DR PRATIK CHOUDHARY (Orcid ID : 0000-0001-7635-4735)

MS NIKKI JOULE (Orcid ID : 0000-0002-3827-8724)

Article type : Diabetes UK Position Statements

Accepted Article
Title: Diabetic Medicine
Created by: Maria Davie
Email proofs to: [email protected]
Article no.: DME-2018-00373
Article type: Diabetes UK Position Statement
Short title/Authors running head: Type 1 diabetes technology pathway P. Choudhary et al.

A Type 1 diabetes technology pathway: consensus

statement for the use of technology in Type 1 diabetes

P. Choudhary1, F. Campbell, N. Joule, P. Kar; on behalf of Diabetes UK

1
Diabetes Research Group, London, UK

Correspondence to: Pratik Choudhary. E-mail: [email protected]

What's new?

This consensus statement makes recommendations for a number of diabetes technologies that are

available to patients today.

It describes a pathway that moves through 'monotherapy’ to 'dual therapy', in a similar way as we

do for Type 2 diabetes, with the aim of supporting patients to reach National Institute for Health

and Care Excellence-approved targets for glucose control.

The guideline covers adults, children, young people and pregnant women with Type 1 diabetes.

This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not
been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may
lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as
doi: 10.1111/dme.13933
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
 Abstract

In both adults and children with diabetes, technologies such as continuous subcutaneous insulin
Accepted Article
infusion using insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitoring can help improve diabetes control,

reduce hypoglycaemia and improve quality of life. Access to these technologies in the UK is very

variable. Some technologies are recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care

Excellence, while others have not been appraised, and new technologies are emerging all the time.

Additionally, different guidelines for adults and children further complicate access to diabetes

technology in the transition from paediatric to adult care. Against this background, Diabetes UK and

NHS England have brought together a multidisciplinary group of experts, including clinicians and

people with diabetes, to develop this consensus guideline, combining the different technologies into a

common pathway to aid clinical and policy decision-making. We created a pathway that supports the

incremental addition of technology as monotherapy and then dual therapy in the same way that we

incrementally add in therapeutic agents to support people with Type 2 diabetes to achieve their

personalized glycaemic targets. The pathway emphasizes the importance of structured education,

specialist support and appropriate access to psychological therapies, as essential pillars for optimized

use of diabetes-related technology, and recommends the re-evaluation of its use when the individual is

unable either to use the technology appropriately or to achieve the intended outcomes. This pathway

is endorsed by UK-wide clinical and patient associations and we recommend that providers and

commissioners use it to ensure the right individual with diabetes has access to the right technology in

a timely way to help achieve better outcomes.

Introduction

Achieving the level of glucose control required to minimize the risks of long-term complications in

Type 1 diabetes requires a complex balance between insulin delivery, carbohydrate intake and

physical activity. This relentless task places a significant burden on people living with this condition

and is one of reasons why, according to the latest national diabetes audits, fewer than 15% of adults

and 28.9% of children are able to achieve target glucose levels [1,2].

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 Mean HbA1c levels are much higher in the UK compared to data from large registries from the USA,

Sweden and Germany [3–6]. Data from these registries offer real-world insights into factors
Accepted Article
associated with greater achievement of glucose targets. One of these is the fact that those achieving

target HbA1c values are far more likely to be using technology such as continuous glucose monitoring

(CGM) or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) with an insulin pump [3,8,9]. Indeed, both

CSII and CGM have a large body of randomized controlled trial (RCT) as well as real-world

observational evidence demonstrating benefits to people with Type 1 diabetes in terms of improved

HbA1c, reduced hypoglycaemia and improved quality of life [8,10–15].

The latest National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance for Type 1 diabetes in

adults and in children (NG17 and NG18 [2]) state that the key priority for implementation was to

'support adults (and children and young adults) to aim for a target HbA1c level of 48 mmol/mol [6.5%]

or lower' [16]. If we are indeed serious about supporting people with diabetes to achieve their

personal glucose targets, then we need to recognize that for many people this will not be possible

without some form of technological support.

