mean glucose level, coefficient of variation, and time in range (TIR) of 70 to 180 mg/dL, time with values greater than 180 mg/dL or 250 mg/dL, and time with values less than 70 mg/dL or 54 mg/dL. Hemoglobin A1c was measured at baseline and at 12 and 24 weeks. Results: Among the 234 participants, 160 had type 1 diabetes and 74 had type 2 diabetes. The mean (SD) age was 47 (14) years, 123 (53%) were female, and median diabetes duration was 20 years. Median (IQR) CGM use over 6 months was 96% (91%-98%) for participants with type 1 diabetes and 94% (85%-97%) for those with type 2 diabetes. Mean (SD) hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) in those with type 1 diabetes decreased from 7.8% (1.6%) at baseline to 7.1% (1.0%) at 3 months and 7.1% (1.0%) at 6 months (mean change from baseline to 6 months, -0.6%, 95% CI, -0.8% to -0.5%; P < .001), with an 11% mean TIR increase over 6 months (95% CI, 9% to 14%; P < .001). Mean HbA1c in participants with type 2 diabetes decreased from 8.1% (1.7%) at baseline to 7.1% (1.0%) at 3 months and 7.1% (0.9%) at 6 months (mean change from baseline to 6 months, -1.0%; 95% CI, -1.4% to -0.7%; P < .001), with an 18% TIR increase over 6 months (95% CI, 13% to 24%; P < .001). In participants with type 1 diabetes, mean percentage of time with values less than 70 mg/dL and less than 54 mg/dL decreased over 6 months by 0.8% (95% CI, -1.2% to -0.4%; P = .001) and by 0.3% (95% CI, -0.5% to -0.2%, P < .001), respectively. In the type 2 diabetes group, hypoglycemia was rare (mean [SD] percentage of time <70 mg/dL, 0.5% [0.6%]; and <54 mg/dL, 0.07% [0.14%], over 6 months). Conclusions and Relevance: Results from this cohort study demonstrated clinical benefits associated with implementation of a comprehensive care model that included diabetes education. This model of care has potential to reach a large portion of patients with diabetes, facilitate diabetes technology adoption, and improve glucose control.

Assessing Time in Range with Postprandial Glucose-Focused Titration of Ultra Rapid Lispro (URLi) in People with Type 1 Diabetes.

INTRODUCTION: To assess time in range (TIR) (70-180 mg/dL) with postprandial glucose (PPG)-focused titration of ultra rapid lispro (URLi; Lyumjev®) in combination with insulin degludec in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D). METHODS: This phase 2, single-group, open-label, exploratory study was conducted in 31 participants with T1D on multiple daily injection therapy. Participants were treated with insulin degludec and Lispro for an 11-day lead-in and then URLi for a 46-day treatment period consisting of 35-day titration and 11-day endpoint maintenance period. Glucose targets for the titration period were PPG < 140 mg/dL or < 20% increase from premeal, fasting glucose 80-110 mg/dL, and overnight excursion ± 30 mg/dL or less. Participants used the InPen™ bolus calculator and Dexcom G6 continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). RESULTS: Primary endpoint mean TIR (70-180 mg/dL) with URLi during the maintenance period was 70.2%. TIR (70-180 mg/dL) and times below/above range were not significantly different with URLi (maintenance) versus lispro (lead-in). HbA1c decreased from 7.1% at screening to 6.8% at endpoint (least squares mean [LSM] change from baseline, - 0.36%; P < 0.001). Fructosamine and 1,5-anhydroglucitol improved (P < 0.001). Mean hourly glucose using CGM was reduced from 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM with URLi. Overall highest PPG excursion across meals was significantly reduced at URLi endpoint compared with lispro lead-in (mean 56.5 vs 72.4 mg/dL; P < 0.001). Insulin-to-carbohydrate ratio (U/X g) was reduced (more insulin given) at breakfast at URLi endpoint vs lead-in (LSM 9.0 vs 9.7 g; P = 0.002) and numerically decreased at other meals. Total daily insulin dose (TDD) was higher at URLi endpoint compared with lispro lead-in (mean 50.2 vs 47.0 U; P = 0.046) with similar prandial/TDD ratio (mean 52.1% vs 51.2%). There were no severe hypoglycemia events during the study. CONCLUSIONS: URLi in a basal-bolus regimen focusing on PPG targets demonstrated improved overall glycemic control and reduced PPG excursions without increased hypoglycemia in participants with T1D. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial.gov, NCT04585776.

Coverage for Continuous Glucose Monitoring for Individuals with Type 2 Diabetes Treated with Nonintensive Therapies: An Evidence-Based Approach to Policymaking.

Numerous studies have demonstrated the clinical benefits of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D) who are treated with intensive insulin regimens. Based on this evidence, CGM is now a standard of care for individuals within these diabetes populations and widely covered by commercial and public insurers. Moreover, recent clinical guidelines from the American Diabetes Association and American Association of Clinical Endocrinology now endorse CGM use in individuals treated with nonintensive insulin regimens. However, despite increasing evidence supporting CGM use for individuals treated with less-intensive insulin therapy or noninsulin medications, insurance coverage is limited or nonexistent. This narrative review reports key findings from recent randomized, observational, and retrospective studies investigating use of CGM in T2D individuals treated with basal insulin only and/or noninsulin therapies and presents an evidence-based rationale for expanding access to CGM within this population.