Davies, M. J. et al. Management of hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes, 2022. A consensus report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Diabetologia 65, 1925–1966 (2022).
Powers, M. A. et al. Diabetes self-management education and support in adults with type 2 diabetes: a consensus report of the American Diabetes Association, the Association of Diabetes Care and Education Specialists, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of PAs, the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, and the American Pharmacists Association. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 121, 773–788.e9 (2021).
Powers, M. A. 2016 Health Care & Education Presidential address: If DSME Were a Pill, Would You Prescribe It? Diabetes Care 39, 2101–2107 (2016).
Chrvala, C. A., Sherr, D. & Lipman, R. D. Diabetes self-management education for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review of the effect on glycemic control. Patient Educ. Couns. 99, 926–943 (2016).
Fisher, L. et al. REDEEM: a pragmatic trial to reduce diabetes distress. Diabetes Care 36, 2551–2558 (2013).
Chatterjee, S. et al. Diabetes structured self-management education programmes: a narrative review and current innovations. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 6, 130–142 (2018).
Stratton, I. M. et al. Association of glycaemia with macrovascular and microvascular complications of type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 35): prospective observational study. BMJ 321, 405–412 (2000).
Holman, R. R., Paul, S. K., Bethel, M. A., Matthews, D. R. & Neil, H. A. W. 10-Year follow-up of intensive glucose control in type 2 diabetes. N. Engl. J. Med. 359, 1577–1589 (2008).
UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). Lancet 352, 837–853 (1998).
Khunti, K., Ceriello, A., Cos, X. & Block, C. D. Achievement of guideline targets for blood pressure, lipid, and glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis. Diabetes Res. Clin. Pr. 137, 137–148 (2018).
American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee. 6. Glycemic targets: standards of medical care in diabetes—2022. Diabetes Care 45, S83–S96 (2021).
Lind, M., Imberg, H., Coleman, R. L., Nerman, O. & Holman, R. R. Historical HbA1c values may explain the type 2 diabetes legacy effect: UKPDS 88. Diabetes Care 44, 2231–2237 (2021).
Paul, S. K., Klein, K., Thorsted, B. L., Wolden, M. L. & Khunti, K. Delay in treatment intensification increases the risks of cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes. Cardiovasc. Diabetol. 14, 100 (2015).
Mateo, J. F. et al. Multifactorial approach and adherence to prescribed oral medications in patients with type 2 diabetes. Int. J. Clin. Pract. 60, 422–428 (2006).
Safford, M. M. et al. Reasons for not intensifying medications: differentiating “clinical inertia” from appropriate care. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 22, 1648–1655 (2007).
Khunti, K. et al. Clinical inertia in intensifying therapy among people with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin. Diabetes Obes. Metab. 18, 401–409 (2016).
Seidu, S. et al. Therapeutic inertia amongst general practitioners with interest in diabetes. Prim. Care Diabetes 12, 87–91 (2018).
Khunti, K. & Davies, M. J. Clinical inertia – time to reappraise the terminology? Prim. Care Diabetes 11, 105–106 (2017).
Doyle-Delgado, K., Chamberlain, J. J., Shubrook, J. H., Skolnik, N. & Trujillo, J. Pharmacologic approaches to glycemic treatment of type 2 diabetes: synopsis of the 2020 American Diabetes Association’s Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes Clinical Guideline. Ann. Intern. Med. 173, 813–821 (2020).
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Type 2 diabetes in adults: management. NICE guideline [NG28]. nice.org.uk www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng28/resources/type-2-diabetes-in-adults-management-pdf-1837338615493 (2022).
Khunti, K. et al. Therapeutic inertia in the treatment of hyperglycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review. Diabetes Obes. Metab. 20, 427–437 (2018).
Kaewbut, P. et al. Time to treatment intensification to reduce diabetes-related complications: a post hoc study. Healthcare 10, 1673 (2022).
Bain, S. C., Hansen, B. B., Hunt, B., Chubb, B. & Valentine, W. J. Evaluating the burden of poor glycemic control associated with therapeutic inertia in patients with type 2 diabetes in the UK. J. Med. Econ. 23, 98–105 (2019).
Tsotra, F. et al. The societal impact of early intensified treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 11, 1185–1199 (2022).
Ward, J. E. F., Stetson, B. A. & Mokshagundam, S. P. L. Patient perspectives on self-monitoring of blood glucose: perceived recommendations, behaviors and barriers in a clinic sample of adults with type 2 diabetes. J. Diabetes Metab. Disord. 14, 43 (2015).
Polonsky, W. H., Fisher, L., Hessler, D. & Edelman, S. V. What is so tough about self‐monitoring of blood glucose? Perceived obstacles among patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabet. Med. 31, 40–46 (2014).
Monnier, L., Colette, C., Dunseath, G. J. & Owens, D. R. The loss of postprandial glycemic control precedes stepwise deterioration of fasting with worsening diabetes. Diabetes Care 30, 263–269 (2007).
Monnier, L., Colette, C., Dejager, S. & Owens, D. The dawn phenomenon in type 2 diabetes: how to assess it in clinical practice? Diabetes Metab. 41, 132–137 (2015).