The NICE technology appraisal TA 151 [17] set out clear guidelines for the use of insulin pumps and

has helped support a doubling of patients using insulin pumps across the country [18]. There is,

however, no similar NICE technology appraisal for access to CGM, although the NICE guidance for

Type 1 diabetes does recommend the use of real-time glucose monitoring in certain circumstances,

such as recurrent severe hypoglycaemia, complete loss of hypoglycaemia awareness, extreme fear of

hypoglycaemia or hyperglycaemia >75 mmol/mol (9%) despite > 10 self-monitored glucose

measurements per day when the use of CGM results in a sustained fall in HbA1c of at least 27

mmol/mol (2.5%) or a sustained HbA1c below 53 mmol/mol (7.5%). A recent freedom-of-information

request showed that many Clinical Commissioning Groups in the UK still do not have a policy for

CGM, or have a blanket policy to refuse funding for CGM [19].

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 In the last couple of years, the advent of flash glucose monitoring (GM) has provided another

alternative to conventional CGM. It allows patients to easily access frequent and detailed data on their
Accepted Article
glucose levels as well as on the direction and rate of change [20]. This has some advantages over

conventional CGM, such as lower price and ease of use, as well as some important differences from

CGM, such as the lack of alarms and intermittent nature of the data. There has been huge media and

patient interest in the use of this technology, especially with some high-profile users in the news [21].

The Regional Medicines Optimization Committee published a position statement in October 2017 that

set out five indications in which flash GM was recommended [22]; however, these recommendations

and guidelines are being reviewed and re-assessed at multiple local and regional levels, with huge

duplication of work, leading to delays and regional variation in patient access.

To clinicians and commissioners working in this area, one of the challenges concerning equitable

access to medical technology was the fact that recommendations for CSII, CGM and flash GM were

all sitting independently of each other and there was therefore a need for an integrated pathway that

helped clinicians, patients and policy-makers to make consistent and informed decisions.

Process for the development of the pathway

With the task of developing an integrated pathway in mind, Diabetes UK and NHS England convened

a group of experts to develop a technologies pathway that could be implemented across the country.

Stakeholder organizations and healthcare providers came together with people living with diabetes to

place currently available technologies within a common and unified framework. The group

considered current available literature, clinical experience and opinion, as well as relative costs, along

with testimonies and comments from the people living with diabetes. The group reviewed current UK

guidance on the management of Type 1 diabetes and the use of different technologies and aimed to

bring them together into a cohesive integrated pathway. The purpose was not to comprehensively

review existing guidelines, but to integrate currently available guidelines in a way that patients,

clinicians and policy-makers would find helpful.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 The outline of the 'pathway' was based on the model of the American Diabetes Association/ European

Association for the Study of Diabetes guidelines for Type 2 diabetes that set out a roadmap for
Accepted Article
incremental escalation of treatment to try and support patients to achieve their individualized

glycaemic goal [23]. In the setting of Type 2 diabetes, we are used to a clear stepwise progression,

advancing to dual- and triple-combination therapy [23]. Using the same principle, we recommend a

baseline minimum standard of care that all people with Type 1 diabetes should be able to access. If

that alone is not able to help them achieve their targets, we suggest adding in first one, and then

potentially two complementary technologies to stay true to the NICE guidance (NG17) and support

adults with Type 1 diabetes to aim for a target HbA1c level of 48 mmol/l (6.5%) in a safe manner.

The pathway was then endorsed by stakeholders in this field, including the Association of British

Clinical Diabetologists, the Association of Children’s Diabetes Consultants, the British Society for

Paediatric Endocrinology and Diabetes, the Diabetes Technology Network-UK, Diabetes UK, the

Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation (JDRF), INPUT, Dose Adjustment for Normal Eating

(DAFNE), the National Children and Young Peoples Diabetes Network and the Type 1 Clinical

Collaborative, and was published on the Diabetes UK website in June 2018 [24].

