From:  Insulin pump therapy and continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 2 diabetes: where are we now?

 Effects of CGM/isCGM among people with type 2 diabetes

ReferenceStudy populationAge, years (mean ± SD)TherapyMonitoring systemStudy design and follow-upPrimary endpointPrimary results in CGM/FGM groupChange in HbA1c
Vigersky RA, 2012 [29]10055.5 ± 9.6Allglucose lowering therapies (except prandial insulin)rtCGM vs. SMBGProspective/two-arms; 52 weeksHbA1cReduction of HbA1c at short and long-time−1.0% ± 1.1% vs.0.5% ± 0.8% (at 12 weeks)*
−0.8% ± 1.5% vs. 0.2% ± 1.3% (at 52 weeks)*
Beck RW, 2017 [30]15860 ± 11MDIrtCGM vs. usual careRCT; 24 weeksHbA1c- Reduction in HbA1c
- Increase of TIR		−1.1% ± 0.7% vs. −0.5% ± 0.7% (at 12 weeks)
−1.0% ± 0.8% vs. −0.4% ± 0.7% (at 24 weeks)*
Allen NA, 2008 [31]5257 ± 13.5All glucose lowering therapies (except insulin)rtCGM + phone counselingPilot study; 8 weeksChanges in physical activity behavior- Improved physical activity
- Reduction in HbA1c		−1.16% ± 1.04% vs. −0.32% ± 1.02%**
Zick R, 2007 [38]36759.2 ± 8.2MDI72h-CGM vs. SMBGOpen-label RCT; 8 weeksDetected hypoglycemia- Increased detection of hypoglycemia
- Reduction in HbA1c		−0.23% ± 0.64%*
Yaron M, 2018 [54]10166.7 ± 7.5MDIisCGM vs. SMBGRCT; 12 weeks- Treatment satisfaction
- HbA1c		- Improved QoL
- Reduction in HbA1c		−0.82% vs. −0.33% (control)*
Haak T, 2017 [55]22459 ± 9.9MDI or CSIIisCGM vs. SMBGOpen-label RCT; 6 monthsHbA1c- Reduction in HbA1c < 65 years
- Higher treatment satisfaction		−0.53% ± 0.09% vs. −0.20% ± 0.12% (control)**
Midyett K, 2019 [56]11559 ± 11.5OADs and MDIisCGM vs. SMBGPilot study; 2 weeksCharacterization of glucose variability- Agreement of estimated HbA1c with laboratory test
- Applicability of AGP
- High treatment satisfaction		NA
Return to article view

P < 0.01; P < 0.05. AGP: ambulatory glucose profile; NA: not applicable; TIR: time in range