Systematic Review of Continuous Glucose Monitoring and Its Effect on Quality of Life in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Astrid Dwiastuti,1,2 Irma Rahayu Latarissa,1,3,4 Andri Hidayat,5 Eli Halimah,1 Keri Lestari1,3,4,6 1Department of Pharmacology and Clinical Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Universitas Padjadjaran, Sumedang, Indonesia; 2Department Service and Quality Assurance, PT. Kimia Farma Apotek, Central Jakarta, Indonesia; 3Department of Medical Affairs, B-Crobes Laboratory, Sdn. Bhd., Ipoh, Perak, Malaysia; 4Medication Therapy Adherence Clinic (MTAC), Universitas Padjadjaran, Sumedang, Indonesia; 5Department of Digital Service Transformation and IT, Prodia Clinical Laboratory, Central Jakarta, Indonesia; 6Center of Excellence for Pharmaceutical Care Innovation, Universitas Padjadjaran, Sumedang, IndonesiaCorrespondence: Keri Lestari, Department of Pharmacology and Clinical Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Universitas Padjadjaran, Jl. Raya Bandung Sumedang KM. 21, Jatinangor, 45363, Indonesia, Email [email protected]: Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) has transformed diabetes management by providing real-time glucose data, improving glycemic control, and potentially influencing patient well-being. However, the extent to which CGM affects health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) remains unclear. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effects of CGM on QoL and glycemic outcomes in adults with T2DM by comparing CGM use with conventional self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). A systematic literature search was conducted in March 2025 across Scopus, MEDLINE, and EBSCO databases. Eligible studies included adult T2DM patients using CGM (flash or real-time), reported QoL and HbA1c outcomes, and provided a control group. Out of 1525 identified records, five studies met the inclusion criteria. CGM was consistently associated with greater HbA1c reduction than SMBG, with two studies reporting statistically significant improvements. However, most studies showed no significant difference in QoL between CGM and control groups, except for one study reporting psychological benefit. Methodological quality was moderate, with JADAD scores ranging from 2 to 3. In conclusion, CGM use in T2DM patients is associated with improved glycemic control and may provide psychological benefits, although its overall impact on QoL remains inconclusive. Further long-term studies using diabetes-specific QoL tools are needed to better understand the broader implications of CGM on patient-centered outcomes.Keywords: continuous glucose monitoring, type 2 diabetes mellitus, quality of life, HbA1c, self-monitoring