Consensus guideline pathway

Initial treatment

All people living with diabetes should be able to access a minimum standard of care that should

include access to a structured education programme of proven benefit, adequate capillary glucose

monitoring (a minimum of four and up to 10 measurements, if required) [16] and a specialist diabetes

multidisciplinary team that supports the person to download and analyse glucose information and

optimize treatment decisions. The group felt that these were the minimal 'ingredients' required to

achieve glycaemic targets, and provide the skills and support required to maximize the benefits of any

added therapy. As per NICE guidance, we agreed that structured education should be offered within

6–12 months of diagnosis, or at any time that is clinically appropriate and suitable for the person,

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 regardless of duration of diabetes. Structured education programmes, such as DAFNE, are

recommended by NICE [16] and have been shown in RCTs as well as national audits to help improve
Accepted Article
glucose control, reduce hypoglycaemia and improve quality of life [25–27]. They teach people with

diabetes key skills such as carbohydrate-counting, dose adjustment and managing illness and

hypoglycaemia. Structured education such as DAFNE has also been shown to be cost-effective within

a few years of being used [28]. There are also a number of alternative structured education

programmes available across the UK, some of which have published outcomes [29]. The NICE

guidance for children with diabetes also emphasizes the importance of structured education in this

group [2]. It is important to realize that, even though these programmes provide real benefit in terms

of improved HbA1c and quality of life and lead to significant reductions in acute complications of

diabetes such as severe hypoglycaemia and ketoacidosis, data from audits and the clinical trials of

these programmes show that only a proportion of patients using these principles achieve target HbA 1c

levels using multiple daily injections (MDI) and capillary blood glucose monitoring. It therefore

stands to reason that many people with Type 1 diabetes will require extra tools to use their knowledge

and skills more effectively to achieve greater benefit.

Technology monotherapy

If standard care with MDI has been optimized, and the person with diabetes is using carbohydrate-

counting skills, performing adequate capillary glucose monitoring and making appropriate

adjustments, but is still not at their personalized glucose target, then the addition of one of the

available technologies as a 'monotherapy' should be considered and discussed. This decision should

be taken between the person with diabetes, their family/carer and their healthcare professional, and

should be discussed at a multidisciplinary team meeting.

Insulin pump therapy

The use of insulin pump therapy (CSII) is clearly set out in the NICE technology appraisal TA151

[17] and we have endorsed and aligned with this. The guideline recommends the use of CSII for

adults and children aged ≥12 years with Type 1 diabetes, provided that attempts to achieve target

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 HbA1c levels with MDI result in disabling hypoglycaemia or HbA1c levels have remained high despite

a high level of care. This guidance defines disabling hypoglycaemia as the 'repeated and unpredictable
Accepted Article
occurrence of hypoglycaemia that results in persistent anxiety about recurrence and is associated with

a significant adverse effect on quality of life'. It also recommends use of CSII in children aged <12

years where MDI treatment was considered impractical or inappropriate. The NICE guidance and

cost–benefit analysis was based on the CORE model, and assumed a baseline HbA1c level of 8.8%

and a reduction of 0.9%. Interestingly, data from large UK-based audits of CSII demonstrate similar

reductions in these scenarios [11,12,30].

Flash glucose monitoring

The Regional Medicines Optimization Committee (RMOC) guidance recommends the use of flash

GM for five specific indications. These include those who are undertaking intensive capillary glucose

monitoring >8 times/day, or those for whom conventional glucose monitoring is not possible. This

guidance also recommends flash GM as a cheaper alternative in those who meet the NICE TA151

guidance, i.e. those with HbA1c >69.4 mmol/mol (8.5%) or disabling hypoglycaemia as described in

NICE TA 151. It also suggests flash GM can be used by those who have recently developed impaired

awareness of hypoglycaemia, but notes that, for those with persistent hypoglycaemia unawareness,

NICE recommends CGM with alarms. There are also recommendations for use of flash GM in those

with frequent admissions for diabetic ketoacidosis or hypoglycaemia and in those who require third

parties to carry out monitoring and where conventional blood glucose testing is not possible.

Although there are limited RCT data demonstrating the benefit of this technology in terms of HbA1c

[31], there are observational data in children and adults demonstrating safety and clinical benefit in

the groups for whom flash GM is recommended under the RMOC guidance [32,33].

