Improvements in sensor accuracy, greater convenience and ease of use, and expanding reimbursement have led to growing adoption of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). However, successful utilization of CGM technology in routine clinical practice remains relatively low. This may be due in part to the lack of clear and agreed-upon glycemic targets that both diabetes teams and people with diabetes can work toward. Although unified recommendations for use of key CGM metrics have been established in three separate peer-reviewed articles, formal adoption by diabetes professional organizations and guidance in the practical application of these metrics in clinical practice have been lacking. In February 2019, 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 this issue. This article summarizes the ATTD consensus recommendations for relevant aspects of CGM data utilization and reporting among the various diabetes populations.

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...

No abstract

Among patients with type 1 diabetes who were receiving insulin, the proportion of patients who achieved a glycated hemoglobin level lower than 7.0% with no severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis was larger in the group that received sotagliflozin than in the placebo group. However, the rate of diabetic ketoacidosis was higher in the sotagliflozin group. (Funded by Lexicon Pharmaceuticals; inTandem3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02531035 .).

OBJECTIVETo find a simple definition of partial remission in type 1 diabetes that reflects both residual β-cell function and efficacy of insulin treatment.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSA total of 275 patients aged <16 years were followed from onset of type 1 diabetes. After 1, 6, and 12 months, stimulated C-peptide during a challenge was used as a measure of residual β-cell function.RESULTSBy multiple regression analysis, a negative association between stimulated C-peptide and A1C (regression coefficient −0.21, P < 0.001) and insulin dose (−0.94, P < 0.001) was shown. These results suggested the definition of an insulin dose–adjusted A1C (IDAA1C) as A1C (percent) + [4 × insulin dose (units per kilogram per 24 h)]. A calculated IDAA1C ≤9 corresponding to a predicted stimulated C-peptide >300 pmol/l was used to define partial remission. The IDAA1C ≤9 had a significantly higher agreement (P < 0.001) with residual β-cell function than use of a definition of A1C ≤7.5%. Between 6 and 12 months after diagnosis, for IDAA1C ≤9 only 1 patient entered partial remission and 61 patients ended partial remission, for A1C ≤7.5% 15 patients entered partial remission and 53 ended, for a definition of insulin dose ≤0.5 units · kg−1 · 24 h−1 5 patients entered partial remission and 66 ended, and for stimulated C-peptide (>300 pmol/l) 9 patients entered partial remission and 49 ended. IDAA1C at 6 months has good predictive power for stimulated C-peptide concentrations after both 6 and 12 months.CONCLUSIONSA new definition of partial remission is proposed, including both glycemic control and insulin dose. It reflects residual β-cell function and has better stability compared with the conventional definitions.

In a 1-year T1D study, sotagliflozin combined with optimized insulin therapy was associated with sustained HbA reduction, weight loss, lower insulin dose, fewer episodes of severe hypoglycemia, improved patient-reported outcomes, and more DKA relative to placebo (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02384941).

In a 1-year study, sotagliflozin was associated with statistically significant HbA reductions. More episodes of DKA and fewer episodes of documented and severe hypoglycemia were observed in patients using sotagliflozin relative to those receiving placebo (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02421510).

Sodium–glucose cotransporter (SGLT) inhibitors are new oral antidiabetes medications shown to effectively reduce glycated hemoglobin (A1C) and glycemic variability, blood pressure, and body weight without intrinsic properties to cause hypoglycemia in people with type 1 diabetes. However, recent studies, particularly in individuals with type 1 diabetes, have demonstrated increases in the absolute risk of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). Some cases presented with near-normal blood glucose levels or mild hyperglycemia, complicating the recognition/diagnosis of DKA and potentially delaying treatment. Several SGLT inhibitors are currently under review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and European regulatory agencies as adjuncts to insulin therapy in people with type 1 diabetes. Strategies must be developed and disseminated to the medical community to mitigate the associated DKA risk. This Consensus Report reviews current data regarding SGLT inhibitor use and provides recommendations to enhance the safety of SGLT inhibitors in people with type 1 diabetes.