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.

Aims The second Diabetes Attitudes, Wishes and Needs (DAWN2) study sought cross-national comparisons of perceptions on healthcare provision for benchmarking and sharing of clinical practices to improve diabetes care.Methods In total, 4785 healthcare professionals caring for people with diabetes across 17 countries participated in an online survey designed to assess diabetes healthcare provision, self-management and training.Results Between 61.4 and 92.9% of healthcare professionals felt that people with diabetes needed to improve various self-management activities; glucose monitoring (range, 29.3-92.1%) had the biggest country difference, with a between-country variance of 20%. The need for a major improvement in diabetes self-management education was reported by 60% (26.4-81.4%) of healthcare professionals, with a 12% between-country variance. Provision of diabetes services differed among countries, with many healthcare professionals indicating that major improvements were needed across a range of areas, including healthcare organization [30.6% (7.4-67.1%)], resources for diabetes prevention [78.8% (60.4-90 Conclusions This survey has highlighted concerns of healthcare professionals relating to diabetes healthcare provision, self-management and training. Identifying between-country differences in several areas will allow benchmarking and sharing of clinical practices.

Background: A composite metric for the quality of glycemia from continuous glucose monitor (CGM) tracings could be useful for assisting with basic clinical interpretation of CGM data. Methods: We assembled a data set of 14-day CGM tracings from 225 insulin-treated adults with diabetes. Using a balanced incomplete block design, 330 clinicians who were highly experienced with CGM analysis and interpretation ranked the CGM tracings from best to worst quality of glycemia. We used principal component analysis and multiple regressions to develop a model to predict the clinician ranking based on seven standard metrics in an Ambulatory Glucose Profile: very low–glucose and low-glucose hypoglycemia; very high–glucose and high-glucose hyperglycemia; time in range; mean glucose; and coefficient of variation. Results: The analysis showed that clinician rankings depend on two components, one related to hypoglycemia that gives more weight to very low-glucose than to low-glucose and the other related to hyperglycemia that likewise gives greater weight to very high-glucose than to high-glucose. These two components should be calculated and displayed separately, but they can also be combined into a single Glycemia Risk Index (GRI) that corresponds closely to the clinician rankings of the overall quality of glycemia (r = 0.95). The GRI can be displayed graphically on a GRI Grid with the hypoglycemia component on the horizontal axis and the hyperglycemia component on the vertical axis. Diagonal lines divide the graph into five zones (quintiles) corresponding to the best (0th to 20th percentile) to worst (81st to 100th percentile) overall quality of glycemia. The GRI Grid enables users to track sequential changes within an individual over time and compare groups of individuals. Conclusion: The GRI is a single-number summary of the quality of glycemia. Its hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia components provide actionable scores and a graphical display (the GRI Grid) that can be used by clinicians and researchers to determine the glycemic effects of prescribed and investigational treatments.

No abstract

Dear Colleagues!. We are glad to present the 6th Edition of Standards of Diabetes Care. These evidence-based guidelines were designed to standardize and facilitate diabetes care in all regions of the Russian Federation. The Standards are updated on the regular basis to incorporate new data and relevant recommendations from national and international clinical societies, including World Health Organization Guidelines (WHO, 2011), International Diabetes Federation (IDF, 2011), American Diabetes Association (ADA, 2013), American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE, 2009), International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD, 2009) and Russian Association of Endocrinologists (RAE, 2011, 2012). Current edition of the ?Standards? also integrates results of completed randomized clinical trials (ADVANCE, ACCORD, VADT, UKPDS, etc.), as well as findings from the national studies of diabetes mellitus (DM), conducted in close partnership with a number of Russian hospitals. Latest data indicates that prevalence of DM increased during the last decade more than two-fold, reaching some 371 million patients by 2013. According to the current estimation by the International Diabetes Federation, every tenth inhabitant of the planet will be suffering from DM by 2030. These observations resulted in the UN Resolution 61/225 passed on 20.12.2006 that encouraged all Member States ?to develop national policies for the prevention, treatment and care of diabetes?. Like many other countries, Russian Federation experiences a sharp rise in the prevalence of DM. According to Russian State Diabetes Register, there are at least 3.799 million patients with DM in this country. However, the epidemiological survey conducted by the Federal Endocrinology Research Centre during 2002-2010 suggests that actual prevalence is 3 to 4 times greater than the officially recognized and, by this estimate, amounts to 9-10 million persons, comprising 7% of the national population. . Severe consequences of the global pandemics of DM include its vascular complications: nephropathy, retinopathy, coronary, cerebral and peripheral vascular disease. These conditions are responsible for the majority of cases of diabetes-related disability and death. . Current edition of the ?Standards? emphasizes the patient-oriented approach in making decisions on therapeutic goals, such as levels of glycaemia and blood pressure. It also features updated guidelines on the management of vascular complications and new RAE position statement on gestational diabetes, produced in collaboration with Russian Association of Obstetrics and Gynecology. . This text represents a consensus by the absolute majority of national experts, achieved through a number of fruitful discussions held at national meetings and forums. These guidelines are intended for endocrinologists and diabetologists, primary care physicians, cardiologists and other medical professionals involved in prevention and treatment of diabetes mellitus.