UNASSIGNED: This retrospective study aimed to use mixed (qualitative and quantitative) methods to evaluate the role of FSL in reducing hospital admissions due to all causes, HbA1c, and reported hypoglycaemic episodes in people with diabetes living in a socially deprived region of Northwest England.
UNASSIGNED: Data were collected retrospectively from previous consultations, which coincided with the 6th -week, 6th -month and annual review including blood tests, hospital admissions due to any cause and reported hypoglycaemia. Also, FSL assessment and satisfaction semi-structured questionnaire was done to assess the impact of FSL on diabetes management and quality of life. Mixed-effects models were used to assess glycaemic control and reductions in hospital admissions and reported hypoglycaemic episodes.
UNASSIGNED: Just 127 patients met the inclusion criteria. A multivariate linear mixed model method that analyses HbA1c data longitudinally revealed mean differences (mmol/mol) between baseline and post-FSL measurements, estimated by restricted maximum likelihood method (REML) of 9.64 (six weeks), 7.68 (six months) and 7.58 (annual review); all with a corresponding p-value of < 0.0001. For DKA patients, the bootstrap method revealed a significant reduction in mean HbA1c of 25.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) [8.8, 42.6] mmol/mol. It is demonstrated that FSL use for one year resulted in 59% reduction in hospital admissions and 46% reduction in reported hypoglycaemic episodes.
UNASSIGNED: The use of FSL resulted in statistically significant reductions in hospital admissions, HbA1c and reported hypoglycaemic episodes among diabetics in a socially deprived Northwest region of England. These outcomes show a direct association with a higher questionnaire score.
UNASSIGNED: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40200-024-01424-4.

Objective: Glycemic management in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) on insulin-secretagogue regimens without insulin is of importance, as this group still represents a significant proportion of patients. Risks for acute diabetes events (ADEs), including diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) or hypoglycemia, using insulin-secretagogue drugs are well established. Few studies have suggested that continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) could be useful for monitoring glucose dynamics associated with the use of such therapies. To document this point an exploratory analysis was conducted in a group of individuals with noninsulin treated T2DM in France who are managed with oral insulin-secretagogues and initiating the FreeStyle Libre® system (FSL). Methods: A retrospective study of the French national SNDS reimbursement claims database (≈66 million French people) was conducted to identify people with T2DM on oral insulin-secretagogues and receiving a first reimbursement of FSL between August 1, 2017 and December 31, 2018. The analysis included data for the 12 months before and up to 24 months after FSL initiation. Hospitalizations for diabetes-related acute events were identified using ICD-10 codes as main or related diagnosis, for: hypoglycemic events; DKA events; comas; and hyperglycemia-related admissions. Results: A total of 1272 people with T2DM on insulin-secretagogues without insulin initiated FSL during the selection period. Of these, 7.15% had at least one hospitalization for any ADE in the year before FSL initiation, compared with 2.52% at 12 months and 2.83% at 24 months following FSL initiation. Reductions in ADEs were driven by -73% fewer admissions for ADEs related to diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) or other hyperglycemia-related events. These patterns of reduced ADEs persisted after 2 years. Conclusions: This study suggests the value of the FSL system in reducing ADEs in some people with T2DM in France being treated with insulin-secretagogues without insulin. Characteristics of these patients remain to be documented.

BACKGROUND: In purpose-bred dogs, insulin glargine 300 U/mL (IGla300) has long duration of action, peakless time-action profile, and low potency, making it suitable for use as a basal insulin.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate IGla300 in client-owned diabetic dogs monitored using a flash glucose monitoring system (FGMS).
METHODS: Ninety-five client-owned diabetic dogs, newly diagnosed or previously treated with other insulin formulations, with or without concurrent diseases.
METHODS: Prospective multi-institutional study. Clinical signs and standardized assessment of FGMS data, using treatment and monitoring guidelines established a priori, guided dose adjustments and categorization into levels of glycemic control.
RESULTS: The initial IGla300 dose was 0.5 U/Kg q24h for newly diagnosed dogs and (median dose [range]) 0.8 U/Kg (0.2-2.5) q24h for all dogs. Glycemic control was classified as good or excellent in 87/95 (92%) dogs. The IGla300 was administered q24h (1.9 U/kg [0.2-5.2]) and q12h (1.9 U/kg/day [0.6-5.0]) in 56/95 (59%) and 39/95 (41%) dogs, respectively. Meal-time bolus injections were added in 5 dogs (0.5 U/kg/injection [0.3-1.0]). Clinical hypoglycemia occurred in 6/95 (6%) dogs. Dogs without concurrent diseases were more likely to receive IGla300 q24h than dogs with concurrent diseases (72% vs 50%, respectively; P = .04).
CONCLUSIONS: Insulin glargine 300 U/mL can be considered a suitable therapeutic option for once-daily administration in diabetic dogs. Clinicians should be aware of the low potency and wide dose range of IGla300. In some dogs, twice-daily administration with or without meal-time bolus injections may be necessary to achieve glycemic control. Monitoring with FGMS is essential for dose titration of IGla300.