Monnier, L., Colette, C. & Owens, D. R. Integrating glycaemic variability in the glycaemic disorders of type 2 diabetes: a move towards a unified glucose tetrad concept. Diabetes Metab. Res. Rev. 25, 393–402 (2009).
Monnier, L., Colette, C. & Owens, D. Three key indices in clinical practice to better comprehend the postprandial and basal glucose contributions in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Technol. Ther. 24, 853–855 (2022).
Monnier, L., Colette, C., Dejager, S. & Owens, D. Magnitude of the dawn phenomenon and its impact on the overall glucose exposure in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 36, 4057–4062 (2013).
Monnier, L., Colette, C. & Owens, D. Postprandial and basal glucose in type 2 diabetes: assessment and respective impacts. Diabetes Technol. Ther. 13, S25–S32 (2011).
Monnier, L., Colette, C., Dejager, S. & Owens, D. Residual dysglycemia when at target HbA1c of 7% (53 mmol/mol) in persons with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Res. Clin. Pr. 104, 370–375 (2014).
Monnier, L., Lapinski, H. & Colette, C. Contriutions of fasting and postprandial plasma glucose increments to the overall diurnal hyperglycemia of type 2 diabetic patients. Diabetes Care 26, 881–885 (2003).
Riddle, M., Umpierrez, G., DiGenio, A., Zhou, R. & Rosenstock, J. Contributions of basal and postprandial hyperglycemia over a wide range of A1C levels before and after treatment intensification in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 34, 2508–2514 (2011).
Riddle, M. C. The treat-to-target trial and related studies. Endocr. Pract. 12, 71–79 (2006).
Monnier, L., Wojtusciszyn, A., Colette, C. & Owens, D. The contribution of glucose variability to asymptomatic hypoglycemia in persons with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Technol. Ther. 13, 813–818 (2011).
Uemura, F., Okada, Y., Torimoto, K. & Tanaka, Y. Relation between hypoglycemia and glycemic variability in type 2 diabetes patients with insulin therapy: a study based on continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Technol. Ther. 20, 140–146 (2018).
Uemura, F. et al. Risk factor analysis for type 2 diabetes patients about hypoglycemia using continuous glucose monitoring: results from a prospective observational study. Diabetes Technol. Ther. 24, 435–445 (2022).
Battelino, T. et al. Clinical targets for continuous glucose monitoring data interpretation: recommendations from the international consensus on time in range. Diabetes Care 42, 1593–1603 (2019).
Monnier, L., Colette, C. & Owens, D. Below which threshold of glycemic variability is there a minimal risk of hypoglycemia in people with type 2 diabetes? Diabetes Technol. Ther. 24, 453–454 (2022).
Tang, X. et al. Glycemic variability evaluated by continuous glucose monitoring system is associated with the 10-y cardiovascular risk of diabetic patients with well-controlled HbA1c. Clin. Chim. Acta 461, 146–150 (2016).
Su, G. et al. Impact of admission glycemic variability, glucose, and glycosylated hemoglobin on major adverse cardiac events after acute myocardial infarction. Diabetes Care 36, 1026–1032 (2013).
Gerbaud, E. et al. Glycemic variability is a powerful independent predictive factor of midterm major adverse cardiac events in patients with diabetes with acute coronary syndrome. Diabetes Care 42, 674–681 (2019).
Nusca, A. et al. Glycemic variability assessed by continuous glucose monitoring and short-term outcome in diabetic patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: an observational pilot study. J. Diabetes Res. 2015, 250201 (2015).
Lu, J. et al. Glycemic variability assessed by continuous glucose monitoring and the risk of diabetic retinopathy in latent autoimmune diabetes of the adult and type 2 diabetes. J. Diabetes Invest. 10, 753–759 (2019).
Xu, F. et al. The relationship between glycemic variability and diabetic peripheral neuropathy in type 2 diabetes with well-controlled HbA1c. Diabetol. Metab. Syndr. 6, 139 (2014).
Pan, J. et al. Association of glycemic variability assessed by continuous glucose monitoring with subclinical diabetic polyneuropathy in type 2 diabetes patients. J. Diabetes Invest. 13, 328–335 (2021).
Hu, Y. et al. Association of glycaemic variability evaluated by continuous glucose monitoring with diabetic peripheral neuropathy in type 2 diabetic patients. Endocrine 60, 292–300 (2018).
Gad, H. et al. Cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy is associated with increased glycemic variability driven by hyperglycemia rather than hypoglycemia in patients with diabetes. Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract. 200, 110670 (2023).
Choudhary, P. et al. The challenge of sustainable access to telemonitoring tools for people with diabetes in Europe: lessons from COVID-19 and beyond. Diabetes Ther. 12, 2311–2327 (2021).
Danne, T. et al. Telemonitoring, telemedicine and time in range during the pandemic: paradigm change for diabetes risk management in the post-COVID future. Diabetes Ther. 12, 2289–2310 (2021).
Edelman, S. V., Argento, N. B., Pettus, J. & Hirsch, I. B. Clinical implications of real-time and intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Care 41, 2265–2274 (2018).
