Utilisation, access and recommendations regarding technologies for people living with type 1 diabetes: consensus statement of the ADS/ADEA/APEG/ADIPS Working Group

• Published in: Medical journal of Australia 2021-11, Vol.215 (10), p.473-478
• Main Authors: Pease, Anthony J, Andrikopoulos, Sofianos, Abraham, Mary B, Craig, Maria E, Fenton, Brett, Overland, Jane, Price, Sarah, Simmons, David, Ross, Glynis P
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Diabetes complications; Diabetes mellitus; Public health; type 1
• ISSN: 0025-729X; 1326-5377
• DOI: 10.5694/mja2.51118

Introduction Type 1 diabetes presents significant challenges for optimal management. Despite intensive glycaemic control being the standard of care for several decades, glycaemic targets are infrequently achieved and the burden of complications remains high. Therefore, the advancement of diabetes management technologies has a major role in reducing the clinical and economic impact of the disease on people living with type 1 diabetes and on health care systems. However, a national framework is needed to ensure equitable and sustainable implementation of these technologies as part of holistic care. Main recommendations This consensus statement considers technologies for insulin delivery, glucose sensing and insulin dose advice that are commercially available in Australia. While international position statements have provided recommendations for technology implementation, the ADS/ADEA/APEG/ADIPS Working Group believes that focus needs to shift from strict trial‐based glycaemic criteria towards engagement and individualised management goals that consider the broad spectrum of benefits offered by technologies. Changes in management as result of this statement This Australian consensus statement from peak national bodies for the management of diabetes across the lifespan outlines a national framework for the optimal implementation of technologies for people with type 1 diabetes. The Working Group highlights issues regarding equity of access to technologies and services, scope of clinical practice, credentialling and accreditation requirements, regulatory issues with “do‐it‐yourself” technology, national benchmarking, safety reporting, and ongoing patient advocacy.