Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Non–Insulin-Treated Type 2 Diabetes

BackgroundContinuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has been shown to be beneficial in persons with type 1 diabetes and others with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes, but its role in the treatment of persons with type 2 diabetes not being treated with insulin has needed further study. MethodsIn a 26-week trial conducted at 22 primary care practices in the United States, we randomly assigned adults with type 2 diabetes who were not using insulin to either CGM or routine care (control). The primary outcome was the glycated hemoglobin level at 26 weeks. Key CGM-measured secondary outcomes were tested hierarchically to control the type I error rate. ResultsA total of 145 participants were assigned to the CGM group, and 138 to the routine-care group. Participants ranged in age from 21 to 84 years. The mean (±SD) glycated hemoglobin level decreased from 8.8±1.3% at baseline to 7.2±1.1% at 26 weeks in the CGM group and from 8.7±1.2% to 8.0±1.4% in the routine-care group (adjusted mean difference, −0.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], −1.1 to −0.6; P<0.001). The mean percentage of time that the CGM-measured glucose level was in the glucose-level range of 70 to 180 mg per deciliter was 21 percentage points higher (95% CI, 16 to 26) with CGM than with routine care (P<0.001). The between-group difference in the percentage of time that the glucose level was below 54 mg per deciliter was −0.17 percentage points (95% CI, −0.27 to −0.11; P<0.001 for noninferiority); the difference in the percentage of time that the glucose level was below 70 mg per deciliter was −0.20 percentage points (95% CI, −0.43 to −0.09; P<0.001 for noninferiority; P=0.004 for superiority). No severe hypoglycemia events were reported. ConclusionsAmong adults with type 2 diabetes that was not being treated with insulin and was being managed in a primary care setting, the use of CGM led to a greater reduction in the glycated hemoglobin level and to a lower risk of hyperglycemia than routine care. (Funded by Dexcom; CONNECT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT06601166.)

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2026-10-14
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa2608571
Primary Topic
Diabetes Management and Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Non–Insulin-Treated Type 2 Diabetes

David Pickering, Erik Seth Kramer, Ku-Lang Chang, Matthew L. Johnson et al.
New England Journal of Medicine
Diabetes Management and Research
article

Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Non–Insulin-Treated Type 2 Diabetes

David Pickering, Erik Seth Kramer, Ku-Lang Chang, Matthew L. Johnson, Jessica R. Castle, Benjamin Cook, Karen E Elkind-Hirsch, Sean M. Oser, Tamara K. Oser, Thomas W. Martens, Simon Bergford, Katrina J. Ruedy, Stayce E. Beck, Rita Schmid, Peter M. Calhoun, Roy W. Beck, Ryan J. Bailey, Amir Herman, NELLY N. CADET, Martin Ortega, Beth A. Klug, Nitinchandra D. Desai, Bryce Peterson, Edwin Burkett, Jamie L. Haynes, Lisa Davidson, R. Lacy Anderson, Shehzad M. Topiwala
article en

Abstract

BackgroundContinuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has been shown to be beneficial in persons with type 1 diabetes and others with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes, but its role in the treatment of persons with type 2 diabetes not being treated with insulin has needed further study. MethodsIn a 26-week trial conducted at 22 primary care practices in the United States, we randomly assigned adults with type 2 diabetes who were not using insulin to either CGM or routine care (control). The primary outcome was the glycated hemoglobin level at 26 weeks. Key CGM-measured secondary outcomes were tested hierarchically to control the type I error rate. ResultsA total of 145 participants were assigned to the CGM group, and 138 to the routine-care group. Participants ranged in age from 21 to 84 years. The mean (±SD) glycated hemoglobin level decreased from 8.8±1.3% at baseline to 7.2±1.1% at 26 weeks in the CGM group and from 8.7±1.2% to 8.0±1.4% in the routine-care group (adjusted mean difference, −0.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], −1.1 to −0.6; P<0.001). The mean percentage of time that the CGM-measured glucose level was in the glucose-level range of 70 to 180 mg per deciliter was 21 percentage points higher (95% CI, 16 to 26) with CGM than with routine care (P<0.001). The between-group difference in the percentage of time that the glucose level was below 54 mg per deciliter was −0.17 percentage points (95% CI, −0.27 to −0.11; P<0.001 for noninferiority); the difference in the percentage of time that the glucose level was below 70 mg per deciliter was −0.20 percentage points (95% CI, −0.43 to −0.09; P<0.001 for noninferiority; P=0.004 for superiority). No severe hypoglycemia events were reported. ConclusionsAmong adults with type 2 diabetes that was not being treated with insulin and was being managed in a primary care setting, the use of CGM led to a greater reduction in the glycated hemoglobin level and to a lower risk of hyperglycemia than routine care. (Funded by Dexcom; CONNECT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT06601166.)

New England Journal of Medicine
Fayetteville VA Medical Center (US), Newport Restoration Foundation (US), Northport VA Medical Center (US), Indiana University South Bend (US), Jaeb Center for Health Research (US), Dexcom (United States) (US), Riverside Regional Medical Center (US), Mountain Diabetes and Endocrine Center (US), Morehead State University (US), University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus (US), HealthPartners (US), Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center (US)
Dexcom
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 11%
Diabetes Management and Research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.