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.

Objective: Previous studies revealed that hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) increased overall in the United States in the past decade. In addition, health inequities in type 1 diabetes (T1D) outcomes by race/ethnicity and insurance type persist. This study examines the trends in HbA1c from 2016 to 2022 stratified by race/ethnicity and insurance in a large multicenter national database. Research Design and Methods: We analyzed glycemic outcomes and diabetes device use trends for >48,000 people living with type 1 diabetes (PwT1D) from 3 adult and 12 pediatric centers in the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative (T1DX-QI), comparing data from 2016 to 2017 with data from 2021 to 2022. Results: The mean HbA1c in 2021–2022 was lower at 8.4% compared with the mean HbA1c in 2016–2017 of 8.7% (0.3% improvement; P < 0.01). Over the same period, the percentage of PwT1D using a continuous glucose monitor (CGM), insulin pump, or hybrid closed-loop system increased (45%, 12%, and 33%, respectively). However, these improvements were not equitably demonstrated across racial/ethnic groups or insurance types. Racial/ethnic and insurance-based inequities persisted over all 7 years across all outcomes; comparing non-Hispanic White and non-Hispanic Black PwT1D, disparate gaps in HbA1c (1.2%–1.6%), CGM (30%), pump (25%–35%), and hybrid-closed loop system (up to 20%) are illuminated. Conclusion: Population-level data on outcomes, including HbA1c, can provide trends and insights into strategies to improve health for PwT1D. The T1DX-QI cohort showed a significant improvement in HbA1c from 2016 to 2022. Improvements in diabetes device use are also demonstrated. However, these increases were inconsistent across all racial/ethnic groups or insurance types, an important focus for future T1D population health improvement work.

OBJECTIVE: The Informatics for Diabetes Education and Telemedicine (IDEATel) project randomized ethnically diverse underserved older adults with diabetes to a telemedicine intervention or usual care. Intervention participants had lower A1C levels over 5 years. New analyses were performed to help better understand this difference. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: IDEATel randomized Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes (n = 1,665) to receive home video visits with a diabetes educator and upload glucose levels every 4–6 weeks or usual care (2000–2007). Annual measurements included BMI, A1C (primary outcome), and completion of questionnaires. Mixed-model analyses were performed using random effects to adjust for clustering within primary care physicians. RESULTS: At baseline, A1C levels (mean ± SD) were 7.02 ± 1.25% in non-Hispanic whites (n = 821), 7.58 ± 1.78% in non-Hispanic blacks (n = 248), and 7.79 ± 1.68% in Hispanics (n = 585). Over time, lower A1C levels were associated with more glucose uploads (P = 0.02) and female sex (P = 0.002). Blacks, Hispanics, and insulin-users had higher A1C levels than non-Hispanic whites (P < 0.0001). BMI was not associated with A1C levels. Blacks and Hispanics had significantly fewer uploads than non-Hispanic whites over time. Hispanics had the highest baseline A1C levels and showed the greatest improvement in the intervention, but, unlike non-Hispanic whites, Hispanics did not achieve A1C levels <7.0% at 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Racial/ethnic disparities were observed in this cohort of underserved older adults with diabetes. The IDEATel telemedicine intervention was associated with improvement in glycemic control, particularly in Hispanics, who had the highest baseline A1C levels, suggesting that telemedicine has the potential to help reduce disparities in diabetes management.

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.

In this monograph, we review issues that are crucial to understand to ensure the optimal and most cost-effective use of BGM. These issues include the accuracy of available glucose meters; the recommended frequency of BGM for PWD who have different types of diabetes and whose diabetes management follows different therapeutic approaches; strategies for using BGM to reach glycemic targets; barriers to BGM use and ways to overcome them; the use of BGM in PWD who also use CGM; and technological innovations such as Cloud-based glucose data management systems, mobile applications (apps), insulin calculators, and remote and automated counseling systems that incorporate BGM to improve care.