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 Real-time continuous glucose monitoring

Since NICE TA151 was published, there have been a number of studies demonstrating improvements
Accepted Article
in HbA1c and reductions in hypoglycaemia when CGM is used as an adjunct to MDI, rather than in

combination with CSII. These improvements are of a similar magnitude to those seen in studies of

CSII alone [34,35]. Two recent RCTs have also demonstrated the safety and efficacy of CGM in those

with impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia [13,36] and, in this group, CGM may be an effective

alternative to CSII in order to reduce the risk of severe hypoglycaemia. Notably, in a head-to-head

study conducted in people with impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia, CGM with alarms had a

greater impact on hypoglycaemia risk than flash GM [37]. A recent multicentre RCT demonstrated

the safety and efficacy of CGM in pregnancy, showing improved glucose control, reduced birth

weight and, crucially, reduced maternal and neonatal morbidity [14]. Over a 4-year cost cycle, CGM

and CSII have a similar cost and, given their comparable efficacy, it seems reasonable to offer people

with diabetes a choice between CGM and CSII.

The pathway (Fig. 1) recommends that either of these three diabetes technologies can be used as first

line in those who meet the relevant criteria. The decision about which technology should be used

should be a joint decision with the person with diabetes and their family/carer, and should include

documentation of current problems and anticipated outcomes. This should include the use of validated

tools such as the Gold score, Diabetes Distress Scale or Hypoglycaemia Fear Score, and performance

against these expected outcomes should be reviewed regularly.

Suggestions from the guideline group were that, given the current evidence base, it may be

appropriate to recommend CGM as the first-line technology in those with impaired awareness of

hypoglycaemia or disabling hypoglycaemia, or in pregnancy. They did however recognize that there

are observational data demonstrating benefits of CSII alone in both of these situations, highlighting

the importance of patient preference. In those with HbA1c levels > 69.4 mmol/mol (8.5%), it is

important to assess the reasons for the raised glucose levels. If they are related to problems with

insulin delivery, such as very low (< 20 units/day) or very high (> 100 units/day) doses, or problems

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 with absorption from injection sites, lipohypertrophy, or the need for frequent or small boluses, then

insulin pump therapy may be a better choice. Similarly, in those with high glucose variability, anxiety,
Accepted Article
difficulty measuring glucose or a fear of hypoglycaemia flash GM may be a more appropriate choice.

Although real-time CGM with alarms has been shown to reduce HbA1c significantly, given the lower

cost it is reasonable to suggest a trial of flash GM in the first instance.

Re-evaluation

Simply providing someone with expensive and complex technology does not guarantee clinical

benefit. In this regard, technology is different from the use of a pharmacological intervention. For

benefit with a pump, patients need to be able to perform frequent monitoring of their glucose levels,

bolus pre-meal [38] and change their infusion sets and cannula sites at regular intervals [39]. If they

do not measure their glucose levels adequately, they are also at greater risk of diabetic ketoacidosis.

Similarly, for flash GM or CGM, users need to wear the sensors at least 70% of the time, look at the

data frequently, have clear education and plans for how to use the extra information provided and for

how to use the data to reflect on and optimize treatment.

At each clinic visit (a minimum of four times a year for children and at least annually for adults), the

clinician and the patient/family should re-evaluate the benefit being achieved and the adequacy of use.

If there is a lack of measurable benefit, or a concern about safe use of the technology, this may be

related to sub-optimal use of the technology (<70% use of flash GM or CGM; or <4 capillary glucose

measurements/day or <4 bolus administrations/day with CSII) and the reasons for this need to be

explored. Potential reasons could be high diabetes distress, depression or a lack of education and

skills in the use of the technology. At this point, a decision about ongoing use of the technology and

the benefit it is providing must be made. Where diabetes distress or depression are key factors, access

to psychological support is key to addressing these factors and supporting the patient. A clear plan

should be made to support the patient to re-engage with the technology, but if the patient is not in a

position to do this at that time, it may be appropriate to temporarily suspend the use of the technology,

or consider changing to a more suitable technology at this point [40].

