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.

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) convened a writing group to develop a consensus statement on the management of type 1 diabetes in adults. The writing group has considered the rapid development of new treatments and technologies and addressed the following topics: diagnosis, aims of management, schedule of care, diabetes self-management education and support, glucose monitoring, insulin therapy, hypoglycemia, behavioral considerations, psychosocial care, diabetic ketoacidosis, pancreas and islet transplantation, adjunctive therapies, special populations, inpatient management, and future perspectives. Although we discuss the schedule for follow-up examinations and testing, we have not included the evaluation and treatment of the chronic microvascular and macrovascular complications of diabetes as these are well-reviewed and discussed elsewhere. The writing group was aware of both national and international guidance on type 1 diabetes and did not seek to replicate this but rather aimed to highlight the major areas that health care professionals should consider when managing adults with type 1 diabetes. Though evidence-based where possible, the recommendations in the report represent the consensus opinion of the authors.

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.