New approaches to providing individualized diabetes care in the 21st century.

Building from a foundation of rapid innovation, the 21(st) century is poised to offer considerable new approaches to providing modern diabetes care. The focus of this paper is the evolving role of diabetes care providers collaboratively working with patients and families toward the goals of achieving optimal clinical and psychosocial outcomes for individuals living with diabetes. Advances in monitoring, treatment and technology have been complemented by trends toward patient-centered care with expertise from multiple health care disciplines. The evolving clinical care delivery system extends far beyond adjustment of insulin regimens. Effective integration of patient-centered strategies, such as shared-decision making, motivational interviewing techniques, shared medical appointments, and multidisciplinary team collaboration, into a dynamic model of diabetes care delivery holds promise in reaching glycemic targets and improving patients’ quality of life

Glycemic Outcome Associated With Insulin Pump and Glucose Sensor Use in Children and Adolescents With Type 1 Diabetes. Data From the International Pediatric Registry SWEET

OBJECTIVE Insulin delivery methods, glucose-monitoring modalities, and related outcomes were examined in a large, international, diverse cohort of children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes from the Better Control in Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes: Working to Create Centers of Reference (SWEET) -Registry. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Participants with type 1 diabetes of >= 1 year, aged = 18 years, and who had documented pump or sensor usage during the period August 2017-July 2019 were stratified into four categories: injections-no sensor (referent); injections + sensor; pump-no sensor; and pump + sensor. HbA(1c) and proportion of patients with diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) or severe hypoglycemia (SH) were analyzed; linear and logistic regression models adjusted for demographics, region, and gross domestic product per capita were applied. RESULTS Data of 25,654 participants were analyzed. The proportions of participants (adjusted HbA(1c) data) by study group were as follows: injections-no sensor group, 37.44% (8.72; 95% CI 8.68-8.75); injections + sensor group, 14.98% (8.30; 95% CI 8.25-8.35); pump-no sensor group, 17.22% (8.07; 95% CI 8.03-8.12); and pump + sensor group, 30.35% (7.81; 95% CI 7.77-7.84). HbA(1c) was lower in all categories of participants who used a pump and/or sensor compared with the injections-no sensor treatment method (P 0.001). The proportion of DKA episodes was lower in participants in the pump + sensor (1.98%; 95% CI 1.64-2.48; P 0.001) and the pump-no sensor (2.02%; 95% CI 1.64-2.48; P 0.05) groups when compared with those in the injections-no sensor group (2.91%; 95% CI 2.59-3.31). The proportion of participants experiencing SH was lower in pump-no sensor group (1.10%; 95% CI 0.85-1.43; P 0.001) but higher in the injections + sensor group (4.25%; 95% CI 3.65-4.95; P 0.001) compared with the injections-no sensor group (2.35%; 95% CI 2.04-2.71). CONCLUSIONS Lower HbA(1c) and fewer DKA episodes were observed in participants using either a pump or continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) or both. Pump use was associated with a lower rate of SH. Across SWEET centers, use of pumps and CGM is increasing. The concomitant use of pump and CGM was associated with an additive benefit.This work was supported by the SWEET corporate members, namely, Abbott, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dexcom, Insulet, Eli Lilly and Company, Medtronic, and Sanofi. No other potential conflicts of interest relevant to this Article were reported.Abbott; Boehringer Ingelheim; Dexcom; Insulet; Eli Lilly and Company; Medtronic; Sanof

Quality Improvement in Diabetes Care: A Review of Initiatives and Outcomes in the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative.

Despite immense strides in therapeutic advances, clinical outcomes continue to be less than ideal for people with type 1 diabetes. This discrepancy has prompted an outpouring of quality improvement (QI) initiatives to address the medical, psychosocial, and health equity challenges that complicate ideal type 1 diabetes care and outcomes. This article reviews a framework for QI in diabetes care that guided the development of the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative to improve care delivery and health outcomes in type 1 diabetes. Evaluation of the methodology, outcomes, and knowledge gained from these initiatives will highlight the importance of continued QI initiatives in diabetes care

Adoption of Telemedicine for Type 1 Diabetes Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Background: We describe the utilization of telemedicine visits (video or telephone) across the type 1 diabetes (T1D) Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative (T1DX-QI) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Metrics, site-level survey results, and examples of interventions conducted to support telemedicine in T1D are shown. Materials and Methods: Thirteen clinics (11 pediatric, 2 adult) provided monthly telemedicine metrics between December 2019 and August 2020 and 21 clinics completed a survey about their telemedicine practices. Results: The proportion of telemedicine visits in T1DX-QI before the pandemic was <1%, rising to an average of 95.2% in April 2020 (range 52.3%-99.5%). Three sites initially used mostly telephone visits before converting to video visits. By August 2020, the proportion of telemedicine visits decreased to an average of 45% across T1DX-QI (range 10%-86.6%). The majority of clinics (62%) performed both video and telephone visits; Zoom was the most popular video platform used. Over 95% of clinics reported using CareLink™, Clarity®, Glooko™, and/or t:connect® to view device data, with only one center reporting automated data upload into the electronic medical record. The majority of centers had multidisciplinary teams participating in the video visits. All sites reported reimbursement for video visits, and 95% of sites reported coverage for telephone visits early on in the pandemic. Conclusions: There was rapid adoption of telemedicine in T1DX-QI during the COVID-19 pandemic. Future insurance reimbursement for telemedicine visits and the ideal ratio of telemedicine to in-person visits in T1D care remain to be determined

Patient Demographics and Clinical Outcomes Among Type 1 Diabetes Patients Using Continuous Glucose Monitors: Data From T1D Exchange Real-World Observational Study

Background: The benefits of Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) on glycemic management have been demonstrated in numerous studies; however, widespread uptake remians limited. The aim of this study was to provide real-world evidence of patient attributes and clinical outcomes associated with CGM use across clinics in the U.S. based T1D Exchange Quality Improvement (T1DX-QI) Collaborative. Method: We examined electronic Health Record data from eight endocrinology clinics participating in the T1DX-QI Collaborative during the years 2017-2019. Results: Among 11,469 type 1 diabetes patients, 48% were CGM users. CGM use varied by race/ethnicity with Non-Hispanic Whites having higher rates of CGM use (50%) compared to Non-Hispanic Blacks (18%) or Hispanics (38%). Patients with private insurance were more likely to use CGM (57.2%) than those with public insurance (33.3%) including Medicaid or Medicare. CGM users had lower median HbA1c (7.7%) compared to nonusers (8.4%). Rates of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and severe hypoglycemia were significantly higher in nonusers compared to CGM users. Conclusion: In this real-world study of patients in the T1DX-QI Collaborative, CGM users had better glycemic control and lower rates of DKA and severe hypoglycemia (SH) events, compared to nonusers; however, there were significant sociodemographic disparities in CGM use. Quality improvement and advocacy measures to promote widespread and equitable CGM uptake have the potential to improve clinical outcomes