Currently Viewing:
American Diabetes Association (ADA) 2017
Dr Neal Kaufman Weighs Advantages of Digital and In-Person Diabetes Management Programs
June 10, 2017
Dr Robert Gabbay Highlights 3 Exciting Areas of Developing Diabetes Technology
June 10, 2017
Medicare's Diabetes Prevention Program Is Coming, but CMMI Has Work to Do
June 11, 2017
Nina Brown-Ashford Outlines Development and Next Steps of CMS Diabetes Prevention Program
June 11, 2017
Praluent Benefits for Diabetes Patients Seen in Pair of PCSK9 Studies
June 11, 2017
Dr William Polonsky on the Promising Potential of Continuous Glucose Monitoring
June 11, 2017
Heart Failure Needs More Attention in Diabetes Drug Trials, Expert Says
June 11, 2017
Phase 3 Results Show Lower A1C for Ertugliflozin, Combined With Metformin and With Sitagliptin
June 12, 2017
CANVAS Finds Lower Risk of CV Events for Invokana
June 12, 2017
Currently Reading
CGM "Debate" Finds Benefits, Barriers to Uptake for Type 2 Diabetes
June 12, 2017
Dr Bruce Neal Discusses Canagliflozin's Potential for Heart Failure Prevention
June 13, 2017
Sanofi Presents New Results for Insulin GLP-1 Combo Soliqua
June 13, 2017
Raymie McFarland Discusses Findings From Glytec's Basal-Bolus Insulin Study
June 21, 2017
With Glytec, Hospital Moves to Basal-Bolus Insulin, Saves $9.7 Million
June 21, 2017
Dr Eda Cengiz on Improvements in Closed-Loop Systems
June 26, 2017
Dr William Polonsky on Diabetes Patients' Treatment Satisfaction and Insulin Adherence
June 29, 2017
Dr Alan Carter on Increasing Insulin Costs
July 04, 2017
Nina Brown-Ashford: DPP Will Improve Care and Costs for Prediabetes Patients
July 06, 2017
Dr Eda Cengiz Discusses the Future of Diabetes Management
July 13, 2017
Dr Alan Carter on the Steps to Managing Rising Insulin Costs
July 17, 2017
WellDoc Data Offer Promise for Integrating Diabetes Data Into Workflow
July 17, 2017
Dr Andrew Rhinehart: Improving Intermediate Outcomes in Diabetes Research
July 20, 2017
Robby Booth of Glytec Discusses the Importance of Data-Sharing Capabilities
July 24, 2017
Dr Eda Cengiz on New Technologies in Diabetes Management
July 26, 2017

CGM "Debate" Finds Benefits, Barriers to Uptake for Type 2 Diabetes

Mary Caffrey
A light-hearted format for the discussion at the 77th Scientific Sessions of the American Diabetes Association still brought out the seriousness of the issue: too many with type 2 diabetes have poor glycemic control, and another medication may not be the answer.
The mood was light—where else do the presenters’ slides feature the back side of a rhinoceros and a smiling monkey? But the message was serious: decades of trying and more than 40 drugs for type 2 diabetes (T2D) still leave large numbers of patients with poor glycemic control.

Is continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) the answer in T2D? For the right patients, yes—the challenge is identifying those patients, according to Jeremy Pettus, MD, and William H. Polonsky, PhD, CDE, both from the University of California at San Diego, the host city for the 77th Scientific Sessions of the American Diabetes Association, taking place June 9-13, 2017.

Sunday’s session, “Should Continuous Glucose Monitoring Be Prescribed for People with Type 2 Diabetes? A Pro/Con Discussion,” was styled as a debate, but Pettus and Polonsky turned it into a lively exchange of evidence that supports CGM use for patients with T2D, along with research gaps and practical barriers to bringing the technology to more patients.

They started with a key ground rule: they had refused to debate CGM use for patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D), because it’s the standard of care. And they took note of the very recent Medicare rule change that may soon bring Dexcom’s G5 to beneficiaries who have type 1 or some patients with type 2, although some administrative hurdles remain.

After Polonsky took the “con” position for sections on patients who use insulin, he and Pettus switched sides—and suit jackets—to debate CGM use for those using oral medication, who represent most people with diabetes.

Pettus started with an update from the DIAMOND study, which previously found that CGM was just as effective for T1D patients using multiple daily injections of insulin as those using pump therapy. New data from both T1D and T2D users shows CGM helps those using daily injections across both patient groups.  

The question about CGM, Pettus said, “Is it worth the burden and the cost?” It’s worth noting, he said, that patients associate how sick they are with the number of medications they take, and unlike medication, CGM has “no side effects.”

There are concerns about patients learning to use CGM, especially if they develop T2D when they are older and less tech savvy. But Pettus said there’s other evidence that shows with limited instruction—a one-page handout—patients with T2D learned to use CGM and that it made a difference. What’s more, he said, it made the biggest difference in patients with glycated hemoglobin (A1C) above 9%, a group that “we might write off as hopeless.”

For these patients, seeing what certain foods and exercise does to blood sugar proves an eye-opener. “People seeing it in real time is empowering,” Pettus said. Many assume CGM will require more of a doctor’s time, but in the long run it could require less.

“We have a paternalistic view of medicine, and that’s just not the case with CGM,” Pettus said. Armed with better tools, patients “might not need us, and that’s OK.”

Polonsky said the main challenge is that T2D patients with the most severe hypoglycemia haven’t been studied—and they should be. He also read from one of Pettus’ papers to raise the question whether patients had the confidence to actually use their CGM consistently. “Maybe,” Polonsky said, “but we need more evidence.”

Copyright AJMC 2006-2020 Clinical Care Targeted Communications Group, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Welcome the the new and improved, the premier managed market network. Tell us about yourself so that we can serve you better.
Sign Up