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 Movement between monotherapies

If people have tried flash GM but have not been able to achieve the desired or expected benefits, it
Accepted Article
may be appropriate to move to another first-line treatment, such as CSII or real-time CGM before

considering adding in another technology if both the healthcare professional and the person with

diabetes feel this is appropriate.

Technology dual-therapy

If the person with diabetes is using their first-line diabetes technology appropriately, and has had the

expected improvement in diabetes control from their baseline but has still not achieved their

personalized target, it may be appropriate to consider adding another complementary technology as

'dual therapy'.

For those using flash GM as a first-line technology, we recommend adding in insulin pump therapy if

the HbA1c level remains >69.4 mmol/mol (8.5%) despite this. Similarly, we recommend the addition

of flash GM to CSII if the HbA1c remains above >69.4 mmol/mol (8.5%) despite appropriate

engagement with insulin pump therapy.

For those with ongoing problematic hypoglycaemia despite either CSII or CGM, adding the two

technologies together, especially using systems with automated insulin suspension in response to

actual or predicted hypoglycaemia can significantly reduce the frequency and duration of

hypoglycaemia [10,41,42] and is in line with NICE guidance.

The use of CGM and CSII together is of particular relevance as they potentially open up the

possibility of 'hybrid closed-loop' systems that can automatically adjust basal insulin delivery and, in

real-world data from the USA, these have shown the ability to support patients in achieving tight

glucose control [43]. Of course, as with existing technologies, access to these technologies will have

to reflect funding constraints and undergo appropriate cost-effectiveness analyses.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 Islet or pancreas transplantation

The UK is one of only a few countries in the world with a centrally funded programme for islet and
Accepted Article
pancreas transplantation [44]. Transplantation is indicated for adult patients who continue to have

recurrent, severe hypoglycaemia despite optimized medical therapy. In most cases this will include

insulin pump therapy and/or CGM. Ideally, this will be done using a system with automated insulin

suspension features. If deemed suitable, access to psychological support may also be recommended

[45]; however, despite these interventions, some people will continue to experience recurrent severe

hypoglycaemia, and islet (or pancreas) transplantation should be considered as an option for these

patients [46]. Islet and pancreas transplantation are nationally commissioned and patients who meet

the criteria [recurrent severe hypoglycaemia despite optimized medical therapy, or suboptimal glucose

control (HbA1c > 53 mmol/mol or 7%) in those with a functioning renal transplant] should be referred

to one of the transplant centres.

Impact

The aim of this integrated pathway for technology in Type 1 diabetes is to assist clinicians in

choosing the most appropriate technology to support people with diabetes in achieving glucose levels

that minimize their risk of complications and improve their quality of life. By using current guidelines,

we hope to have kept the scope of this pathway within the remit of what should already be

commissioned in the UK, and this pathway can support local commissioning and improve the quality

of care for Type 1 diabetes in the UK

Summary

The optimal treatment for Type 1 diabetes must take into account the individual needs and desires of

the patient, as well as an understanding of where they are on their individual diabetes journey. Our

current management pathways are failing our patients, leading to reductions in both quality of life and

longevity. While putting together this guideline, the authors were aware of the financial pressures on

the NHS, but each of these treatments is cost-effective if they produce the desired and expected

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 results. The key aim of this guide was to provide a pathway for people with diabetes to achieve the

best diabetes outcomes they can, and create a document that both commissioners and providers can
Accepted Article
use to guide local decision-making.

Funding sources

None.

Competing interests

None declared.

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the group that put the guidelines together that included Dr Emma

Wilmot, Dr Peter Hammond, Dr Lalantha Leelarathna, Lesley Jordan, Dr Iain Cranston, Dr Jackie

Elliott, Dr Christopher Moudiotis, Dr Alistair Lumb, Carol Metcalfe, Melissa Holloway, Rachael

Chrisp, Libby Dowling, Marion Walker, Maureen McGinnn, Dr May Ng, Kate Baumber and Philip

Newland Jones.

References

1. NHS Digital. National Diabetes Audit Report 1: Care Processes and Treatment Targets,

2016-17. Government Statistical Service, 2018.

