Measurement of glycated hemoglobin (HbA 1c ) has been the traditional method for assessing glycemic control. However, it does not reflect intra-and interday glycemic excursions that may lead to acute events (such as hypoglycemia) or postprandial hyperglycemia, which have been linked to both microvascular and macrovascular complications. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), either from real-time use (rtCGM) or intermittently viewed (iCGM), addresses many of the limitations inherent in HbA 1c testing and self-monitoring of blood glucose. Although both provide the means to move beyond the HbA 1c measurement as the sole marker of glycemic control, standardized metrics for analyzing CGM data are lacking. Moreover, clear criteria for matching people with diabetes to the most appropriate glucose monitoring methodologies, as well as standardized advice about how best to use the new information they provide, have yet to be established. In February 2017, the Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes (ATTD) Congress convened an international panel of physicians, researchers, and individuals with diabetes who are expert in CGM technologies to address these issues. This article summarizes the ATTD consensus recommendations and represents the current understanding of how CGM results can affect outcomes.Glucose measurements are critical to effective diabetes management. Although measurement of glycated hemoglobin (HbA 1c ) has been the traditional method for assessing glycemic control, it does not reflect intra-and interday glycemic excursions that may lead to acute events (such as hypoglycemia) or postprandial hyperglycemia, which have been linked to both microvascular and macrovascular complications. Moreover, although self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) has been shown to improve glycemic control and quality of life in both insulin-treated and noninsulin-treated diabetes when used within a structured testing regimen (1-4) [C,C,C,C], it cannot predict impending hypoglycemia or alert for hypoglycemia (5,6) [C,C] (7).Real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) and intermittently viewed CGM (iCGM) address many of the limitations inherent in HbA 1c testing and SMBG. rtCGM uniformly tracks the glucose concentrations in the body's interstitial fluid, providing near real-time glucose data; iCGM uses similar methodology to show continuous glucose measurements retrospectively at the time of checking. Both rtCGM and iCGM facilitate monitoring of time spent in the target glucose range ("time in range"). However, only rtCGM can warn users if glucose is trending toward hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia. With iCGM, these trends can only be viewed after physically scanning the sensor. It is often difficult to distinguish between technologies regarding issues such as calibrations, alarms/alerts, human factors of applying and wearing sensors, and the cost, which are device specific. As these technological details are subject to constant change, the term CGM is used for all issues related to the device class unless indicated otherwis...

Background Intensified insulin delivery using multiple daily injections (MDI) or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) is recommended in children with type 1 diabetes (T1D) to achieve good metabolic control. Objective To examine the frequency of pump usage in T1D children treated in SWEET (Better control in Paediatric and Adolescent diabeteS: Working to crEate CEnTers of Reference) centers and to compare metabolic control between patients treated with CSII vs MDI. Methods This study included 16 570 T1D children participating in the SWEET prospective, multicenter, standardized diabetes patient registry. Datasets were aggregated over the most recent year of treatment for each patient. Data were collected until March 2016. To assess the organization of pump therapy a survey was carried out. Results Overall, 44.4% of T1D children were treated with CSII. The proportion of patients with pump usage varied between centers and decreased with increasing age compared with children treated with MDI. In a logistic regression analysis adjusting for age, gender and diabetes duration, the use of pump was associated with both: center size [odd ratio 1.51 (1.47‐1.55), P < .0001) and the diabetes‐related expenditure per capita [odd ratio 1.55 (1.49‐1.61), P < .0001]. Linear regression analysis, adjusted for age, gender, and diabetes duration showed that both HbA1c and daily insulin dose (U/kg/d) remained decreased in children treated with CSII compared to MDI (P < .0001). Conclusions Insulin pump therapy is offered by most Sweet centers. The differences between centers affect the frequency of use of modern technology. Despite the heterogeneity of centers, T1D children achieve relatively good metabolic control, especially those treated with insulin pumps and those of younger age.

No abstract

This manuscript reports the Brazilian Diabetes Society Position Statement for insulin adjustments based on trend arrows observed in continuous glucose monitoring systems. The Brazilian Diabetes Society supports the utilization of trend arrows for insulin dose adjustments in patients with diabetes on basal-bolus insulin therapy, both with multiple daily insulin doses or insulin pumps without closed-loop features. For those on insulin pumps with predictive low-glucose suspend feature, we suggest that only upward trend arrows should be used for adjustments. In this paper, tables for insulin adjustment based on sensitivity factors are provided and strategies to optimize the use of trend arrows in clinical practice are discussed.

Aims To evaluate whether there is a difference between the effects of dapagliflozin and gliclazide modified release (MR) on glycaemic variability (GV) and glycaemic control, as assessed by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), in individuals with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes. Materials and methods This randomized, open‐label, active‐controlled study was conducted in individuals with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes who were drug‐naïve or on steady‐dose metformin monotherapy. Participants were treated once daily with 10 mg dapagliflozin or 120 mg gliclazide MR. CGM and GV index calculations were performed at baseline and after 12 weeks. Results In total, 97 participants (age 57.9 ± 8.7 years, 50.5% men, baseline glycated haemoglobin 63 ± 9.8 mmol/mol [7.9 ± 0.9%]) were randomized, and 94 completed the 12‐week protocol. Intention‐to‐treat (ITT) and per‐protocol (PP) analyses showed that the reduction in GV, as measured by the mean amplitude of glycaemic excursions, was superior in the dapagliflozin group versus the gliclazide MR group (−0.9 mmol/L [95% CI −1.5, −0.4] vs −0.2 mmol/L [95% CI −0.6, 0.3]; P = 0.030 [ITT]). The reductions in GV estimated by the coefficient of variation and SD were greater in the dapagliflozin group. Moreover, dapagliflozin increased the glucose time in range (TIR; 3.9–10 mmol/L) by 24.9% (95% CI 18.6, 31.2) vs. 17.4% (95% CI 11.6, 23.3) in the gliclazide MR group (P = 0.089 [ITT]; P = 0.041 [PP]). Conclusions Dapagliflozin improved GV and increased TIR more efficiently than gliclazide MR in individuals with type 2 diabetes over 12 weeks, as demonstrated by CGM.

The results of this SWEET Initiative activity demonstrated that well-educated adolescents and young adults with T1D using modern insulin treatments are able to perform successfully even extraordinary physical challenges while maintaining good glycemic control without diabetes-related acute complications.

No abstract

No abstract