DovcK, LanzingerS, Cardona-HernandezR, et al.Association of achieving time in range clinical targets with treatment modality among youths with type 1 diabetes. JAMA Netw Open, 2023; 6: e230077.
2.
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.
3.
AlonsoGT, TrioloTM, AkturkHK, et al.Increased technology use associated with lower A1C in a large pediatric clinical population. Diabetes Care, 2023; 46: 1218–1222.
4.
ArrietaA, BattelinoT, ScaramuzzaAE, et al.Comparison of MiniMed 780G system performance in users aged younger and older than 15 years: evidence from 12 870 real-world users. Diabetes Obes Metab, 2022; 24: 1370–1379.
5.
ForlenzaGP, CarlsonAL, GalindoRJ, et al.Real-world evidence supporting Tandem Control-IQ hybrid closed-loop success in the Medicare and Medicaid type 1 and type 2 diabetes populations. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2022; 24: 814–823.
6.
NoorN, NormanG, SonabendR, et al.An observational crossover study of people using real-time continuous glucose monitors versus self-monitoring of blood glucose: real-world evidence using EMR data from more than 12,000 people with type 1 diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2023: 19322968231178016.
7.
CarlsonAL, DanielTD, DeSantisA, et al.Flash glucose monitoring in type 2 diabetes managed with basal insulin in the USA: a retrospective real-world chart review study and meta-analysis. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care, 2022; 10: e002590.
8.
KarterAJ, ParkerMM, MoffetHH, et al.Continuous glucose monitor use prevents glycemic deterioration in insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2022; 24: 332–337.
9.
MillerE, KerrMSD, RobertsGJ, et al.Flash CGM associated with event reduction in nonintensive diabetes therapy. Am J Manag Care, 2021; 27: e372–e377.
10.
HankoskyER, KatzML, FanL, et al.Predictors of insulin pump initiation among people with type 2 diabetes from a US claims database using machine learning. Curr Med Res Opin, 2023; 39: 843–853.
11.
MayberryLS, GuyC, HendricksonCD, et al.Rates and correlates of uptake of continuous glucose monitors among adults with type 2 diabetes in primary care and endocrinology settings. J Gen Intern Med, 2023; 38: 2546–2552.
12.
HarrisSB, Levrat-GuillenF.Use of the FreeStyle Libre system and diabetes treatment progression in T2DM: results from a retrospective cohort study using a Canadian private payer claims database. Diabetes Obes Metab, 2023; 25: 1704–1713.
13.
Spierling BagsicSR, FortmannAL, BelascoR, et al.Real-time continuous glucose monitoring in the hospital: a real-world experience. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2023; 17: 656–666.
14.
MadhunNZ, GalindoRJ, DonatoJ, et al.Attitudes and behaviors with diabetes technology use in the hospital: multicenter survey study in the United States. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2023; 25: 39–49.
15.
PulunganAB, de BeaufortC, RatnasariAF, et al.Availability and access to pediatric diabetes care: a global descriptive study. Clin Pediatr Endocrinol, 2023; 32: 137–146.
16.
AddalaA, SuttiratanaSC, WongJJ, et al.Cost considerations for adoption of diabetes technology are pervasive: a qualitative study of persons living with type 1 diabetes and their families. Diabet Med, 2021; 38: e14575.
17.
AlshannaqH, CogswellG, PollockRF, et al.Cost-utility of real-time continuous glucose monitoring versus self-monitoring of blood glucose and intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring in people with type 1 diabetes receiving multiple daily insulin injections in Denmark. Diabetes Obes Metab, 2023; 25: 2704–2713.
18.
OgleGD, KimH, MiddlehurstAC, SilinkM, et al.Financial costs for families of children with type 1 diabetes in lower-income countries. Diabet Med, 2016; 33: 820–826.
19.
FuVR, IrwineK, Browne-CooperK, et al.Outcomes and experiences of families with children with type 1 diabetes on insulin pumps through subsidised pump access programs in Western Australia. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne), 2023; 14: 1173559.
20.
PeaseAJ, ZoungasS, CallanderE, et al.Nationally subsidized continuous glucose monitoring: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Diabetes Care, 2022; 45: 2611–2619.
21.
ElSayedNA, AleppoG, ArodaVR, et al.7. Diabetes technology: standards of care in diabetes—2023. Diabetes Care, 2022; 46: S111–S127.
22.
FondaSJ, GrahamC, MunakataJ, et al.The cost-effectiveness of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (RT-CGM) in type 2 diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2016; 10: 898–904.
23.
McQueenRB, EllisSL, CampbellJD, et al.Cost-effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring and intensive insulin therapy for type 1 diabetes. Cost Eff Resour Alloc, 2011; 9: 13.
24.
WanW, SkandariMR, MincA, et al.Cost-effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring for adults with type 1 diabetes compared with self-monitoring of blood glucose: the DIAMOND randomized trial. Diabetes Care, 2018; 41: 1227–1234.
25.
AddalaA, AuzanneauM, MillerK, et al.A decade of disparities in diabetes technology use and HbA1c in pediatric type 1 diabetes: a transatlantic comparison. Diabetes Care, 2021; 44: 133–140.
26.
AgarwalS, KanapkaLG, RaymondJK, et al.Racial-ethnic inequity in young adults with type 1 diabetes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab, 2020; 105: e2960–2969.
27.
MajidiS, EbekozienO, NoorN, et al.Inequities in health outcomes in children and adults with type 1 diabetes: data from the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative. Clin Diabetes, 2021; 39: 278–283.
28.
JohnsonSR, Holmes-WalkerDJ, CheeM, et al.Universal subsidized continuous glucose monitoring funding for young people with type 1 diabetes: uptake and outcomes over 2 years, a population-based study. Diabetes Care, 2022; 45: 391–397.
29.
EverettEM, WrightD, WilliamsA, et al.A longitudinal view of disparities in insulin pump use among youth with type 1 diabetes: the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth Study. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2023; 25: 131–139.
30.
MathiasP, MahaliLP, AgarwalS.Targeting technology in underserved adults with type 1 diabetes: effect of diabetes practice transformations on improving equity in CGM prescribing behaviors. Diabetes Care, 2022; 45: 2231–2237.
31.
AddalaA, FilippSL, FiggLE, et al.Tele-education model for primary care providers to advance diabetes equity: findings from Project ECHO Diabetes. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne), 2022; 13: 1066521.
32.
AddalaA, DingV, ZaharievaDP, BishopFK, Aet al. Disparities in hemoglobin A1c levels in the first year after diagnosis among youths with type 1 diabetes offered continuous glucose monitoring. JAMA Netw Open, 2023; 6: e238881.
33.
Hill-BriggsF, AdlerNE, BerkowitzSA, et al.Social determinants of health and diabetes: a scientific review. Diabetes Care, 2021; 44: 258–279.
34.
PapanicolasI, WoskieLR, JhaAK. Health care spending in the United States and other high-income countries. JAMA, 2018; 319: 1024.
35.
BurnsideMJ, WillimanJA, DaviesHM, et al.Inequity in access to continuous glucose monitoring and health outcomes in paediatric diabetes, a case for national continuous glucose monitoring funding: a cross-sectional population study of children with type 1 diabetes in New Zealand. Lancet Reg Health West Pac, 2023; 31: 100644.
