The hybrid closed-loop (HCL) system has been shown to improve glycemic control and reduce hypoglycemia. Optimization of HCL settings requires interpretation of the glucose, insulin, and factors affecting glucose such as food intake and exercise. To the best of our knowledge, there is no published guidance on the standardized reporting of HCL systems. Standardization of HCL reporting would make interpretation of data easy across different systems. We reviewed the literature on patient and provider perspectives on downloading and reporting glucose metric preferences. We also incorporated international consensus on standardized reporting for glucose metrics. We describe a single-page HCL data reporting, referred to here as “artificial pancreas (AP) Dashboard.” We propose seven components in the AP Dashboard that can provide detailed information and visualization of glucose, insulin, and HCL-specific metrics. The seven components include (A) glucose metrics, (B) hypoglycemia, (C) insulin, (D) user experience, (E) hyperglycemia, (F) glucose modal-day profile, and (G) insight. A single-page report similar to an electrocardiogram can help providers and patients interpret HCL data easily and take the necessary steps to improve glycemic outcomes. We also describe the optimal sampling duration for HCL data download and color coding for visualization ease. We believe that this is a first step in creating a standardized HCL reporting, which may result in better uptake of the systems. For increased adoption, standardized reporting will require input from providers, patients, diabetes device manufacturers, and regulators.
HirschIB, BodeBW, ChildsBP, et al.: Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in insulin- and non-insulin-using adults with diabetes: consensus recommendations for improving SMBG accuracy, utilization, and research. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2008; 10:419–439.
3.
PratleyRE, KanapkaLG, RickelsMR, et al.: Effect of continuous glucose monitoring on hypoglycemia in older adults with type 1 diabetes: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA, 2020; 323:2397–2406.
4.
BeckRW, RiddlesworthT, RuedyK, et al.: Effect of continuous glucose monitoring on glycemic control in adults with type 1 diabetes using insulin injections: the DIAMOND randomized clinical trial. JAMA, 2017; 317:371–378.
5.
BeckRW, RiddlesworthTD, RuedyKJ, et al.: Effect of initiating use of an insulin pump in adults with type 1 diabetes using multiple daily insulin injections and continuous glucose monitoring (DIAMOND): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol, 2017; 5:700–708.
6.
LaffelLM, KanapkaLG, BeckRW, et al.: Effect of continuous glucose monitoring on glycemic control in adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA, 2020; 323:2388–2396.
7.
GalindoRJ, AleppoG.: Continuous glucose monitoring: the achievement of 100 years of innovation in diabetes technology. Diabetes Res Clin Pract, 2020; 170:108502.
8.
MulinacciG, AlonsoGT, Snell-BergeonJK, ShahVN: Glycemic outcomes with early initiation of continuous glucose monitoring system in recently diagnosed patients with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2019; 21:6–10.
9.
GargSK, AkturkHK: A new era in continuous glucose monitoring: Food and Drug Administration creates a new category of factory-calibrated nonadjunctive, interoperable class II medical devices. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2018; 20:391–394.
10.
KristensenN, NymannC, KonradsenH: Implementing research results in clinical practice—The experiences of healthcare professionals. BMC Health Serv Res, 2016; 16:48.
11.
CarlsonAL, MullenDM, BergenstalRM: Clinical use of continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2017; 19:S4–S11.
12.
AkturkHK, RewersA, JosephH, et al.: Possible ways to improve postprandial glucose control in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2018; 20:S224–s232.
BeckRW, MillerKM, FosterNC: The T1D exchange clinic network and registry: 10 years of enlightenment on the state of type 1 diabetes in the United States. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2019; 21:310–312.
15.
FosterNC, BeckRW, MillerKM, et al.: State of type 1 diabetes management and outcomes from the T1D exchange in 2016–2018. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2019; 21:66–72.
16.
PettusJH, ZhouFL, ShepherdL, et al.: Incidences of severe hypoglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis and prevalence of microvascular complications stratified by age and glycemic control in U.S. adult patients with type 1 diabetes: a real-world study. Diabetes Care, 2019; 42:2220–2227.
17.
