Day 2 of the 61st Annual Meeting in Vienna has now drawn to a close. Welcome to the EASD e-Learning Newsflash, where we bring you the key scientific highlights from the programme. Following a public call, the first-ever EASD clinical guidelines on diabetes distress have taken shape. The guideline development panel co-chairs, Professors Jane Speight and Richard Holt, gave an exclusive preview in a symposium. Incoming EASD Board member, Professor Tsvetalina Tankova, will tell us more. This guideline is really a milestone. It recognises the importance of diabetes distress. This is the emotional burden of living with diabetes and dealing with all these daily demands of the disease. The guideline development panel included health and clinical psychologists, medical specialists, nurses, methodologists, evidence synthesis specialists. But the key strength of this guideline is that there were two people with lived experience, so one with type 1 diabetes and another one with type 2 diabetes. It was really very emotional that one of the members of the guideline development panel, Michelle Law, a person living with type 1 diabetes, shared her perceptions on the guideline. She really outlined that this emotional burden of living with diabetes needs to be considered by the healthcare professionals and needs to be managed in a way. Because in the guideline, it consists of really clear, good practise statements for the assessment and really very clear recommendations for the management of diabetes distress. The draft guidelines are now available on easd.org. Take a look and share your feedback! Moving on, Professor Shivani Misra will share her reflections from a symposium on the most pressing questions in applying precision medicine to type 2 diabetes. If we look at the EASD/ADA guidelines, there is some patient stratification as to which drugs you would use. The question is: Can you be even more precise by looking at individual characteristics of a patient, for example, leaner BMI versus overweight or obesity, or maybe younger age versus older age? And if you brought some nuance into that decision making, would it be even better? So the two problems are, number one, we don’t have proven ways of being more precise. We have some great models coming through that were spoken about in the symposium. Do they add value over and above standard care? And number two, if they do, how do we implement it? And we heard in the symposium about a really good implementation method in Scotland that Ewan Pearson is leading. The question is, if you’re not in a region like that with granular healthcare data and access to genomics, what would that look like? And as I always say, four out of five people living with type 2 diabetes are in low- and middle-income countries. So we really need to innovate and think about how we deliver anything we do with precision, equitably. So that’s the sort of 50 million dollar question. A well-received highlight of the EASD Annual Meeting is always the EASD e-Learning Expert Sessions, which EASD TEC Chair Professor Julia Mader has been steering for the last few years. We always try to choose topics that are relevant for the audience. And this year we selected complications, which is an overlooked topic, the session on diabetic foot syndrome, on early stages of type 1 diabetes, on technology that I just came from, and on obesity. So I think we really tackled the most pressing topics in the field of diabetes. You chaired a session on technology together with Professors Sabine Hofer and Amit Gupta. What were the most pressing questions? I was really happy to have now a quite a global faculty with me, because some of the questions were relating to CGM reimbursement in countries that might not have reimbursement schemes in place. And then we looked into the future, what potentially ketone monitoring can help us with and why this might be needed. We hope to have the systems on the market soon, because we think especially in the uses of AID systems, it can help us to identify if ketosis or the risk of diabetic ketoacidosis is present. For the AID systems, we discussed that we really need to look into the preference of the person living with diabetes so that we make the right choice for the right person. And for CGM, we also discussed the matter of accuracy and inaccuracy, which is of course also a pressing topic. This year, there have been reports about failing CGM systems in Europe and some talk about much-needed new safety requirements in the European Union. Where are we there? So, in contrast to the FDA, we do not have such a clear regulation of the standards for CGM. So the CE Mark, unfortunately, is a relatively easy-to-achieve document. And we really wanted to highlight on what we need to implement here. We are not there yet. So there was a position statement or paper published by Chantal Mathieu and Tadej Battelino in the past where they addressed the topic. And also Dr Freckmann now established a working group on how we should in the future assess CGM systems in Europe. I’m part of that working group, happily, and we hopefully will also be a site to recruit participants there. But yeah so I think, there is still a lot of work to be done. Thank you, Professor Mader. That’s all from Day 2. Join us tomorrow for more highlights from Day 3, here at the 61st EASD Annual meeting in Vienna.