Beck, R. W. et al. Continuous glucose monitoring versus usual care in patients with type 2 diabetes receiving multiple daily insulin injections. Ann. Intern. Med. 167, 365–374 (2017).
Yaron, M. et al. Effect of flash glucose monitoring technology on glycemic control and treatment satisfaction in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 43, 1178–1184 (2019).
Kröger, J., Fasching, P. & Hanaire, H. Three European retrospective real-world chart review studies to determine the effectiveness of flash glucose monitoring on HbA1c in adults with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Ther. 11, 279–291 (2020).
Haak, T. et al. Flash glucose-sensing technology as a replacement for blood glucose monitoring for the management of insulin-treated type 2 diabetes: a multicenter, open-label randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Ther. 8, 55–73 (2017).
Martens, T. et al. Effect of continuous glucose monitoring on glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin. JAMA 325, 2262–2272 (2021).
Carlson, A. L. et al. Flash glucose monitoring in type 2 diabetes managed with basal insulin in the USA: a retrospective real-world chart review study and meta-analysis. BMJ Open Diabetes Res. Care 10, e002590 (2022).
Elliott, T. et al. The impact of flash glucose monitoring on glycated hemoglobin in type 2 diabetes managed with basal insulin in Canada: a retrospective real-world chart review study. Diabetes Vasc. Dis. Res. 18, 14791641211021374 (2021).
Wright, E. E., Kerr, M. S. D., Reyes, I. J., Nabutovsky, Y. & Miller, E. Use of flash continuous glucose monitoring is associated with A1C reduction in people with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin or noninsulin therapy. Diabetes Spectr. 34, 184–189 (2021).
Wada, E. et al. Flash glucose monitoring helps achieve better glycemic control than conventional self-monitoring of blood glucose in non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. BMJ Open. Diabetes Res. Care 8, e001115 (2020).
Cox, D. J. et al. Minimizing glucose excursions (GEM) with continuous glucose monitoring in type 2 diabetes: a randomized clinical trial. J. Endocr. Soc. 4, bvaa118 (2020).
Aleppo, G. et al. The effect of discontinuing continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin. Diabetes Care 44, 2729–2737 (2021).
Guerci, B. et al. Important decrease in hospitalizations for acute diabetes events following FreeStyle Libre® system initiation in people with type 2 diabetes on basal insulin therapy in France. Diabetes Technol. Ther. 25, 20–30 (2023).
Miller, E., Kerr, M. S. D., Roberts, G. J., Nabutovsky, Y. & Wright, E. Flash CGM associated with event reduction in nonintensive diabetes therapy. Am. J. Manag. Care 27, e372–e377 (2021).
Harris, S. & Levrat-Guillen, F. Use of the FreeStyle Libre® system in diabetes treatment for people with T2D: results from a retrospective cohort study using Canadian Private Payer Claims Database. Diabetes Obes. Metab. 25, 1704–1713 (2023).
Reach, G., Pechtner, V., Gentilella, R., Corcos, A. & Ceriello, A. Clinical inertia and its impact on treatment intensification in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Metab. 43, 501–511 (2017).
Giugliano, D., Maiorino, M. I., Bellastella, G. & Esposito, K. Clinical inertia, reverse clinical inertia, and medication non-adherence in type 2 diabetes. J. Endocrinol. Invest. 42, 495–503 (2019).
Russell‐Jones, D., Pouwer, F. & Khunti, K. Identification of barriers to insulin therapy and approaches to overcoming them. Diabetes Obes. Metab. 20, 488–496 (2018).
Polonsky, W. H., Fisher, L., Guzman, S., Villa-Caballero, L. & Edelman, S. V. Psychological insulin resistance in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 28, 2543–2545 (2005).
Peyrot, M., Barnett, A. H., Meneghini, L. F. & Schumm‐Draeger, P. ‐M. Insulin adherence behaviours and barriers in the multinational global attitudes of patients and physicians in insulin therapy study. Diabet. Med. 29, 682–689 (2012).
The ACCORD Study Group Long-term effects of intensive glucose lowering on cardiovascular outcomes. N. Engl. J. Med. 364, 818–828 (2011).
Zoungas, S. et al. Severe hypoglycemia and risks of vascular events and death. N. Engl. J. Med. 363, 1410–1418 (2010).
Pearson, S. M. et al. Reduction in cardiovascular mortality following severe hypoglycemia in individuals with type 2 diabetes: the role of a pragmatic and structured intervention. Cardiovasc. Diabetol. 20, 18 (2021).
Langendam, M. et al. Continuous glucose monitoring systems for type 1 diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2012, CD008101 (2012).
Diabetes Research in Children Network (DirecNet) Study Group. Youth and parent satisfaction with clinical use of the GlucoWatch G2 biographer in the management of pediatric type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 28, 1929–1935 (2005).
Lind, M. et al. Continuous glucose monitoring vs conventional therapy for glycemic control in adults with type 1 diabetes treated with multiple daily insulin injections: the GOLD randomized clinical trial. JAMA 317, 379–387 (2017).