LaiCW, LipmanTH, WilliSM, HawkesCP: Racial and ethnic disparities in rates of continuous glucose monitor initiation and continued use in children with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes care, 2020:dc201663.
18.
AgarwalS, KanapkaLG, RaymondJK, et al.: Racial-ethnic inequity in young adults with type 1 diabetes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab, 2020; 105:e2960–e2969.
19.
BhideM, GreyJM, MoserEG, GargSK: A primary care perspective on the use of continuous glucose monitoring in clinical practice. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2013; 15:533–537.
20.
MazzeRS, LucidoD, LangerO, et al.: Ambulatory glucose profile: representation of verified self-monitored blood glucose data. Diabetes Care, 1987; 10:111–117.
21.
BorotS, BenhamouPY, AtlanC, et al.: Practical implementation, education and interpretation guidelines for continuous glucose monitoring: a French position statement. Diabetes Metab, 2018; 44:61–72.
22.
EkhlaspourL, TabatabaiI, BuckinghamB: A review of continuous glucose monitoring data interpretation in the age of automated insulin delivery. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2019; 13:645–663.
23.
MazzeR, AkkermanB, MettnerJ: An overview of continuous glucose monitoring and the ambulatory glucose profile. Minn Med, 2011; 94:40–44.
24.
MazzeR, StrockE, CuddihyR, WesleyD: Ambulatory glucose profile (AGP): development of a common, web-based application to record and report continuous glucose monitoring data. Can J Diabetes, 2009; 33:215.
25.
MazzeRS, StrockE, WesleyD, et al.: Characterizing glucose exposure for individuals with normal glucose tolerance using continuous glucose monitoring and ambulatory glucose profile analysis. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2008; 10:149–159.
26.
BergenstalRM, AhmannAJ, BaileyT, et al.: Recommendations for standardizing glucose reporting and analysis to optimize clinical decision making in diabetes: the Ambulatory Glucose Profile (AGP). Diabetes Technol Ther, 2013; 15:198–211.
27.
BattelinoT, DanneT, BergenstalRM, et al.: Clinical targets for continuous glucose monitoring data interpretation: recommendations from the international consensus on time in range. Diabetes care, 2019:42:1593–1603.
28.
DanneT, NimriR, BattelinoT, et al.: International consensus on use of continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Care, 2017; 40:1631–1640.
29.
JohnsonML, MartensTW, CriegoAB, et al.: Utilizing the ambulatory glucose profile to standardize and implement continuous glucose monitoring in clinical practice. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2019; 21:S217–S225.
30.
KrögerJ, ReichelA, SiegmundT, ZieglerR: Clinical recommendations for the use of the ambulatory glucose profile in diabetes care. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2020; 14:586–594.
31.
FonsecaVA, GrunbergerG, AnhaltH, et al.: Continuous glucose monitoring: a consensus conference of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology. Endocr Pract, 2016; 22:1008–1021.
32.
BaileyTS, GrunbergerG, BodeBW, et al.: American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology 2016 outpatient glucose monitoring consensus statement. Endocr Pract, 2016; 22:231–261.
33.
MullenDM, BergenstalR, CriegoA, et al.: Time savings using a standardized glucose reporting system and ambulatory glucose profile. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2018; 12:614–621.
34.
AkturkHK, GiordanoD, ChampakanathA, et al.: Long-term real-life glycaemic outcomes with a hybrid closed-loop system compared with sensor-augmented pump therapy in patients with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab, 2020; 22:583–589.
35.
BretonMD, KanapkaLG, BeckRW, et al.: A randomized trial of closed-loop control in children with type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med, 2020; 383:836–845.
36.
BrownSA, KovatchevBP, RaghinaruD, et al.: Six-month randomized, multicenter trial of closed-loop control in type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med, 2019; 381:1707–1717.
37.
BergenstalRM, GargS, WeinzimerSA, et al.: Safety of a hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery system in patients with type 1 diabetes. JAMA, 2016; 316:1407–1408.
38.
HanaireH, FrancS, BorotS, et al.: Efficacy of the Diabeloop closed-loop system to improve glycaemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes exposed to gastronomic dinners or to sustained physical exercise. Diabetes Obes Metab, 2020; 22:324–334.
