Pros and Cons of CGM Alarm Sensitivity was published by Kristen Monaco for MedPageToday.com, 19 November 2019 … Researchers identified optimal alarm thresholds for hypo- and hyperglycemia.
Alarm settings on continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) can play a big role in time spent in range, a small observational study suggested.
In an analysis of nearly 100 individuals with type 1 diabetes, those that had a higher glucose threshold for alerting them of hypoglycemia — 73 mg/dL or higher — spent about 51% less time in hypoglycemia with a blood glucose below 70 mg/dL, reported Yu Kuei Lin, MD, of the University of Michigan Medical School in Ann Arbor, and colleagues in the Journal of the Endocrine Society. However, these individuals with a higher threshold set for hypoglycemia alarms on their CGM also had significantly higher average blood glucose levels (175 mg/dL vs 153 mg/dL).
Lin’s group suggested the “optimal” glucose threshold setting for a CGM alarm in order to spend less than 1% of time in hypoglycemia was a higher threshold, set at 75 mg/dL.
As for the 83 individuals with their CGM hyperglycemia alarms on, those with a lower average threshold with less than 205 mg/dL had significantly lower average blood glucose levels versus those with a higher alarm threshold over 205 mg/dL (155 mg/dL vs 172 mg/dL).
In order to spend less than 5% of the time in a hyperglycemic range, and have an HbA1c level at or below 7%, Lin’s group determined that the ideal alarm upper limit threshold was 170 mg/dL.
Read more: Pros and Cons of CGM Alarm Sensitivity
What’s Your Grade? was reported by Renza Scibilia and Chris “The Grumpy Pumper” Aldred for diaTribe.org, 14 November 2019.
We all know that A1C is, in many ways, a flawed measurement. It provides an average and fails to tell the story about the details of daily diabetes numbers and management. As shared in this article, an A1C of 7% can’t be taken at face value of simply being an ‘in range’ number that needs no further attention.
With continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), we get a far more useful and meaningful picture of what is going on. Time in range is considered a more worthwhile assessment of just how much time we are reaching, and sitting within, our targets.
whether A1C is flawed or not is actually irrelevant here. The issue is the idea of giving grades to a person with diabetes based on any measurement.
We’re not against A1C checks. We consider them the same way that we do any other medical check: information for us to take action, and a benchmark to review progress. But that’s not to say that we haven’t faced the judgement that comes when an A1C result is handed down to us. We have felt measured and graded, with the number being used as an indication of whether we’ve succeeded or failed. No person with diabetes should ever be made to feel that way. Ever! And while neither of us have been given a grade for our A1C, we know just how harmful using this sort of assessment can be.
Read more: What’s Your Grade?
On the business side, as reported by SeekingAlpha.com:
Senseonics +7.9% after publishing Eversense data,
The company evaluated the system from June 2016 to August 2019, it says in the journal Diabetes Technology and Therapeutics. It covered 945 adult users in the home setting and demonstrated the performance of the sensor over four sensor cycles was stable and didn’t decrease over time, as well as showing no degradation of patient glucose outcomes.
DexCom Continues To Soar After Earnings
DexCom Inc. (DXCM) continues to be a winning play in the Diabetes space. Sales momentum for the G6 continues to build, paving the way for G7 in 2021. DXCM shares were up 27.2% or $41.58 per share on November 7, after Q3 earnings were announced after the close of the market on Wednesday, November 6. DexCom hit the earnings call trifecta, beating analyst estimates on both revenue (49% growth YoY) and earnings, along with raising revenue guidance for the full year 2019.
And just for fun, from the satircal site about healthcare called GomerBlog (REMEMBER, THIS IS NOT REAL!):