Polonsky, W. H., Soriano, E. C. & Fortmann, A. L. The role of retrospective data review in the personal use of real-time continuous glucose monitoring: perceived impact on quality of life and health outcomes. Diabetes Technol. Ther. 24, 492–501 (2022).
Gilbert, T. R., Noar, A., Blalock, O. & Polonsky, W. H. Change in hemoglobin A1c and quality of life with real-time continuous glucose monitoring use by people with insulin-treated diabetes in the Landmark study. Diabetes Technol. Ther. 23, S35–S39 (2021).
Chesser, H., Srinivasan, S., Puckett, C., Gitelman, S. E. & Wong, J. C. Real-time continuous glucose monitoring in adolescents and young adults with type 2 diabetes can improve quality of life. J. Diabetes Sci. Technol. 23, 193229682211398 (2022).
Volčanšek, Š., Lunder, M. & Janež, A. Acceptability of continuous glucose monitoring in elderly diabetes patients using multiple daily insulin injections. Diabetes Technol. Ther. 21, 566–574 (2019).
Polonsky, W. H., Peters, A. L. & Hessler, D. The impact of real-time continuous glucose monitoring in patients 65 years and older. J. Diabetes Sci. Technol. 10, 892–897 (2016).
Nathan, D. M. et al. Diabetes control and complications trial/epidemiology of diabetes interventions and complications study at 30 years: advances and contributions. Diabetes 62, 3976–3986 (2013).
Lu, J. et al. Association of time in range, as assessed by continuous glucose monitoring, with diabetic retinopathy in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 41, 2370–2376 (2018).
Yang, J. et al. Association of time in range, as assessed by continuous glucose monitoring, with painful diabetic polyneuropathy. J. Diabetes Invest. 12, 828–836 (2021).
Li, F. et al. TIR generated by continuous glucose monitoring is associated with peripheral nerve function in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract. 166, 108289 (2020).
van der Heide, F. C. T. et al. (Pre)diabetes, glycemia, and daily glucose variability are associated with retinal nerve fiber layer thickness in the Maastricht study. Sci. Rep. 12, 17750 (2022).
Gad, H. et al. Continuous glucose monitoring reveals a novel association between duration and severity of hypoglycemia, and small nerve fiber injury in patients with diabetes. Endocr. Connect. 11, e220352 (2022).
Lu, J. et al. Time in range is associated with carotid intima-media thickness in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Technol. Ther. 22, 72–78 (2020).
Zhou, H. et al. Time in range, assessed with continuous glucose monitoring, is associated with brachial-ankle pulse wave velocity in type 2 diabetes: a retrospective single-center analysis. Front. Endocrinol. 13, 1014568 (2022).
Lu, J. et al. Time in range in relation to all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes: a prospective cohort study. Diabetes Care 44, 549–555 (2021).
Li, J. et al. Association of time in range levels with lower extremity arterial disease in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Metab. Syndr. Clin. Res. Rev. 14, 2081–2085 (2020).
Xie, P. et al. Time in range in relation to amputation and all‐cause mortality in hospitalised patients with diabetic foot ulcers. Diabetes Metab. Res. Rev. 38, e3498 (2022).
Mayeda, L. et al. Glucose time in range and peripheral neuropathy in type 2 diabetes mellitus and chronic kidney disease. BMJ Open Diabetes Res. Care 8, e000991 (2020).
Guo, Q.-Y. et al. Continuous glucose monitoring defined time-in-range is associated with sudomotor dysfunction in type 2 diabetes. World J. Diabetes 11, 489–500 (2020).
Kim, M. Y. et al. The association between continuous glucose monitoring-derived metrics and cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy in outpatients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Technol. Ther. 23, 434–442 (2021).
Guo, Q. et al. Time in range, as a novel metric of glycemic control, is reversely associated with presence of diabetic cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy independent of HbA1c in Chinese type 2 diabetes. J. Diabetes Res. 2020, 5817074 (2020).
Yoo, J. H. et al. Association between continuous glucose monitoring-derived time in range, other core metrics, and albuminuria in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Technol. Ther. 22, 768–776 (2020).
Tao, R. et al. A deep learning nomogram of continuous glucose monitoring data for the risk prediction of diabetic retinopathy in type 2 diabetes. Phys. Eng. Sci. Med. 46, 813–825 (2023).
Ahlqvist, E. et al. Novel subgroups of adult-onset diabetes and their association with outcomes: a data-driven cluster analysis of six variables. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 6, 361–369 (2018).
Hall, H. et al. Glucotypes reveal new patterns of glucose dysregulation. PLoS Biol. 16, e2005143 (2018).
Schön, M. et al. Analysis of type 2 diabetes heterogeneity with a tree-like representation: insights from the prospective German Diabetes Study and the LURIC cohort. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 12, 119–131 (2023).
Nair, A. T. N. et al. Heterogeneity in phenotype, disease progression and drug response in type 2 diabetes. Nat. Med. 28, 982–988 (2022).
Hirst, J. A., Farmer, A. J., Dyar, A., Lung, T. W. C. & Stevens, R. J. Estimating the effect of sulfonylurea on HbA1c in diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetologia 56, 973–984 (2013).
