While A1C is well established as an important risk marker for diabetes complications, with the increasing use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) to help facilitate safe and effective diabetes management, it is important to understand how CGM metrics, such as mean glucose, and A1C correlate. Estimated A1C (eA1C) is a measure converting the mean glucose from CGM or self-monitored blood glucose readings, using a formula derived from glucose readings from a population of individuals, into an estimate of a simultaneously measured laboratory A1C. Many patients and clinicians find the eA1C to be a helpful educational tool, but others are often confused or even frustrated if the eA1C and laboratory-measured A1C do not agree. In the U.S., the Food and Drug Administration determined that the nomenclature of eA1C needed to change. This led the authors to work toward a multipart solution to facilitate the retention of such a metric, which includes renaming the eA1C the glucose management indicator (GMI) and generating a new formula for converting CGM-derived mean glucose to GMI based on recent clinical trials using the most accurate CGM systems available. The final aspect of ensuring a smooth transition from the old eA1C to the new GMI is providing new CGM analyses and explanations to further understand how to interpret GMI and use it most effectively in clinical practice. This Perspective will address why a new name for eA1C was needed, why GMI was selected as the new name, how GMI is calculated, and how to understand and explain GMI if one chooses to use GMI as a tool in diabetes education or management.

OBJECTIVETo assess the frequency of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) device use, factors associated with its use, and the relationship of CGM with diabetes outcomes (HbA1c, severe hypoglycemia [SH], and diabetic ketoacidosis [DKA]).RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSSurvey questions related to CGM device use 1 year after enrollment in the T1D Exchange clinic registry were completed by 17,317 participants. Participants were defined as CGM users if they indicated using real-time CGM during the prior 30 days.RESULTSNine percent of participants used CGM (6% of children <13 years old, 4% of adolescents 13 to <18 years, 6% of young adults 18 to <26 years, and 21% of adults ≥26 years). CGM use was more likely with higher education, higher household income, private health insurance, longer duration of diabetes, and use of insulin pump (P < 0.01 all factors). CGM use was associated with lower HbA1c in children (8.3% vs. 8.6%, P < 0.001) and adults (7.7% vs. 7.9%, P < 0.001). In adults, more frequent use of CGM (≥6 days/week) was associated with lower mean HbA1c. Only 27% of users downloaded data from their device at least once per month, and ≤15% of users reported downloading their device at least weekly. Among participants who used CGM at baseline, 41% had discontinued within 1 year.CONCLUSIONSCGM use is uncommon but associated with lower HbA1c in some age-groups, especially when used more frequently. Factors associated with discontinuation and infrequent use of retrospective analysis of CGM data should be considered in developing next-generation devices and education on CGM use.

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) “Standards of Care in Diabetes” includes the ADA’s current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA’s clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Helmsley Charitable Trust.

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) “Standards of Care in Diabetes” includes the ADA’s current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA’s clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

OBJECTIVETo determine whether the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) without confirmatory blood glucose monitoring (BGM) measurements is as safe and effective as using CGM adjunctive to BGM in adults with well-controlled type 1 diabetes (T1D).RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSA randomized noninferiority clinical trial was conducted at 14 sites in the T1D Exchange Clinic Network. Participants were ≥18 years of age (mean 44 ± 14 years), had T1D for ≥1 year (mean duration 24 ± 12 years), used an insulin pump, and had an HbA1c ≤9.0% (≤75 mmol/mL) (mean 7.0 ± 0.7% [53 ± 7.7 mmol/mol]); prestudy, 47% were CGM users. Participants were randomly assigned 2:1 to the CGM-only (n = 149) or CGM+BGM (n = 77) group. The primary outcome was time in range (70–180 mg/dL) over the 26-week trial, with a prespecified noninferiority limit of 7.5%.RESULTSCGM use averaged 6.7 ± 0.5 and 6.8 ± 0.4 days/week in the CGM-only and CGM+BGM groups, respectively, over the 26-week trial. BGM tests per day (including the two required daily for CGM calibration) averaged 2.8 ± 0.9 and 5.4 ± 1.4 in the two groups, respectively (P < 0.001). Mean time in 70–180 mg/dL was 63 ± 13% at both baseline and 26 weeks in the CGM-only group and 65 ± 13% and 65 ± 11% in the CGM+BGM group (adjusted difference 0%; one-sided 95% CI −2%). No severe hypoglycemic events occurred in the CGM-only group, and one occurred in the CGM+BGM group.CONCLUSIONSUse of CGM without regular use of confirmatory BGM is as safe and effective as using CGM with BGM in adults with well-controlled T1D at low risk for severe hypoglycemia.

for the Wireless Innovation for Seniors With Diabetes Mellitus (WISDM) Study Group 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 MEASURESThe 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 A 1c (HbA 1c ); and cognition and patient-reported outcomes, with adjustment for multiple comparisons to control for false-discovery rate. RESULTSOf the 203 participants (median age, 68 [interquartile range {IQR}, 65-71] years; median type 1 diabetes duration, 36 [IQR, years; 52% female; 53% insulin pump use; mean HbA 1c , 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 HbA 1c outcomes, and none of the 15 cognitive and patient-reported outcomes. Mean HbA 1c 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.

IMPORTANCE Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has been shown to be beneficial for adults with type 2 diabetes using intensive insulin therapy, but its use in type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin without prandial insulin has not been well studied.OBJECTIVE To determine the effectiveness of CGM in adults with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin without prandial insulin in primary care practices. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis randomized clinical trial was conducted at 15 centers in the US (enrollment from July 30, 2018, to October 30, 2019; follow-up completed July 7, 2020) and included adults with type 2 diabetes receiving their diabetes care from a primary care clinician and treated with 1 or 2 daily injections of long-or intermediate-acting basal insulin without prandial insulin, with or without noninsulin glucose-lowering medications.INTERVENTIONS Random assignment 2:1 to CGM (n = 116) or traditional blood glucose meter (BGM) monitoring (n = 59). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome was hemoglobin A 1c (HbA 1c ) level at 8 months. Key secondary outcomes were CGM-measured time in target glucose range of 70 to 180 mg/dL, time with glucose level at greater than 250 mg/dL, and mean glucose level at 8 months. RESULTS Among 175 randomized participants (mean [SD] age, 57 [9] years; 88 women [50%]; 92 racial/ethnic minority individuals [53%]; mean [SD] baseline HbA 1c level, 9.1% [0.9%]), 165 (94%) completed the trial. Mean HbA 1c level decreased from 9.1% at baseline to 8.0% at 8 months in the CGM group and from 9.0% to 8.4% in the BGM group (adjusted difference, −0.4% [95% CI, −0.8% to −0.1%]; P = .02). In the CGM group, compared with the BGM group, the mean percentage of CGM-measured time in the target glucose range of 70 to 180 mg/dL was 59% vs 43% (adjusted difference, 15% [95% CI, 8% to 23%]; P < .001), the mean percentage of time at greater than 250 mg/dL was 11% vs 27% (adjusted difference, −16% [95% CI, −21% to −11%]; P < .001), and the means of the mean glucose values were 179 mg/dL vs 206 mg/dL (adjusted difference, −26 mg/dL [95% CI, −41 to −12]; P < .001). Severe hypoglycemic events occurred in 1 participant (1%) in the CGM group and in 1 (2%) in the BGM group.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among adults with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin without prandial insulin, continuous glucose monitoring, as compared with blood glucose meter monitoring, resulted in significantly lower HbA 1c levels at 8 months.