Managing reactive hypoglycaemia (RH) poses challenges due to limited and often ineffective treatment options. We report a case series and draw on this to propose a stepwise treatment approach consisting of lifestyle modifications, metformin, GLP-1 analogues, and the use of flash glucose monitoring technology.
A retrospective review was conducted to analyse the management of 11 cases presenting with recurrent RH symptoms.
Two patients experienced successful resolution of symptoms through lifestyle modifications. Metformin alone was effective in treating seven out of nine patients who received pharmacological treatment. Two patients with previous upper gastrointestinal surgery showed a partial response to metformin and benefited further from additional long-acting GLP-1 analogue. Pharmacological intervention led to significant reductions in insulin and C-peptide levels in repeat mixed meal tolerance tests (P-values 0.043 for insulin and 0.006 for C-peptide). Finally, flash glucose monitoring technology was useful in early detection and preventing episodes of hypoglycaemia in one of these patients with persistent symptoms.
These findings highlight the potential efficacy of escalated treatment strategies for RH, including the use of metformin, GLP-1 analogues, and flash glucose monitoring technology.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the influence of school life in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D) by comparing the glycemic control and Ambulatory Glucose Profile (AGP) between the holidays and schooldays.
METHODS: This is a retrospective study conducted on 147 patients with T1D (14-19 years) who used an intermittently scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring (isCGM) system to self-test their glucose levels during the periods of school time and holiday time. A record was maintained of the Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) metrics i.e., Glucose Variability (GV) (%), mean Time in Range (TIR), Time above Range (TAR), Time below Range (TBR), and average time period of the hypoglycemic events during schooldays and the holidays.
RESULTS: The study revealed differences between the recorded values during the holidays and schooldays, in % in target 70-180 mg/dL (38.2 vs. 49.5; p = 0.039), mean glucose (194 vs. 185; p = 0.048), frequency of low glucose events (9.2 vs. 5.1; p = 0.036), mean duration of low glucose levels (117 vs. 65; p = 0.021), % TBR below 70 mg/dL (2.9 vs. 1.45; p = 0.023), % TBR below 54 mg/dL (1.1 vs. 0.51; p = 0.031), TAR 181-250 mg/dL (21.1 vs. 16.5; p = 0.037) and TAR >250 mg/dL (8.9 vs. 6.5; p = 0.043). On comparing the HbA1c levels of the study population recorded during the holidays (8.34%) with those recorded during the schooldays (8.13%), the HbA1c values during the school days were observed to be lower; however, no significant changes were noted in the HbA1c level between the holidays and schooldays. Concerning the FreeStyle Libre (FSL) scanning, the frequency during the holidays (n = 6.2) was significantly lower than during the schooldays (n = 9.5) (p = 0.042).
CONCLUSIONS: From the findings, it appears that children with T1D have good diabetes control during schooldays rather than during the holidays. To improve their glucose control during the holidays, these patients may also benefit from receiving greater attention and guidance.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate changes in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1 c) and sensor-based glycaemic metrics after glucose sensor commencement in adults with T1D.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective observational single-centre study on HbA1 c, and sensor-based glycaemic data following the initiation of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in adults with T1D (n = 209).
RESULTS: We observed an overall improvement in HbA1 c from 66 (59-78) mmol/mol [8.2 (7.5-9.3)%] pre-sensor to 60 (53-71) mmol/mol [7.6 (7.0-8.6)%] on-sensor (p < .001). The pre-sensor HbA1 c improved from 66 (57-74) mmol/mol [8.2 (7.4-8.9)%] to 62 (54-71) mmol/mol [7.8 (7.1-8.7)%] within the first year of usage to 60 (53-69) mmol/mol [7.6 (7.0-8.4)%] in the following year (n = 121, p < .001). RT-CGM-user had a significant improvement in HbA1 c (Dexcom G6; p < .001, r = 0.33 and Guardian 3; p < .001, r = 0.59) while a non-significant reduction was seen in FGM-user (Libre 1; p = .279). Both MDI (p < .001, r = 0.33) and CSII group (p < .001, r = 0.41) also demonstrated significant HbA1 c improvement. Patients with pre-sensor HbA1 c of ≥64 mmol/mol [8.0%] (n = 125), had attenuation of pre-sensor HbA1 c from 75 (68-83) mmol/mol [9.0 (8.4-9.7)%] to 67 (59-75) mmol/mol [8.2 (7.6-9.0)%] (p < .001, r = 0.44). Altogether, 25.8% of patients achieved the recommended HbA1 c goal of ≤53 mmol/mol and 16.7% attained the recommended ≥70% time in range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L).
CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated that minimally invasive glucose sensor technology in adults with T1D is associated with improvement in glycaemic outcomes. However, despite significant improvements in HbA1 c, achieving the recommended goals for all glycaemic metrics remained challenging.