Palmer, S. C. et al. Comparison of clinical outcomes and adverse events associated with glucose-lowering drugs in patients with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis. JAMA 316, 313–324 (2016).
Uemura, F., Okada, Y., Torimoto, K. & Tanaka, Y. Enlarged glycemic variability in sulfonylurea-treated well-controlled type 2 diabetics identified using continuous glucose monitoring. Sci. Rep. 11, 4875 (2021).
Buse, J. B. et al. 2019 update to: management of hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes, 2018. A consensus report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Diabetologia 63, 221–228 (2020).
Grace, T. & Salyer, J. Use of real-time continuous glucose monitoring improves glycemic control and other clinical outcomes in type 2 diabetes patients treated with less intensive therapy. Diabetes Technol. Ther. 24, 26–31 (2022).
Aronson, R. et al. Impact of flash glucose monitoring in people with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with non‐insulin antihyperglycaemic therapy (IMMEDIATE): a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Obes. Metab. 25, 1024–1031 (2023).
Echouffo-Tcheugui, J. B. et al. Visit-to-visit glycemic variability and risks of cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality: the ALLHAT study. Diabetes Care 42, dc181430 (2019).
Nyiraty, S. et al. Cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy and glucose variability in patients with type 1 diabetes: is there an association? Front. Endocrinol. 9, 174 (2018).
Wakasugi, S. et al. Associations between continuous glucose monitoring-derived metrics and diabetic retinopathy and albuminuria in patients with type 2 diabetes. BMJ Open Diabetes Res. Care 9, e001923 (2021).
Farhan, H. A., Bukhari, K., Grewal, N., Devarasetty, S. & Munir, K. Use of continuous glucose monitor as a motivational device for lifestyle modifications to improve glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with non-insulin therapies. BMJ Case Rep. 15, e248579 (2022).
Schubert-Olesen, O., Kröger, J., Siegmund, T., Thurm, U. & Halle, M. Continuous glucose monitoring and physical activity. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 19, 12296 (2022).
Ziegler, R. et al. Intermittent use of continuous glucose monitoring: expanding the clinical value of CGM. J. Diabetes Sci. Technol. 15, 684–694 (2021).
American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee. 7. Diabetes technology: standards of medical care in diabetes—2022. Diabetes Care 45, S97–S112 (2021).
Taylor, P. J., Thompson, C. H. & Brinkworth, G. D. Effectiveness and acceptability of continuous glucose monitoring for type 2 diabetes management: a narrative review. J. Diabetes Invest. 9, 713–725 (2018).
Moon, S. J. et al. Efficacy of intermittent short‐term use of a real‐time continuous glucose monitoring system in non‐insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Obes. Metab. 25, 110–120 (2022).
Price, D. A., Deng, Q., Kipnes, M. & Beck, S. E. Episodic real-time CGM use in adults with type 2 diabetes: results of a pilot randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Ther. 12, 2089–2099 (2021).
Vigersky, R. A., Fonda, S. J., Chellappa, M., Walker, M. S. & Ehrhardt, N. M. Short- and long-term effects of real-time continuous glucose monitoring in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 35, 32–38 (2012).
Monnier, L., Colette, C., Bonnet, F., Renard, E. & Owens, D. HbA1c variability and diabetes complications: assessment and implications. Diabetes Metab. 49, 101399 (2023).
Klupa, T. et al. Expanding the role of continuous glucose monitoring in modern diabetes care beyond type 1 disease. Diabetes Ther. 14, 1241–1266 (2023).
Allen, N. A., Fain, J. A., Braun, B. & Chipkin, S. R. Continuous glucose monitoring counseling improves physical activity behaviors of individuals with type 2 diabetes: a randomized clinical trial. Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract. 80, 371–379 (2008).
Gehlaut, R. R., Dogbey, G. Y., Schwartz, F. L., Marling, C. R. & Shubrook, J. H. Hypoglycemia in type 2 diabetes – more common than you think. J. Diabetes Sci. Technol. 9, 999–1005 (2015).
Eckel, R. H. et al. Obesity and type 2 diabetes: what can be unified and what needs to be individualized? Diabetes Care 34, 1424–1430 (2011).
Heise, T. et al. Tirzepatide reduces appetite, energy intake, and fat mass in people with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 46, 998–1004 (2023).
Wharton, S. et al. Two‐year effect of semaglutide 2.4 mg on control of eating in adults with overweight/obesity: STEP 5. Obesity 31, 703–715 (2023).
Bouillet, B. et al. Frequent and severe hypoglycaemia detected with continuous glucose monitoring in older institutionalised patients with diabetes. Age Ageing 50, 2088–2093 (2021).
Roussel, R. et al. Persistence with basal insulin and frequency of hypoglycemia requiring hospitalization in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Ther. 11, 1861–1872 (2020).
Idris, I. et al. Associated factors that influenced persistence with basal analog insulin therapy among people with type 2 diabetes: an exploratory analysis from a UK real-world sample. Prim. Care Diabetes 13, 106–112 (2019).
