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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Personalized Glycated Hemoglobin in Diabetes Management: Closing the Gap with Glucose Management Indicator.

Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) has played a central role in the management of diabetes since the end of the landmark Diabetes Control and Complications Trial 30 years ago. However, it is known to be subject to distortions related to altered red blood cell (RBC) properties, including changes in cellular lifespan. On occasion, the distortion of HbA1c is associated with a clinical pathological condition affecting RBCs, however, the more frequent scenario is related to interindividual RBC variations that alter HbA1c-average glucose relationship. Clinically, these variations can potentially lead to over- or underestimating glucose exposure of the individual to the extent that may put the person at excess risk of over- or undertreatment. Furthermore, the variable association between HbA1c and glucose levels across different groups of people may become an unintentional driver of inequitable health care delivery, outcomes, and incentives. The subclinical effects within the normal expected physiological range of RBCs can be large enough to alter clinical interpretation of HbA1c and addressing this will help with individualized care and decision making. This review describes a new glycemic measure, personalized HbA1c (pA1c), that may address the clinical inaccuracies of HbA1c by taking into account interindividual variability in RBC glucose uptake and lifespan. Therefore, pA1c represents a more sophisticated understanding of glucose-HbA1c relationship at an individual level. Future use of pA1c, after adequate clinical validation, has the potential to refine glycemic management and the diagnostic criteria in diabetes.

Prevalence, Cost, and Burden of Diabetic Ketoacidosis.

Diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) is a life-threatening complication, which is most common in individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and is a significant risk for morbidity and mortality, and it is an economic burden on individuals, health care systems, and payers. Younger children, minority ethnic groups, and those with limited insurance are at the greatest risk for presentation of DKA at T1D diagnosis. Although monitoring ketone levels is an essential part of acute illness management and for both early detection and prevention of a DKA episode, studies have reported poor adherence to ketone monitoring. Ketone monitoring is particularly important for patients treated with sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) medications, in which DKA can present with only moderately elevated glucose levels, referred to as euglycemic DKA (euDKA). A majority of people with T1D and many with type 2 diabetes (T2D), particularly those using insulin therapy, are using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) as their preferred method for measurement and management of glycemia. These devices provide a continuous stream of glucose data that enables users to take immediate action to mitigate and/or prevent severe hyperglycemic or hypoglycemic events. An international consensus of leading diabetes experts has recommended the development of continuous ketone monitoring systems, ideally a system that combines CGM technology with measurement of 3-ß-OHB into a single sensor. In this narrative review of current literature, we report on the prevalence and burden of DKA, examine challenges to detecting and diagnosing this condition, and discuss a new monitoring option for DKA prevention.

Increased Derived Time in Range Is Associated with Reduced Risk of Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events, Severe Hypoglycemia, and Microvascular Events in Type 2 Diabetes: A Post Hoc Analysis of DEVOTE.

Time spent in glycemic target range (time in range [TIR]; plasma glucose 70-180 mg/dL [3.9-10.0 mmol/L]) as a surrogate endpoint for long-term diabetes-related outcomes requires validation. This post hoc analysis investigated the association between TIR, derived from 8-point glucose profiles (derived TIR [dTIR]) at 12 months, and time to cardiovascular or severe hypoglycemic episodes in people with type 2 diabetes in the DEVOTE trial. At 12 months, dTIR was significantly negatively associated with time to first major adverse cardiovascular event (P = 0.0087), severe hypoglycemic episode (P < 0.0001), or microvascular event (P = 0.024). A nonsignificant trend was seen toward association between 12-month hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and these outcomes, but this was no longer seen after addition of dTIR to the model. The results support targeting TIR >70% and suggest dTIR could be used in addition to, or in some instances in place of, HbA1c as a clinical biomarker. Trial registration details: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01959529.

Advancing Diabetes Quality Measurement in the Era of Continuous Glucose Monitoring.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this research is to develop a set of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-related measure concepts to be tested in a health care system. Existing measures assessing the quality of diabetes care do not include modern approaches to diabetes management, such as CGM. Continuous glucose monitors rival traditional methods of measuring diabetes management by providing real-time, longitudinal data and demonstrating glucose variability over time. The Improving Diabetes Quality Initiative seeks to address this gap in diabetes quality measurement. METHODS: A Technical Expert Panel (TEP) was convened to curate a diabetes quality measures portfolio and conceptualize three new CGM-related quality measures within the portfolio. From the additional measure concepts identified in the portfolio, the TEP prioritized three for conceptualization. High-level measure concept specifications were made available during a public comment period. RESULTS: The measure concepts prioritized by the TEP included a shared decision-making measure to assess the value of initiating CGM for disease management, a utilization measure to address disparities in access and use of CGM, and a patient-provider review of CGM data to promote routine consideration of these assessments in treatment and ongoing management. Clinical literature, public comments, and TEP feedback informed full measure specifications. CONCLUSIONS: The evolution of diabetes technology reflects the need to shift diabetes quality of care. The measure concepts will be tested in a flexible pilot setting to understand the future of diabetes care and communicate the value of CGM to people with diabetes, providers, and payers.

Correlation Between Time in Range and HbA1c in People with Type 2 Diabetes on Basal Insulin: Post Hoc Analysis of the SWITCH PRO Study.

INTRODUCTION: Use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in people with diabetes may provide a more complete picture of glycemic control than glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) measurements, which do not capture day-to-day fluctuations in blood glucose levels. The randomized, crossover, phase IV SWITCH PRO study assessed time in range (TIR), derived from CGM, following treatment with insulin degludec or insulin glargine U100 in patients with type 2 diabetes at risk for hypoglycemia. This post hoc analysis evaluated the relationship between TIR and HbA1c, following treatment intensification during the SWITCH PRO study. METHODS: Correlation between absolute values for TIR (assessed over 2-week intervals) and HbA1c, at baseline and at the end of maintenance period 1 (M1; week 18) or maintenance period 2 (M2; week 36), were assessed by linear regression and using the Spearman correlation coefficient (rs). These methods were also used to assess correlation between change in TIR and change in HbA1c from baseline to the end of M1, both in the full cohort and in subgroups stratified by baseline median HbA1c (≥ 7.5% [≥ 58.5 mmol/mol] or < 7.5% [< 58.5 mmol/mol]). RESULTS: A total of 419 participants were included in the analysis. A moderate inverse linear correlation was observed between TIR and HbA1c at baseline (rs -0.54), becoming stronger following treatment intensification during maintenance periods M1 (weeks 17-18: rs -0.59) and M2 (weeks 35-36: rs -0.60). Changes in TIR and HbA1c from baseline to end of M1 were also linearly inversely correlated in the full cohort (rs -0.40) and the subgroup with baseline HbA1c ≥ 7.5% (rs -0.43). This was less apparent in the subgroup with baseline HbA1c < 7.5% (rs -0.17) (p-interaction = 0.07). CONCLUSION: Results from this post hoc analysis of data from SWITCH PRO, one of the first large interventional clinical studies to use TIR as the primary outcome, further support TIR as a valid clinical indicator of glycemic control. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03687827.