Current diabetes reports · 2026
Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Type 2 Diabetes: Clinical Outcomes, Disparities in Access, and Cost-effectiveness.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Perini Villanueva Giuliana, Solorzano Walter M, Everett Estelle
Аннотация
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review summarizes recent evidence on continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D), focusing on clinical effectiveness, patient-reported outcomes, disparities in use, and policy and economic considerations.
RECENT FINDINGS: Studies from 2020 to 2025 show that CGM use in T2D is associated with consistent improvements in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), time in range, and diabetes self-management across insulin and non-insulin treatment regimens. Emerging observational data suggest reductions in mortality and health care utilization, and cost-effectiveness analyses consistently demonstrate that CGM represents a high-value intervention across payer settings. Despite these benefits, CGM uptake remains variable, with persistent disparities by age, race, and ethnicity, insurance coverage, and care setting. CGM is an effective and cost-effective tool for T2D management, but inequities in access limit its impact. Future research should address implementation in safety-net and primary care settings, evaluate over-the-counter CGM, and assess long-term clinical and health system outcomes.
RECENT FINDINGS: Studies from 2020 to 2025 show that CGM use in T2D is associated with consistent improvements in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), time in range, and diabetes self-management across insulin and non-insulin treatment regimens. Emerging observational data suggest reductions in mortality and health care utilization, and cost-effectiveness analyses consistently demonstrate that CGM represents a high-value intervention across payer settings. Despite these benefits, CGM uptake remains variable, with persistent disparities by age, race, and ethnicity, insurance coverage, and care setting. CGM is an effective and cost-effective tool for T2D management, but inequities in access limit its impact. Future research should address implementation in safety-net and primary care settings, evaluate over-the-counter CGM, and assess long-term clinical and health system outcomes.