Fonda, S. J. et al. The cost-effectiveness of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (RT-CGM) in type 2 diabetes. J. Diabetes Sci. Technol. 10, 898–904 (2016).
Roussel, R. et al. Important drop in the rate of acute diabetes complications in people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes after initiation of flash glucose monitoring in France: the RELIEF study. Diabetes Care 44, 1368–1376 (2021).
Bergenstal, R. M. et al. Flash CGM is associated with reduced diabetes events and hospitalizations in insulin-treated type 2 diabetes. J. Endocr. Soc. 5, bvab013 (2021).
Riveline, J.-P. et al. Reduced rate of acute diabetes events with flash glucose monitoring is sustained for two-years after initiation: extended outcomes from the RELIEF study. Diabetes Technol. Ther. 24, 611–618 (2022).
Commission Nationale d’Evaluation des Dispositifs Medicaux et des Technologies de Sante. FreeStyle Libre 2, Système flash d’autosurveillance du glucose [French]. Haute Autorité de Santé www.has-sante.fr/jcms/p_3219919/fr/freestyle-libre-2-avis-de-la-cnedimts-du-20/10/2020 (2020).
Jendle, J. et al. Cost-effectiveness of the FreeStyle Libre® system versus blood glucose self-monitoring in individuals with type 2 diabetes on insulin treatment in Sweden. Diabetes Ther. 12, 3137–3152 (2021).
Ajjan, R., Bilir, S. P., Hellmund, R. & Souto, D. Cost-effectiveness analysis of flash glucose monitoring system for people with type 2 diabetes receiving intensive insulin treatment. Diabetes Ther. 13, 1933–1945 (2022).
Cho, N. H. et al. IDF diabetes atlas: global estimates of diabetes prevalence for 2017 and projections for 2045. Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract. 138, 271–281 (2018).
Bao, S., Bailey, R., Calhoun, P. & Beck, R. W. Effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring in older adults with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin. Diabetes Technol. Ther. 24, 299–306 (2022).
Guerci, B. et al. Reduced acute diabetes events after FreeStyle Libre® system initiation in people 65 years or older with type 2 diabetes on intensive insulin therapy in France. Diabetes Technol. Ther. 25, 384–394 (2023).
Munshi, M. N. et al. Frequent hypoglycemia among elderly patients with poor glycemic control. Arch. Intern. Med. 171, 362–364 (2011).
Lipska, K. J. et al. HbA1c and risk of severe hypoglycemia in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 36, 3535–3542 (2013).
Meneilly, G. S. & Tessier, D. Diabetes in the elderly. Diabet. Med. 12, 949–960 (1995).
Meneilly, G. S. & Tessier, D. Diabetes in elderly adults. J. Gerontol. Ser. 56, M5–M13 (2001).
Schütt, M. et al. Multiple complications and frequent severe hypoglycaemia in ‘elderly’ and ‘old’ patients with type 1 diabetes. Diabet. Med. 29, e176–e179 (2012).
Wallander, M., Axelsson, K. F., Nilsson, A. G., Lundh, D. & Lorentzon, M. Type 2 diabetes and risk of hip fractures and non‐skeletal fall injuries in the elderly: a study from the Fractures and Fall Injuries in the Elderly cohort (FRAILCO). J. Bone Miner. Res. 32, 449–460 (2017).
Mattishent, K. et al. The effects of hypoglycaemia and dementia on cardiovascular events, falls and fractures and all‐cause mortality in older individuals: a retrospective cohort study. Diabetes Obes. Metab. 21, 2076–2085 (2019).
Mattishent, K. & Loke, Y. K. Is avoidance of hypoglycaemia a better target than HbA1C in older people with diabetes? Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 87, 9–11 (2021).
Kosjerina, V. et al. Discontinuation of diabetes medication in the 10 years before death in Denmark: a register-based study. Lancet Health Longev. 2, e561–e570 (2021).
Selvin, E. et al. Glucose patterns in very old adults: a pilot study in a community-based population. Diabetes Technol. Ther. 23, 737–744 (2021).
Romano, S., Figueira, D., Teixeira, I. & Perelman, J. Deprescribing interventions among community-dwelling older adults: a systematic review of economic evaluations. Pharmacoeconomics 40, 269–295 (2022).
Nordyke, R. J., Appelbaum, K. & Berman, M. A. Estimating the impact of novel digital therapeutics in type 2 diabetes and hypertension: health economic analysis. J. Med. Internet Res. 21, e15814 (2019).
Dabelea, D. et al. Prevalence of type 1 and type 2 diabetes among children and adolescents from 2001 to 2009. JAMA 311, 1778–1786 (2014).
Manfredo, J. et al. Short-term use of CGM in youth onset type 2 diabetes is associated with behavioral modifications. Front. Endocrinol. 14, 1182260 (2023).
Chang, N., Barber, R. O. L. B., Alula, J. L., Durazo-Arvizu, R. & Chao, L. C. Continuous glucose monitoring versus standard of care in adolescents with type 2 diabetes: a pilot randomized cross-over trial. J. Diabetes Sci. Technol. 17, 1419–1420 (2023).