2. NICE. Diagnosis and Management of type 1 diabetes in children, young people and adults

(CG15). London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellance, 2018.

3. Maahs DM, Hermann JM, DuBose SN, Miller KM, Heidtmann B, DiMeglio LA et al.

Contrasting the clinical care and outcomes of 2,622 children with type 1 diabetes less

than 6 years of age in the United States T1D Exchange and German/Austrian DPV

registries. Diabetologia 2014;57:1578–1585.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 4. Steineck I, Cederholm J, Eliasson B, Rawshani A, Eeg-Olofsson K, Svensson AM et al. Insulin

pump therapy, multiple daily injections, and cardiovascular mortality in 18,168

Accepted Article
people with type 1 diabetes: observational study. BMJ 2015;350:h3234.

5. Bohn B, Kerner W, Seufert J, Kempe HP, Jehle PM, Best F et al. Trend of

antihyperglycaemic therapy and glycaemic control in 184,864 adults with type 1 or 2

diabetes between 2002 and 2014: Analysis of real-life data from the DPV registry

from Germany and Austria. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2016;115:31–38.

6. Miller KM, Foster NC, Beck RW, Bergenstal RM, DuBose SN, DiMeglio LA et al. Current

State of Type 1 Diabetes Treatment in the US: Updated Data From the T1D Exchange

Clinic Registry. Diabetes Care 2015;38:971–978.

7. Willers C, Iderberg H, Axelsen M, Dahlström T, Julin B, Leksell J et al. Sociodemographic

determinants and health outcome variation in individuals with type 1 diabetes

mellitus: A register-based study. PloS One 2018;13:e0199170.

8. Blackman SM, Raghinaru D, Adi S, Simmons JH, Ebner-Lyon L, Chase HP et al. Insulin

pump use in young children in the T1D Exchange clinic registry is associated with

lower hemoglobin A1c levels than injection therapy. Pediatric Diabetes

2014;15:564–572.

9. DeSalvo DJ, Miller KM, Hermann JM, Maahs DM, Hofer SE, Clements MA et al. Continuous

glucose monitoring and glycemic control among youth with type 1 diabetes:

International comparison from the T1D Exchange and DPV Initiative. Pediatr

Diabetes 2018;19:1271–1275.

10. Choudhary P, Ramasamy S, Green L, Gallen G, Pender S, Brackenridge A et al. Real-

time continuous glucose monitoring significantly reduces severe hypoglycaemia in

hypoglycaemia-unaware patients with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2013; 36:4160–

4162.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 11. Beato-Vibora P, Yeoh E, Rogers H, Hopkins D, Amiel SA, Choudhary P. Sustained benefit

of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion on glycaemic control and hypoglycaemia

Accepted Article
in adults with Type 1 diabetes. Diabet Med 2015; 32(11):1453–1459.

12. Leelarathna L, Roberts SA, Hindle A, Markakis K, Alam T, Chapman A et al. Comparison of

different insulin pump makes under routine care conditions in adults with Type 1

diabetes. Diabet Med 2017;34(10):1372–1379.

13. Heinemann L, Freckmann G, Ehrmann D, Faber-Heinemann G, Guerra S, Waldenmaier D et

al. Real-time continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes and

impaired hypoglycaemia awareness or severe hypoglycaemia treated with multiple

daily insulin injections (HypoDE): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet

2018;391:1367–1377.

14. Feig DS, Donovan LE, Corcoy R, Murphy KE, Amiel SA, Hunt KF et al. Continuous glucose

monitoring in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes (CONCEPTT): a multicentre

international randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2017;390:2347–2359.

15. Pickup JC, Sutton AJ. Severe hypoglycaemia and glycaemic control in Type 1 diabetes:

meta-analysis of multiple daily insulin injections compared with continuous

subcutaneous insulin infusion. Diabet Med 2008;25:765–774.

16. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Type 1 diabetes in adults: diagnosis

and management. London: NICE, 2015.

17. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Diabetes insulin pump therapy,

London: NICE, 2008.

