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.

Background: The proliferation of digital technology has the potential to transform diabetes management. One of the critical aspects of modern diabetes management remains the achievement of glycemic targets to avoid acute and long-term complications. Objective: This study aims to describe the landscape of evidence pertaining to the relative effectiveness or efficacy and safety of various digital interventions for the self-management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), with a primary focus on reducing glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels. Methods: A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted by searching Embase, MEDLINE, and CENTRAL on April 5, 2022. Study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed by 2 independent reviewers. Eligibility criteria for the SLR included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative observational studies evaluating interventions containing both human (eg, coaching) and digital components (eg, glucose meter) in adult patients with T2DM. The primary meta-analysis was restricted to studies that reported laboratory-measured HbA1c. In secondary analyses, meta-regression was performed with the intensity of coaching in the digital intervention as a categorical covariate. Results: In total, 28 studies were included in this analysis. Most studies (23/28, 82%) used the reduction of HbA1c levels as the primary end point, either directly or as a part of a multicomponent outcome. In total, 21 studies reported statistically significant results with this primary end point. When stratified into 3 intervention categories by the intensity of the intervention supporting the digital health technology (analyzing all 28 studies), the success rate appeared to be proportional to the coaching intensity (ie, higher-intensity studies reported higher success rates). When the analysis was restricted to RCTs using the comparative improvement of HbA1c levels, the effectiveness of the interventions was less clear. Only half (12/23, 52%) of the included RCTs reported statistically significant results. The meta-analyses were broadly aligned with the results of the SLR. The primary analysis estimated a greater reduction in HbA1c associated with digital interventions compared with usual care (–0.31%, 95% CI –0.45% to –0.16%; P<.001). Meta-regression estimated reductions of –0.45% (95% CI –0.81% to –0.09%; P=.02), –0.29% (95% CI –0.48% to –0.11%; P=.003), and –0.28% (95% CI –0.65% to 0.09%; P=.20) associated with high-, medium-, and low-intensity interventions, respectively. Conclusions: These findings suggest that reducing HbA1c levels in individuals with T2DM with the help of digital interventions is feasible, effective, and acceptable. One common feature of effective digital health interventions was the availability of timely and responsive personalized coaching by a dedicated health care professional.

Introduction: An error grid compares measured versus reference glucose concentrations to assign clinical risk values to observed errors. Widely used error grids for blood glucose monitors (BGMs) have limited value because they do not also reflect clinical accuracy of continuous glucose monitors (CGMs). Methods: Diabetes Technology Society (DTS) convened 89 international experts in glucose monitoring to (1) smooth the borders of the Surveillance Error Grid (SEG) zones and create a user-friendly tool—the DTS Error Grid; (2) define five risk zones of clinical point accuracy (A-E) to be identical for BGMs and CGMs; (3) determine a relationship between DTS Error Grid percent in Zone A and mean absolute relative difference (MARD) from analyzing 22 BGM and nine CGM accuracy studies; and (4) create trend risk categories (1-5) for CGM trend accuracy. Results: The DTS Error Grid for point accuracy contains five risk zones (A-E) with straight-line borders that can be applied to both BGM and CGM accuracy data. In a data set combining point accuracy data from 18 BGMs, 2.6% of total data pairs equally moved from Zones A to B and vice versa (SEG compared with DTS Error Grid). For every 1% increase in percent data in Zone A, the MARD decreased by approximately 0.33%. We also created a DTS Trend Accuracy Matrix with five trend risk categories (1-5) for CGM-reported trend indicators compared with reference trends calculated from reference glucose. Conclusion: The DTS Error Grid combines contemporary clinician input regarding clinical point accuracy for BGMs and CGMs. The DTS Trend Accuracy Matrix assesses accuracy of CGM trend indicators.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus has rapidly involved the entire world and exposed the pressing need for collaboration between public health and other stakeholders from the clinical, scientific, regulatory, pharmaceutical, and medical device and technology communities. To discuss how to best protect people with diabetes from serious outcomes from COVID-19, Diabetes Technology Society, in collaboration with Sansum Diabetes Research Institute, hosted the “International COVID-19 and Diabetes Virtual Summit” on August 26-27, 2020. This unique, unprecedented real-time conference brought together physicians, scientists, government officials, regulatory experts, industry representatives, and people with diabetes from six continents to review and analyze relationships between COVID-19 and diabetes. Over 800 attendees logged in. The summit consisted of five sessions: (I) Keynotes, (II) Preparedness, (III) Response, (IV) Recovery, and (V) Surveillance; eight parts: (A) Background, (B) Resilience, (C) Outpatient Care, (D) Inpatient Care, (E) Resources, (F) High-Risk Groups, (G) Regulation, and (H) The Future; and 24 sections: (1) Historic Pandemics and Impact on Society, (2) Pathophysiology/Risk Factors for COVID-19, (3) Social Determinants of COVID-19, (4) Preparing for the Future, (5) Medications and Vaccines, (6) Psychology of Patients and Caregivers, (7) Outpatient Treatment of Diabetes Mellitus and Non-Pharmacologic Intervention, (8) Technology and Telehealth for Diabetes Outpatients, (9) Technology for Inpatients, (10) Management of Diabetes Inpatients with COVID-19, (11) Ethics, (12) Accuracy of Diagnostic Tests, (13) Children, (14) Pregnancy, (15) Economics of Care for COVID-19, (16) Role of Industry, (17) Protection of Healthcare Workers, (18) People with Diabetes, (19) International Responses to COVID-19, (20) Government Policy, (21) Regulation of Tests and Treatments, (22) Digital Health Technology, (23) Big Data Statistics, and 24) Patient Surveillance and Privacy. The two keynote speeches were entitled (1) COVID-19 and Diabetes—Meeting the Challenge and (2) Knowledge Gaps and Research Opportunities for Diabetes and COVID-19. While there was an emphasis on diabetes and its interactions with COVID-19, the panelists also discussed the COVID-19 pandemic in general. The meeting generated many novel ideas for collaboration between experts in medicine, science, government, and industry to develop new technologies and disease treatment paradigms to fight this global pandemic.

IN BRIEF Diabetes applications for electronic devices (apps) leverage the computing power and wireless connectivity of smartphones to offer unique advantages over more traditional tools such as paper logbooks and glucose meters. As these apps and the devices they connect with continue to evolve, health care providers play an important role in guiding patients by recommending specific apps, demonstrating best practices on their usage, and cautioning against their limitations.