1. NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence). Recommendations j Type 1 diabetes in adults: diagnosis and management j Guidance j NICE [Internet]. NICE. 2015 [cited 2022 Jun 8]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guid ance/ng17/chapter/Recommendations#blood-glucose-management
2. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Diabetes (type 1 and type 2) in children and young people: diagnosis and management [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2022 Jun 8]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng18/chapter/ Recommendations#type-1-diabetes 3. The Medical Devices Regulations 2002 [Internet]. [cited 2022 Aug 16]. Available from: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/618/contents 4. Eur-lex. EUR-Lex - 01993L0042-20071011 - EN - EUR-Lex [Internet]. 1993 [cited 2022 Jun 9]. Available from: https://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A01993L 0042-20071011
3. Background and Aims: The new NICE guidelines recommend that all adults with type 1 diabetes should have access to either Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring (isCGM) or Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM). The aim of the study was to evaluate the type of used method for glucose monitoring in patients with type 1 diabetes treated at our diabetes center during 2019-2022.
4. Methods: 2132 patients with type 1 diabetes (1199 with pens and 933 with pumps) were enrolled in the present study between 2019 and 2022. The patients were divided into three groups according to the type of monitoring used - BGM, CGM and isCGM. In all patients basic characteristics, diabetes history, type of treatment, glucose control (HbA1c) and frequency of downloads of data were assessed.
5. Results: A significant increase in the proportion of patients using CGM or isCGM in comparison to BGM during the years 2019-2022 was seen (Fig 1). There was a significant improvement in diabetes control in CGM and isCGM between 2019-2022, but not in BGM (CGM: 2019 63.1 - 12.4 mmol/mol vs. 2022 58.7 - 11.7; p < 0.0001; isCGM: 64.5 - 14.2 vs. 61.7 - 13.1; p < 0.001; BGM: 60.8 - 16.3 vs. 59.3 - 16.4; NS). CGMmonitored patients had better glucose control than isCGM patients (p < 0.0001). There was a significantly higher frequency of data download in CGM and isCGM in comparison with BGM (mean 2/year and 1.8 vs. 1.1; p < 0.001).