39.
TauschmannM, ThabitH, BallyL, et al.: Closed-loop insulin delivery in suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes: a multicentre, 12-week randomised trial. Lancet, 2018; 392:1321–1329.
40.
KesavadevJ, SabooB, KrishnaMB, KrishnanG: Evolution of insulin delivery devices: from syringes, pens, and pumps to DIY artificial pancreas. Diabetes Ther, 2020; 11:1251–1269.
41.
AsaraniNAM, ReynoldsAN, ElbalshyM, et al.: Efficacy, safety, and user experience of DIY or open-source artificial pancreas systems: a systematic review. Acta Diabetol. 2020 Oct 31. doi: 10.1007/s00592-020-01623-4.
42.
ShepardJA, BretonM, NimriR, et al.: User and healthcare professional perspectives on do-it-yourself artificial pancreas systems: a need for guidelines. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2020:1932296820957728.
43.
SherwoodJS, RussellSJ, PutmanMS: New and emerging technologies in type 1 diabetes. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am, 2020; 49:667–678.
44.
NguyenM, HanJ, SpanakisEK, et al.: A review of continuous glucose monitoring-based composite metrics for glycemic control. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2020; 22:613–622.
45.
KovatchevBP, OttoE, CoxD, et al.: Evaluation of a new measure of blood glucose variability in diabetes. Diabetes Care, 2006; 29:2433–2438.
HillNR, HindmarshPC, StevensRJ, et al.: A method for assessing quality of control from glucose profiles. Diabet Med, 2007; 24:753–758.
48.
RodbardD: Interpretation of continuous glucose monitoring data: glycemic variability and quality of glycemic control. Diabet Technol Ther, 2009; 11Suppl 1:S55–S67.
49.
ThomasA, SchönauerM, AchermannF, et al.: The “glucose pentagon”: assessing glycemic control of patients with diabetes mellitus by a model integrating different parameters from glucose profiles. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2009; 11:399–409.
50.
AugsteinP, HeinkeP, VogtL, et al.: Q-Score: development of a new metric for continuous glucose monitoring that enables stratification of antihyperglycaemic therapies. BMC Endocr Disord, 2015; 15:22.
51.
VigerskyRA, ShinJ, JiangB, et al.: The comprehensive glucose pentagon: a glucose-centric composite metric for assessing glycemic control in persons with diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2018; 12:114–123.
52.
HirschIB, BaloAK, SayerK, et al.: A simple composite metric for the assessment of glycemic status from continuous glucose monitoring data: implications for clinical practice and the artificial pancreas. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2017; 19:S38–S48.
53.
BeckRW, BergenstalRM, ChengP, et al.: The relationships between time in range, hyperglycemia metrics, and HbA1c. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2019; 13:614–626.
54.
RodbardD: Glucose time in range, time above range, and time below range depend on mean or median glucose or hba1c, glucose coefficient of variation, and shape of the glucose distribution. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2020; 22:492–500.
55.
RodbardD: Evaluating quality of glycemic control: graphical displays of hypo- and hyperglycemia, time in target range, and mean glucose. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2015; 9:56–62.
56.
LeelarathnaL, ThabitH, WilinskaME, et al.: Evaluating glucose control with a novel composite continuous glucose monitoring index. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2020; 14:277–283.
57.
MaahsDM, BuckinghamBA, CastleJR, et al.: Outcome measures for artificial pancreas clinical trials: a consensus report. Diabetes care, 2016; 39:1175–1179.
58.
WongJC, NeinsteinAB, SpindlerM, AdiS: A minority of patients with type 1 diabetes routinely downloads and retrospectively reviews device data. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2015; 17:555–562.
59.
WongJC, IzadiZ, SchroederS, et al.: A pilot study of use of a software platform for the collection, integration, and visualization of diabetes device data by health care providers in a multidisciplinary pediatric setting. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2018; 20:806–816.
60.
WongJC, NeinsteinAB, LookH, et al.: Pilot study of a novel application for data visualization in type 1 diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2017; 11:800–807.
61.