Seidu, S. et al. 2022 update to the position statement by Primary Care Diabetes Europe: a disease state approach to the pharmacological management of type 2 diabetes in primary care. Prim. Care Diabetes 16, 223–244 (2022).
Seidu, S. et al. A disease state approach to the pharmacological management of type 2 diabetes in primary care: a position statement by Primary Care Diabetes Europe. Prim. Care Diabetes 15, 31–51 (2020).
Battelino, T. et al. Continuous glucose monitoring and metrics for clinical trials: an international consensus statement. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 11, 42–57 (2022).
Manickam, P. et al. Artificial intelligence (AI) and internet of medical things (IoMT) assisted biomedical systems for intelligent healthcare. Biosensors 12, 562 (2022).
Assaf, S. A., Zelko, R. & Hanko, B. The effect of interventions led by community pharmacists in primary care for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus on therapeutic adherence and HbA1c levels: a systematic review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 19, 6188 (2022).
Coutureau, C., Slimano, F., Mongaret, C. & Kanagaratnam, L. Impact of pharmacists-led interventions in primary care for adults with type 2 diabetes on HbA1c levels: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 19, 3156 (2022).
Majjouti, K. et al. Family doctors’ attitudes toward peer support programs for type 2 diabetes and/or coronary artery disease: an exploratory survey among German practitioners. BMC Prim. Care 23, 220 (2022).
Bommer, C. et al. Global economic burden of diabetes in adults: projections from 2015 to 2030. Diabetes Care 41, 963–970 (2018).
Parker, E. D. et al. Economic costs of diabetes in the U.S. in 2022. Diabetes Care 47, 26–43 (2023).
Hex, N., Bartlett, C., Wright, D., Taylor, M. & Varley, D. Estimating the current and future costs of type 1 and type 2 diabetes in the UK, including direct health costs and indirect societal and productivity costs. Diabet. Med. 29, 855–862 (2012).
Bansal, M. et al. Impact of reducing glycated hemoglobin on healthcare costs among a population with uncontrolled diabetes. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 16, 675–684 (2018).
Meng, J. et al. Effect of diabetes treatment-related attributes on costs to type 2 diabetes patients in a real-world population. J. Manag. Care Spéc. Pharm. 23, 446–452 (2017).
Stedman, M. et al. Cost of hospital treatment of type 1 diabetes (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes (T2DM) compared to the non-diabetes population: a detailed economic evaluation. BMJ Open 10, e033231 (2020).
Bilir, S. P. et al. The cost-effectiveness of a flash glucose monitoring system for management of patients with type 2 diabetes receiving intensive insulin treatment in Sweden. Eur. Endocrinol. 14, 80 (2018).
Bahia, L. et al. Cost-effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring with FreeStyle Libre® in Brazilian insulin-treated patients with types 1 and 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetol. Metab. Syndr. 15, 242 (2023).
Isitt, J. J. et al. Cost-effectiveness of a real-time continuous glucose monitoring system versus self-monitoring of blood glucose in people with type 2 diabetes on insulin therapy in the UK. Diabetes Ther. 13, 1875–1890 (2022).
Alshannaq, H. et al. Cost-utility of real-time continuous glucose monitoring versus self-monitoring of blood glucose in people with insulin-treated Type 2 diabetes in Canada. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 12, e230075 (2023).
Alshannaq, H. et al. Cost-utility of real-time continuous glucose monitoring versus self-monitoring of blood glucose in people with insulin-treated type II diabetes in France. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 13, e230174 (2024).
Sierra, J. A. et al. Clinical and economic benefits of professional CGM among people with type 2 diabetes in the United States: analysis of claims and lab data. J. Med. Econ. 21, 225–230 (2018).
Isaacson, B. et al. Demonstrating the clinical impact of continuous glucose monitoring within an integrated healthcare delivery system. J. Diabetes Sci. Technol. 16, 383–389 (2022).
Harris, S. et al. Person-centered, outcomes-driven treatment: a new paradigm for type 2 diabetes in primary care (American Diabetes Association, 2020).
Evans, M. et al. Defining the role of SGLT2 inhibitors in primary care: time to think differently. Diabetes Ther. 13, 889–911 (2022).
Fernando, K., Bain, S. C., Holmes, P., Jones, P. N. & Patel, D. C. Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist usage in type 2 diabetes in primary care for the UK and beyond: a narrative review. Diabetes Ther. 12, 2267–2288 (2021).
Giunti, G., Guisado-Fernandez, E., Belani, H. & Lacalle-Remigio, J. R. Mapping the access of future doctors to health information technologies training in the European Union: cross-sectional descriptive study. J. Med. Internet Res. 21, e14086 (2019).
Lupiáñez-Villanueva, F., Folkvord, F. & Fauli, C. Benchmarking deployment of eHealth among general practitioners. European Commission ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=60210 (2018).
Silva-Tinoco, R. & Torre-Saldaña, Vdela The imperious need for telemedicine for the care of diabetes during the COVID-19 pandemic. A comprehensive approach study. Gac. Med. Mex. 157, 309–312 (2021).