18. Pickup JC, Hammond P. NICE guidance on continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion

2008: review of the technology appraisal guidance. Diabet Med 2009;26:1–4.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 19. Perera R, Oliver N, Wilmot E, Marriott C. Variations in access to and reimbursement for

continuous glucose monitoring systems for people living with Type 1 diabetes across
Accepted Article
England. Diabet Med 2018; 35:1617–1618.

20. Leelarathna L, Wilmot EG. Flash forward: a review of flash glucose monitoring. Diabet

Med 2018;35:472–482.

21. The diabetes patients denied Theresa's life-changing patch:Postcode lottery means device

that monitors glucose levels without finger-prick tests is not available to all. Available

at https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-5248319/Theresa-Mays-diabetes-patch-

not-available-patients.html. Last accessed 10 September 2018.

22. Flash Glucose Monitoring System RMOC Statement Final, 2017.

23. Inzucchi SE, Bergenstal RM, Buse JB, Diamant M, Ferrannini E, Nauck M et al.

Management of hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes: a patient-centered approach.

Position statement of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European

Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Diabetologia 2012;55:1577–1596.

24. Diabetes UK. Type 1 diabetes technology: A consensus Guideline. Diabetes UK website,

2018.

25. Keen AJ, Duncan E, McKillop-Smith A, Evans ND, Gold AE. Dose Adjustment for Normal

Eating (DAFNE) in routine clinical practice: who benefits? Diabet Med 2012;29:670–

676.

26. Hopkins D, Lawrence I, Mansell P, Thompson G, Amiel S, Campbell M et al. Improved

biomedical and psychological outcomes 1 year after structured education in flexible

insulin therapy for people with type 1 diabetes: the U.K. DAFNE experience.

Diabetes Care 2012;35:1638–1642.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 27. Gunn D, Mansell P. Glycaemic control and weight 7 years after Dose Adjustment For

Normal Eating (DAFNE) structured education in Type 1 diabetes. Diabet Med

Accepted Article
2012;29:807–812.

28. Kruger J, Brennan A, Thokala P, Basarir H, Jacques R, Elliott J et al. The cost-effectiveness

of the Dose Adjustment for Normal Eating (DAFNE) structured education

programme: an update using the Sheffield Type 1 Diabetes Policy Model. Diabet Med

2013;30:1236–1244.

29. Humayun MA, Jenkins E, Knott J, Ryder J, Shaban C, Weiss M et al. Intensive structured

education for type 1 diabetes management using BERTIE: Long-term follow-up to

assess impact on glycaemic control and quality of life indices. Diabetes Res Clin

Pract 2018; 143:275–281.

30. Anyanwagu U, Olaoye H, Jennings P, Ashton-Cleary S, Sugunendran S, Hughes D et al.

Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) therapy at Derby Teaching

Hospitals: sustained benefits in glucose control. Diabet Med 2017; 34: 1154–1157.

31. Bolinder J, Antuna R, Geelhoed-Duijvestijn P, Kröger J, Weitgasser R. Novel glucose-

sensing technology and hypoglycaemia in type 1 diabetes: a multicentre, non-masked,

randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2016; 388: 2254–2263.

32. Dover AR, Stimson RH, Zammitt NN, Gibb FW. Flash Glucose Monitoring Improves

Outcomes in a Type 1 Diabetes Clinic. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2017;11:442–443.

33. Campbell FM, Murphy NP, Stewart C, Biester T, Kordonouri O. Outcomes of using flash

glucose monitoring technology by children and young people with type 1 diabetes in a

single arm study. Pediatr Diabetes 2018; 19:1294–1301.

34. Beck RW, Riddlesworth T, Ruedy K, Ahmann A, Bergenstal R, Haller S et al. Effect of

Continuous Glucose Monitoring on Glycemic Control in Adults With Type 1

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 Diabetes Using Insulin Injections: The DIAMOND Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA

2017;317:371–378.
Accepted Article
35. Lind M, Polonsky W, Hirsch IB, Heise T, Bolinder J, Dahlqvist S et al. Continuous Glucose

Monitoring vs Conventional Therapy for Glycemic Control in Adults With Type 1

Diabetes Treated With Multiple Daily Insulin Injections: The GOLD Randomized

Clinical Trial. JAMA 2017;317:379–387.

