Skip to main content

Importance of Time in Range

 

Time in Range - A Valuable Indicator of Glycemic Control and Patient Risk

 

Glucose control influences macrovascular disease,1 mortality and cardiovascular disease in T1DM.2 HbA1c is the established reference marker for assessing glucose control, but additional biomarkers and measures may aid in making a more precise evaluation of control and complications risk than HbA1c alone.3

 

Time in range is a valuable predictor of patient risk and outcomes4

 
  • €23M estimated annual cost for hypoglycemia-related hospitalizations in Italy.5
  • 39% increase in hospital admissions for hypoglycemia (2005-2014) in the UK.6
  • Time in range is strongly associated with lower complication risk.7
  • 50% time in target (3.9–10 mmol/L) equates to an approximate HbA1c of 7%.8
 

EVERSENSE PATIENTS ACHIEVE A MEDIAN 63% TIME IN RANGE

UNIQUELY DESIGNED TO IMPROVE GLYCEMIC AWARENESS, DAY AND NIGHT

  • True continuous speed and direction trending.
  • Predictive high (and low) glucose alerts.
  • Detects 96% of hypoglycemic events and 98% of hyperglycemic events within 15 minutes.9
  • On-body vibratory alerts can be felt while sleeping or in noisy environments.
  • Eliminates variability and user errors associated with frequent sensor changes.

 
 

TIME IN RANGE

Improved Control Associated with Reduced Healthcare Utilization10

Members who maintain blood glucose concentrations close to the normal range are less likely to experience short- or long-term complications, like an increase in the occurrence of retinopathy or cardiovascular risk, when compared to those with frequent excursions.11,12 As demonstrated in real-world data, Eversense patients are achieving exceptional time in range (70-180 mg/dL) across European registries.

Sensor

Patient Outcomes Case Study

Find out more about how Eversense is helping members improve their glycemic control in these patient case studies.

1 Nathan DM. (DCCT/EDIC) Study Research Group. N Engl J Med 2005;353:2643–2653. 2 Orchard TJ, Nathan DM. JAMA 2015;313:45–53. 3 Wright LA, Hirsch IB.Diabetes Technol Ther. 2017;19(S2):S16-S26. Danne T, Bergenstal RM. Close KL. International Consensus on Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring. Diabetes Care Dec 2017, 40 (12) 1631-1640; DOI: 10.2337/dc17-1600. 5 Veronese G. Nutrition, Metabolism and Cardiovascular Diseases. Volume 26, Issue 4, April 2016, Pages 345-351 6 Zaccardi F. The Lancet. Volume 4, Issue 8, P677-685, August, 2016. 7 Beck, R., Bergenstal, R., Diabetes Care, dc181444. doi:10.2337/dc18-1444 8 Brewer KW. Diabetes Care 1998;21:209–212. 9 Christiansen MP. PRECISE II. Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics. 2018;20(3):197-206. 10 Bansal, M., et al. Appl Health Econ Health Policy (2018) 16: 675. 11 Beck RW, Bergenstal RM, et al., Validation of Time in Range as an Outcome Measure for Diabetes Clinical Trials.” Diabetes Care, 2018, doi: 10.2337/dc18-1444. 12 Agiostratidou G, Anhalt H, Ball D, et al.  Standardizing Clinically Meaningful Outcome Measures Beyond HbA1c for Type 1 Diabetes.  Diabetes Care Dec 2017, 40 (12) 1622-1630.

 

MKT-001292 Rev1