Pogorzelska, K., Marcinowicz, L. & Chlabicz, S. A qualitative study of primary care physicians’ experiences with telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic in North-Eastern Poland. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 20, 1963 (2023).
Poitras, M.-E. et al. Chronic conditions patient’s perception of post-COVID-19 pandemic teleconsulting continuation in primary care clinics: a qualitative descriptive study. BMJ Open. 12, e066871 (2022).
Rubio-Valera, M. et al. Barriers and facilitators for the implementation of primary prevention and health promotion activities in primary care: a synthesis through meta-ethnography. PLoS ONE 9, e89554 (2014).
Mackert, M., Mabry-Flynn, A., Champlin, S., Donovan, E. E. & Pounders, K. Health literacy and health information technology adoption: the potential for a new digital divide. J. Med. Internet Res. 18, e264 (2016).
Dunn, P. & Hazzard, E. Technology approaches to digital health literacy. Int. J. Cardiol. 293, 294–296 (2019).
Polonsky, W. H. et al. Impact of participation in a virtual diabetes clinic on diabetes-related distress in individuals with type 2 diabetes. Clin. Diabetes 38, 357–362 (2020).
Lee, J. Y. et al. Using telemedicine to support care for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a qualitative analysis of patients’ perspectives. BMJ Open. 9, e026575 (2019).
Buysse, H., Coremans, P., Pouwer, F. & Ruige, J. Sustainable improvement of HbA1c and satisfaction with diabetes care after adding telemedicine in patients on adaptable insulin regimens: results of the TeleDiabetes randomized controlled trial. Health Inf. J. 26, 628–641 (2020).
Rodríguez-Fortúnez, P. et al. Cross-sectional study about the use of telemedicine for type 2 diabetes mellitus management in Spain: patient’s perspective. The EnREDa2 Study. BMJ Open. 9, e028467 (2019).
Torbjørnsen, A., Ribu, L., Rønnevig, M., Grøttland, A. & Helseth, S. Users’ acceptability of a mobile application for persons with type 2 diabetes: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv. Res. 19, 641 (2019).
Fernández-Rodríguez, R. et al. Are e-Health interventions effective in reducing diabetes-related distress and depression in patients with type 2 diabetes? A systematic review with meta-analysis. Telemed. e-Health https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2023.0374 (2023).
Yoo, H. J. et al. Use of a real time continuous glucose monitoring system as a motivational device for poorly controlled type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract. 82, 73–79 (2008).
Karter, A. J., Parker, M. M., Moffet, H. H., Gilliam, L. K. & Dlott, R. Association of real-time continuous glucose monitoring with glycemic control and acute metabolic events among patients with insulin-treated diabetes. JAMA 325, 2273–2284 (2021).
Ajjan, R. A. et al. Multicenter randomized trial of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring versus self-monitoring of blood glucose in individuals with type 2 diabetes and recent-onset acute myocardial infarction: results of the LIBERATES trial. Diabetes Care 46, 441–449 (2023).
The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N. Engl. J. Med. 329, 977–986 (1993).
Danne, T. et al. International consensus on use of continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Care 40, 1631–1640 (2017).
Agiostratidou, G. et al. Standardizing clinically meaningful outcome measures beyond HbA1c for type 1 diabetes: a consensus report of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, the American Association of Diabetes Educators, the American Diabetes Association, the Endocrine Society, JDRF International, The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust, the Pediatric Endocrine Society, and the T1D Exchange. Diabetes Care 40, 1622–1630 (2017).
Beck, R. W. et al. The relationships between time in range, hyperglycemia metrics, and HbA1c. J. Diabetes Sci. Technol. 13, 614–626 (2019).
Phillip, M. et al. The digital/virtual diabetes clinic: the future is now – recommendations from an international panel on diabetes digital technologies introduction. Diabetes Technol. Ther. 23, 146–154 (2020).
Danne, T. & Limbert, C. COVID-19, type 1 diabetes, and technology: why paediatric patients are leading the way. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 8, 465–467 (2020).
Majithia, A. R. et al. Glycemic outcomes in adults with type 2 diabetes participating in a continuous glucose monitor-driven virtual diabetes clinic: prospective trial. J. Med. Internet Res. 22, e21778 (2020).
Bergenstal, R. M. et al. Remote application and use of real-time continuous glucose monitoring by adults with type 2 diabetes in a virtual diabetes clinic. Diabetes Technol. Ther. 23, 128–132 (2020).
Wu, C. C., Wu, K. C., José, A. S. & Novin, N. Virtual endocrinology care emphasizing data-driven insights and continuous engagement and its impact on glycemic outcomes in patients with uncontrolled diabetes: a real-world retrospective case series. JMIR Diabetes 7, e30626 (2022).
Khunti, K. et al. Diabetes registries and high-quality diabetes care. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 11, 70–72 (2023).
European Commission. Commission Recommendation on a European Electronic Health Record exchange format. European Commission ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=57253 (2019).
Font, A. G. Work begins on developing the mConnecta Mobility Platform. TIC Salut Social ticsalutsocial.cat/en/noticia/work-begins-on-developing-the-mconnecta-mobility-platform/ (2019).