WelshJB, MyersSJ, UhrinakAN, et al.: User acceptability and perceived benefits of new reports in CareLink Pro 3.0 Therapy Management Software for Diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2012; 6:481–482.
62.
RodbardD, VigerskyRA: Design of a decision support system to help clinicians manage glycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2011; 5:402–411.
63.
RodbardHW, SchnellO, UngerJ, et al.: Use of an automated decision support tool optimizes clinicians' ability to interpret and appropriately respond to structured self-monitoring of blood glucose data. Diabetes Care, 2012; 35:693–698.
64.
SimLL, BanKH, TanTW, et al.: Development of a clinical decision support system for diabetes care: a pilot study. PLoS One, 2017; 12:e0173021.
65.
MahmoudiZ, JohansenMD, NørgaardHH, et al.: Effect of continuous glucose monitoring accuracy on clinicians' retrospective decision making in diabetes: a pilot study. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2015; 9:1092–1102.
66.
SunS, CostelloKL: Designing decision-support technologies for patient-generated data in type 1 diabetes. AMIA Annu Symp Proc, 2017; 2017:1645–1654.
67.
SafdariR, MaseratE, Asadzadeh et al.: Person centered prediction of survival in population based screening program by an intelligent clinical decision support system. Gastroenterol Hepatol Bed Bench, 2017; 10:60–65.
68.
RodbardD: Display of glucose distributions by date, time of day, and day of week: new and improved methods. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2009; 3:1388–1394.
69.
PetrieJR, PetersAL, BergenstalRM, et al.: Improving the clinical value and utility of CGM systems: issues and recommendations: a joint statement of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association Diabetes Technology Working Group. Diabetes Care, 2017; 40:1614–1621.
70.
AgiostratidouG, AnhaltH, BallD, et al.: Standardizing clinically meaningful outcome measures beyond HbA(1c) for type 1 diabetes: a consensus report of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the American Association of Diabetes Educators, the American Diabetes Association, the Endocrine Society, JDRF International, The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust, the Pediatric Endocrine Society, and the T1D Exchange. Diabetes care, 2017; 40:1622–1630.
71.
DeSalvoDJ, MillerKM, HermannJM, et al.: Continuous glucose monitoring and glycemic control among youth with type 1 diabetes: international comparison from the T1D Exchange and DPV initiative. Pediatric Diabetes, 2018; 19:1271–1275.
72.
SherrJL, TauschmannM, BattelinoT, et al.: ISPAD clinical practice consensus guidelines 2018: diabetes technologies. Pediatric Diabetes, 2018; 19Suppl 27:302–325.
73.
DiMeglioLA, AceriniCL, CodnerE, et al.: ISPAD clinical practice consensus guidelines 2018: glycemic control targets and glucose monitoring for children, adolescents, and young adults with diabetes. Pediatric Diabetes, 2018; 19Suppl 27:105–114.
74.
MoscardóV, HerreroP, ReddyM, et al.: Assessment of glucose control metrics by discriminant ratio. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2020; 22:719–726.
75.
LeelarathnaL, ThabitH, HovorkaR, EvansM: Estimated HbA(1c) and glucose management indicator (GMI): are they the same?. Diabet Med, 2020:e14423.
76.
BergenstalRM, BeckRW, CloseKL, et al.: Glucose management indicator (GMI): a new term for estimating A1C from continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes care, 2018; 41:2275–2280.
77.
RodbardD: Optimizing display, analysis, interpretation and utility of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) data for management of patients with diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2007; 1:62–71.
78.
ShahVN, DuBoseSN, LiZ, et al.: Continuous glucose monitoring profiles in healthy nondiabetic participants: a multicenter prospective study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab, 2019; 104:4356–4364.
79.
DuBoseSN, LiZ, SherrJL, et al.: Effect of exercise and meals on continuous glucose monitor data in healthy individuals without diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2020:1932296820905904.
80.
ShahVN, ShoskesA, TawfikB, GargSK: Closed-loop system in the management of diabetes: past, present, and future. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2014; 16:477–490.
81.
HellerSR, BuseJB, RatnerR, et al.: Redefining hypoglycemia in clinical trials: validation of definitions recently adopted by the American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Diabetes Care, 2020; 43:398–404.