Background and Objectives: The purpose of this study is to determine the optimal number of scans per day required for attaining good glycemic regulation. Materials and Methods: The association of scanning frequency and glucometrics was analyzed according to bins of scanning frequency and bins of time in range (TIR) in the Croatian population of type 1 diabetes (T1DM) patients. Results: Intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) Libre users in Croatia performed on average 13 ± 7.4 scans per day. According to bins of scanning frequency, bin 5 with 11.2 ± 02 daily scans was sufficient for achieving meaningful improvements in glycemic regulation, while decreasing severe hypoglycemia required an increasing number of scans up to bin 10 (31 ± 0.9), yet with no effect on TIR improvement. When data were analyzed according to bins of TIR, an average of 16.3 ± 10.5 scans daily was associated with a TIR of 94.09 ± 3.49% and a coefficient of variation (CV) of 22.97 ± 4.94%. Improvement was shown between each successive bin of TIR but, of notice, the number of scans performed per day was 16.3 ± 10.5 according to TIR-based analysis and 31.9 ± 13.5 in bin 10 according to scan frequency analysis. Conclusions: In conclusion, an optimal average number of scans per day is 16.3 in order to achieve glucose stability and to minimize the burden associated with over-scanning.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether the FreeStyle Libre, an intermittent scanning continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) system, influences confidence in managing hypoglycemia in adults with type 1 diabetes.
METHODS: This longitudinal, observational study conducted at one facility included 121 adults with type 1 diabetes. Participants used the conventional finger-prick method for self-testing glucose before using isCGM. At baseline and 12 months after initiating isCGM, the Hypoglycemic Confidence Scale (HCS), Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ), and HbA1c were performed. At 12 months, the percentage of individuals utilizing isCGM trend arrows for glucose management was observed. The primary endpoint was hypoglycemic confidence change attributed to using isCGM.
RESULTS: After using isCGM, HCS scores improved significantly from 2.89 (2.56, 3.22) to 3.00 (2.20, 3.33) (p < 0.001); median (25%, 75%). Among participants with level 3 hypoglycemia at baseline, hypoglycemic confidence during sleep (p < 0.05), in social situations (p < 0.05), and in avoiding serious hypoglycemia-related problems (p < 0.05) were improved. Despite hypoglycemia risk, participants could continue daily activities by using isCGM (p < 0.05), and sixty-nine percent utilized trend arrows effectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Using isCGM improved hypoglycemic confidence among adults with type 1 diabetes. Data analysis indicated that people with type 1 diabetes could live more freely and better manage hypoglycemia using isCGM.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess patient-reported satisfaction and metabolic outcomes following the initiation of the second generation of the Freestyle Libre 2 (FSL2) system in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D).
METHODS: This non-randomized single-arm observation study was conducted on 86 patients with T1D living in Saudi Arabia, who were asked to wear the FSL2 for 12 weeks. The demographic data were collected at baseline, while the continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) metrics were gathered, i.e., Glucose Variability (GV) (%), mean Time in Range (TIR), Time Above Range (TAR), Time Below Range (TBR), and average duration of hypoglycemic events were collected at baseline, 6th week and 12 weeks. Further, the Continuous Glucose Monitoring Satisfaction (CGM-SAT) was collected at the end of the follow-up.
RESULTS: Compared to the 6th week, significant differences were observed in the low glucose events (p = 0.037), % TIR (p = 0.045), and % below 70 mg/dL (p = 0.047) at 12 weeks. Improvement was seen in the other glucometric variables, but no significant changes were evident (p > 0.05). On completion of the study period, the ambulatory glucose profile (AGP) metrics showed a 74.3 ± 5.01 (mg/dL) FSL2 hypoglycemia alarm threshold and a 213 ± 38.1 (mg/dL) hyperglycemia alarm threshold. A majority of the patients stated that CGM-SAT had benefits (mean score > 3.58), although they felt FSL2 had \'additional benefits. With regard to the problems with the use of FSL2 majority of the patients stated that FSL2 has minimal discomfort.
CONCLUSIONS: Using second-generation FSL2 in patients with T1D is positively associated with patient- reported satisfaction and metabolic outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate real-life changes of glycemic parameters among flash glucose monitoring (FLASH) users who do not meet glycemic targets.
METHODS: De-identified data were obtained between 2014 and 2021 from patients using FLASH uninterrupted for a 24-week period. Glycemic parameters during first and last sensor use were examined in four identifiable groups: type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM), type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) on basal-bolus insulin, T2DM on basal insulin, and T2DM without insulin treatment. Within each group, subgroup analyses were performed in persons with initial suboptimal glycemic regulation (time in range (TIR; 3.9-10 mmol/L) < 70%, time above range (TAR; >10 mmol/L) > 25%, or time below range (TBR; <3.9 mmol/L) > 4%).
RESULTS: Data were obtained from 1,909 persons with T1DM and 1,813 persons with T2DM (1,499 basal-bolus insulin, 189 basal insulin, and 125 non-insulin users). In most of the performed analyses, both overall and in the various subgroups, significant improvements were observed in virtually all predefined primary (TIR) and secondary endpoints (eHbA1c, TAR, TBR and glucose variability).
CONCLUSIONS: 24-weeks FLASH use in real life by persons with T1DM and T2DM with suboptimal glycemic regulation is associated with improvement of glycemic parameters, irrespective of pre-use regulation or treatment modality.