Scholarlink

Background and aims <p>Although continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices are now standard of care among Type 1 diabetes patients, they are still relatively underutilized in Type 2 diabetes (T2D), particularly in those patients not treated with insulin. Widespread adoption continues to be hindered by a combination of factors. Chief among these is the scarcity of long-term, large-scale clinical trials demonstrating the benefits of the use of CGM in T2D. This meta-analysis aimed to address this gap by comparing CGM with self-blood glucose monitoring (SBMG), with primary outcomes of HbA1c and time in range (TIR) in insulin-treated and non-insulin-treated TD2 patients.</p> Methods and results <p>Following the stringent rules mandated by our National Health Service (which requires a panel composed of all stakeholders involved in diabetes treatment, and includes PICO, GRADE, AGREE, and meta-analyses), we performed a systematic review of RCTs that enrolled two groups of individuals with T2D, those treated with insulin (including basal and basal-bolus regimens), and those receiving treatments other than insulin. All included trials compared CGM with structured blood glucose monitoring (SBGM) with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) as the main endpoint. Based on the strength and consistency of the evidence, the panel issued a strong recommendation in favor of CGM for individuals with T2D treated with insulin (including those on basal insulin alone) and for individuals with T2D not treated with insulin, particularly for those with glycated hemoglobin levels ≥ 7%. From a pharmacoeconomic perspective, outcomes were positive in both patient groups.</p> Conclusion <p>CGM represents a clinically effective and cost-efficient approach to optimizing glycemic control in T2D, becoming mandatory among individuals on insulin therapy. Our findings support a shift in clinical practice toward the more widespread use of CGM in T2D, with regulatory frameworks and reimbursement policies needing to adapt accordingly.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Evidence-based recommendations for the use of continuous glucose monitoring in type 2 diabetes: the Italian guidelines

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月28日

查看全文
  • A. Giaccari,
  • G. Gliozzo,
  • G. Ciccarelli,
  • G. Di Giuseppe,
  • C. Castellano,
  • S. Cum,
  • L. Delle Monache,
  • M. Gallo,
  • M. Lastretti,
  • G. Medea,
  • M. Monesi,
  • R. Napoli,
  • B. Pintaudi,
  • E. Succurro,
  • G. Turchetti

摘要

Background and aims

Although continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices are now standard of care among Type 1 diabetes patients, they are still relatively underutilized in Type 2 diabetes (T2D), particularly in those patients not treated with insulin. Widespread adoption continues to be hindered by a combination of factors. Chief among these is the scarcity of long-term, large-scale clinical trials demonstrating the benefits of the use of CGM in T2D. This meta-analysis aimed to address this gap by comparing CGM with self-blood glucose monitoring (SBMG), with primary outcomes of HbA1c and time in range (TIR) in insulin-treated and non-insulin-treated TD2 patients.

Methods and results

Following the stringent rules mandated by our National Health Service (which requires a panel composed of all stakeholders involved in diabetes treatment, and includes PICO, GRADE, AGREE, and meta-analyses), we performed a systematic review of RCTs that enrolled two groups of individuals with T2D, those treated with insulin (including basal and basal-bolus regimens), and those receiving treatments other than insulin. All included trials compared CGM with structured blood glucose monitoring (SBGM) with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) as the main endpoint. Based on the strength and consistency of the evidence, the panel issued a strong recommendation in favor of CGM for individuals with T2D treated with insulin (including those on basal insulin alone) and for individuals with T2D not treated with insulin, particularly for those with glycated hemoglobin levels ≥ 7%. From a pharmacoeconomic perspective, outcomes were positive in both patient groups.

Conclusion

CGM represents a clinically effective and cost-efficient approach to optimizing glycemic control in T2D, becoming mandatory among individuals on insulin therapy. Our findings support a shift in clinical practice toward the more widespread use of CGM in T2D, with regulatory frameworks and reimbursement policies needing to adapt accordingly.