The FreeStyle Libre (FSL) flash glucose-monitoring device was made available on the U.K. National Health Service (NHS) drug tariff in 2017. This study aims to explore the U.K. real-world experience of FSL and the impact on glycemic control, hypoglycemia, diabetes-related distress, and hospital admissions. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Clinicians from 102 NHS hospitals in the U.K. submitted FSL user data, collected during routine clinical care, to a secure web-based tool held within the NHS N3 network. The t and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare the baseline and follow-up HbA 1c and other baseline demographic characteristics. Linear regression analysis was used to identify predictors of change in HbA 1c following the use of FSL. Within-person variations of HbA 1c were calculated using adjusted SD for HbA 1c 5 SD/√(n/[n 2 1]). RESULTS Data were available for 10,370 FSL users (97% with type 1 diabetes), age 38.0 (618.8) years, 51% female, diabetes duration 16.0 (649.9) years, and BMI of 25.2 (616.5) kg/m 2 (mean [6SD]). FSL users demonstrated a 25.2 mmol/mol change in HbA 1c , reducing from 67.5 (620.9) mmol/mol (8.3%) at baseline to 62.3 (618.5) mmol/mol (7.8%) after 7.5 (interquartile range 3.4-7.8) months of follow-up (n 5 3,182) (P < 0.0001). HbA 1c reduction was greater in those with initial HbA 1c ‡69.5 mmol/mol (>8.5%), reducing from 85.5 (616.1) mmol/mol (10%) to 73.1 (615.8) mmol/mol (8.8%) (P < 0.0001). The baseline Gold score (score for hypoglycemic unawareness) was 2.7 (61.8) and reduced to 2.4 (61.7) (P < 0.0001) at follow-up. A total of 53% of those with a Gold score of ‡4 at baseline had a score <4 at follow-up. FSL use was also associated with a reduction in diabetes distress (P < 0.0001). FSL use was associated with a significant reduction in paramedic callouts and hospital admissions due to hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia/diabetic ketoacidosis. CONCLUSIONS We show that the use of FSL was associated with significantly improved glycemic control and hypoglycemia awareness and a reduction in hospital admissions.

Aims The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) published guidelines for the use of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in 2008 (technology appraisal 151). The first UK-wide insulin pump audit took place in 2012 with the aim of determining adherence to the guidance issued in NICE technology appraisal 151. The results of the adult service level audit are reported here.Methods All centres providing continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion services to adults with diabetes in the UK were invited to participate. Audit metrics were aligned to technology appraisal 151. Data entry took place online using a DiabetesE formatted data collection tool.Results One hundred and eighty-three centres were identified as delivering adult continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion services in the UK, of which 178 (97.3%) participated in the audit. At the time of the audit, 13 428 adults were using insulin pump therapy, giving an estimated prevalence of use of 6%. Ninety-three per cent of centres did not report any barriers in obtaining funding for patients who fulfilled NICE criteria. The mean number of consultant programmed activities dedicated to continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion services was 0.96 (range 0-8), mean whole-time equivalent diabetes specialist nurses was 0.62 (range 0-3) and mean whole-time equivalent dietitian services was 0.3 (range 0-2), of which 39, 61 and 60%, respectively, were not formally funded.Conclusions The prevalence of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion use in the UK falls well below the expectation of NICE (15-20%) and that of other European countries (> 15%) and the USA (40%). This may be attributable, in part, to lack of healthcare professional time needed for identification and training of new pump therapy users.

The prevalence of in-patient diabetes (11.1%) was over 50% greater and diabetes management was suboptimal in more patients than in 1991. In many length of stay was prolonged and almost half of the discharge summaries did not mention diabetes. These findings have major implications for service delivery and resource planning.

Despite regular specialist physician, specialist diabetes nurse and dietician input, encouragement of multiple daily insulin injections and repeatedly following-up failed appointments (including home visits), fewer than 1:20 patients achieved the DCCT target of mean HbA1c <7%. Tight diabetes control is rare in a routine clinic setting.

BACKGROUNDFreeStyle Libre (FSL), intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM), is associated with less biochemical hypoglycaemia in people with diabetes, lower HbA1c and diabetes-related distress. 1 Impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia (IAH), which affects 18%-33% of people with type 1 diabetes, 2 is the reduced ability to detect the symptoms of hypoglycaemia and is associated with a 6-fold increased risk of severe hypoglycaemia (SH). 3 Many of the studies of CGM have shown a reduction in rates of hypoglycaemia but have not shown restoration of awareness. [4][5][6] There are limited nationwide data investigating the prevalence of IAH, complete loss of awareness of hypoglycaemia and SH. We have recently shown the use of FSL is associated with improvement in awareness of hypoglycaemia, 1 however, some studies have shown no benefit of FSL on IAH. 5,7 It is therefore important to identify the factors associated with improvement in IAH with the use of FSL. | METHODSThis observational study analysed data collated from November 2017 to August 2021 as part of the nationwide Association of British Clinical Diabetologists (ABCD) audit on FSL. 8 The methodology of the nationwide audit has been described in an article 1 reporting previous results of the audit. In this audit, people with diabetes were using FreeStyle Libre or FreeStyle Libre 2.The Gold score was used to assess awareness of hypoglycaemia. 9 A score of 4 or higher indicates IAH and 7 indicates a complete loss of awareness. 9 Diabetes-related distress was measured using the twoitem diabetes distress screening tool (DDS2). 10 An average of the two questions of the DDS2 scale was calculated. A score of 3 or higher was classified as 'moderate diabetes-related distress' and an average score of less than 3 was considered as 'low distress'.