Association Between Adherence, A1C Improvement, and Type of Continuous Glucose Monitoring System in People with Type 1 Diabetes or Type 2 Diabetes Treated with Intensive Insulin Therapy

Poorva M Nemlekar; Katia L Hannah; Courtney R Green; Gregory J Norman

doi:10.1007/s13300-023-01529-8

Association Between Adherence, A1C Improvement, and Type of Continuous Glucose Monitoring System in People with Type 1 Diabetes or Type 2 Diabetes Treated with Intensive Insulin Therapy

Diabetes Ther. 2024 Mar;15(3):639-648. doi: 10.1007/s13300-023-01529-8. Epub 2024 Jan 30.

Authors

Poorva M Nemlekar¹, Katia L Hannah¹, Courtney R Green¹, Gregory J Norman²

Affiliations

¹ Dexcom, Inc., 6340 Sequence Dr., San Diego, CA, 92121, USA.
² Dexcom, Inc., 6340 Sequence Dr., San Diego, CA, 92121, USA. Greg.norman@dexcom.com.

Abstract

Introduction: Use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems by people with diabetes is associated with improved glycemic outcomes, including lower glycated hemoglobin (A1C). Less is known about adherence to CGM systems, whether glycemic outcomes are impacted by levels of adherence, or whether adherence rates differ between types of CGM systems-intermittently scanned CGM (isCGM) or real-time CGM (rtCGM).

Methods: A retrospective analysis of de-identified US administrative health claims and linked laboratory data was conducted using the Merative™ MarketScan^® Research Database. The cohort included CGM-naïve people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) or type 2 diabetes treated with intensive insulin therapy (T2D-IIT) who initiated rtCGM or isCGM between August 1, 2019 and March 31, 2021 (defined as the index date). Adherence was calculated over a 12-month period using the proportion of days covered (PDC) with PDC ≥ 0.8 defined as adherent. A1C values were obtained within 6 months of the index date.

Results: A total of 7669 individuals were identified. Subgroups included T1D using isCGM (n = 1578), T1D using rtCGM (n = 1244), T2D-IIT using isCGM (n = 3567), and T2D-IIT using rtCGM (n = 1280). After 12 months, PDC was 0.71 (0.30)-0.72 (0.31) (mean(SD)) for T1D and T2D-IIT rtCGM users and 0.55 (0.34)-0.56 (0.34) for T1D and T2D-IIT isCGM users. The proportion of adherent users (PDC ≥ 0.8) was 56.8-59.7% for rtCGM users and 36.3-37.6% for isCGM users. Overall, regardless of diabetes type, the odds of adherence were over two times higher for rtCGM users compared to isCGM users. For those with available A1C information (T1D n = 213; T2D-IIT n = 346), independent of CGM type, adherence to CGM was associated with a greater reduction in A1C and more people reaching A1C targets of < 7.0% or < 8.0%.

Conclusion: For people with T1D or T2D-IIT, higher adherence to CGM is associated with greater reductions in A1C, and higher adherence rates were observed with rtCGM systems than with isCGM systems.

Keywords: A1C; Adherence; Continuous glucose monitoring; Glycated hemoglobin; Intensive insulin therapy; Type 1 diabetes; Type 2 diabetes.