82.
CampbellMS, SchatzDA, ChenV, et al.: A contrast between children and adolescents with excellent and poor control: the T1D Exchange clinic registry experience. Pediatr Diabetes, 2014; 15:110–117.
83.
MesserLH, BergetC, VigersT, et al.: Real world hybrid closed-loop discontinuation: predictors and perceptions of youth discontinuing the 670G system in the first 6 months. Pediatr Diabetes, 2020; 21:319–327.
84.
LalRA, BasinaM, MaahsDM, et al.: One year clinical experience of the first commercial hybrid closed-loop system. Diabetes Care, 2019; 42:2190–2196.
85.
BergetC, MesserLH, VigersT, et al.: Six months of hybrid closed loop in the real-world: an evaluation of children and young adults using the 670G system. Pediatr Diabetes, 2020; 21:310–318.
86.
PuhrS, DerdzinskiM, WelshJB, et al.: Real-world hypoglycemia avoidance with a continuous glucose monitoring system's predictive low glucose alert. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2019; 21:155–158.
87.
AkturkHK, RewersA, GargSK: SGLT inhibition: a possible adjunctive treatment for type 1 diabetes. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes, 2018; 25:246–250.
88.
BollaAM, CarettoA, LaurenziA, et al.: Low-carb and ketogenic diets in type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Nutrients, 2019; 11:962.
89.
GoldenbergRM, GilbertJD, HramiakIM, et al.: Sodium-glucose co-transporter inhibitors, their role in type 1 diabetes treatment and a risk mitigation strategy for preventing diabetic ketoacidosis: the STOP DKA protocol. Diabetes Obes Metab, 2019; 21:2192–2202.
90.
GargSK, PetersAL, BuseJB, DanneT: Strategy for mitigating DKA risk in patients with type 1 diabetes on adjunctive treatment with SGLT inhibitors: a STICH protocol. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2018; 20:571–575.
91.
SamadiS, RashidM, TurksoyK, et al.: Automatic detection and estimation of unannounced meals for multivariable artificial pancreas system. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2018; 20:235–246.
92.
ZhengM, NiB, KleinbergS: Automated meal detection from continuous glucose monitor data through simulation and explanation. J Am Med Inform Assoc, 2019; 26:1592–1599.
93.
American Diabetes Association. 10. Cardiovascular disease and risk management: standards of medical care in diabetes-2020. Diabetes Care, 2020; 43:S111–S134.
94.
RiddellMC, GallenIW, SmartCE, et al.: Exercise management in type 1 diabetes: a consensus statement. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol, 2017; 5:377–390.
95.
ForlenzaGP, BuckinghamBA, ChristiansenMP, et al.: Performance of omnipod personalized model predictive control algorithm with moderate intensity exercise in adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technology Ther, 2019; 21:265–272.
96.
HamburgerER, GoethalsER, ChoudharyA, JaserSS: Sleep and depressive symptoms in adolescents with type 1 diabetes not meeting glycemic targets. Diabetes Res Clin Pract, 2020; 169:108442.
97.
MesserLH, ForlenzaGP, SherrJL, et al.: Optimizing hybrid closed-loop therapy in adolescents and emerging adults using the MiniMed 670G system. Diabetes Care, 2018; 41:789–796.
98.
BergetC, LangeS, MesserL, ForlenzaGP: A clinical review of the t:slim X2 insulin pump. Expert Opin Drug Deliv, 2020:1–13.
99.
RiddlesworthTD, BeckRW, GalRL, et al.: Optimal sampling duration for continuous glucose monitoring to determine long-term glycemic control. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2018; 20:314–316.
100.
XingD, KollmanC, BeckRW, et al.: Optimal sampling intervals to assess long-term glycemic control using continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2011; 13:351–358.
101.
LeelarathnaL, ThabitH, WillinskaME, et al.: Duration of hybrid closed-loop insulin therapy to achieve representative glycemic outcomes in adults with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care, 2020; 43:e38–e39.
102.
BeckRW: Downloading diabetes device data: empowering patients to download at home to achieve better outcomes. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2015; 17:536–537.