36. van Beers CA, DeVries JH, Kleijer SJ, Smits MM, Geelhoed-Duijvestijn PH, Kramer MH et al.

Continuous glucose monitoring for patients with type 1 diabetes and impaired

awareness of hypoglycaemia (IN CONTROL): a randomised, open-label, crossover

trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2016;4:893–902.

37. Reddy M, Jugnee N, El Laboudi A, Spanudakis E, Anantharaja S, Oliver N. A randomized

controlled pilot study of continuous glucose monitoring and flash glucose monitoring

in people with Type 1 diabetes and impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia. Diabet

Med 2018;35:483–490.

38. Simmons JH, Chen V, Miller KM, McGill JB, Bergenstal RM, Goland RS et al. Differences

in the management of type 1 diabetes among adults under excellent control compared

with those under poor control in the T1D Exchange Clinic Registry. Diabetes Care

2013;36:3573–3577.

39. Pfutzner A, Sachsenheimer D, Grenningloh M, Heschel M, Walther-Johannesen L, Gharabli

R et al. Using Insulin Infusion Sets in CSII for Longer Than the Recommended Usage

Time Leads to a High Risk for Adverse Events: Results From a Prospective

Randomized Crossover Study. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2015; 9:1292–1298.

40. DTN-UK. Best Practice Guide: Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) A

clinical guide for adult diabetes services, 2018.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 41. Bergenstal RM. Insulin pumps with a sensor and threshold-suspend reduced nocturnal

hypoglycemia in type 1 diabetes. Ann Intern Med 2013;159:JC7.

Accepted Article
42. Zhong A, Choudhary P, McMahon C, Agrawal P, Welsh JB, Cordero TL et al. Effectiveness

of Automated Insulin Management Features of the MiniMed® 640G Sensor-

Augmented Insulin Pump. Diabetes Technol Ther 2016;18:657–663.

43. Aleppo G, Webb KM. Integrated Insulin Pump and Continuous Glucose Monitoring

Technology in Diabetes Care Today: A Perspective of Real-Life Experience with the

MinimedTM 670g Hybrid Closed-Loop System. Endocr Pract 2018;24:684–692.

44. Brooks AM, Walker N, Aldibbiat A, Hughes S, Jones G, de Havilland J et al. Attainment of

metabolic goals in the integrated UK islet transplant program with locally isolated and

transported preparations. Am J Transplant 2013;13:3236–3243.

45. de Zoysa N, Rogers H, Stadler M, Gianfrancesco C, Beveridge S, Britneff E et al. A

psychoeducational program to restore hypoglycemia awareness: the DAFNE-HART

pilot study. Diabetes Care 2014;37:863–866.

46. Choudhary P, Rickels MR, Senior PA, Vantyghem MC, Maffi P, Kay TW et al. Evidence-

Informed Clinical Practice Recommendations for Treatment of Type 1 Diabetes

Complicated by Problematic Hypoglycemia. Diabetes Care 2015; 38:1016–1029.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

 FIGURE 1 Pathway for use of technology in Type 1 diabetes. 1For those with impaired awareness of
Accepted Article
hypoglycaemia and/or recurrent severe hypoglycaemia, the pathway recommends opting for real-time

continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) with alarms as first-line therapy. 2For pregnancy, real-time

CGM with alarms should be considered as first-line therapy. 3 The National Institute for Health and

Care Excellence (NICE) guidance makes specific recommendation about the use of insulin pumps in

children below 12 years of age and the use of CGM in very young children who are unable to report

hypoglycaemia. 4In adults with HbA1c > 8.5%, it is important to assess the reason for the high HbA1c

and use the appropriate technology. 5In those with disabling or frequent hypoglycaemia with intact

awareness, either of the technologies could be used. This meets NICE guidance for continuous

subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), and in those with intact awareness flash glucose monitoring

may be a suitable alternative. GM, glucose monitoring; IAH, impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia;

iCGM, xxx; RT, real-time; SH, severe hypoglycaemia; SMBG, self-monitoring of blood glucose.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Accepted Article

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.