Table 2.

Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring Trials in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

Author (year)ref.	Design	N/Duration	Treatment	Change in HbA1c	Hypoglycemia	QOL/Behavior change	Conclusion
RCTs
Yoo et al. (2008)21	RCT SMBG versus rtCGM	N = 65 12 weeks	About 60% on insulin CGM to guide meds/adherence	HbA1c ↓ 1.1% Δ = 0.7%	NR	QOL NR ↓ weight and caloric intake and ↑ exercise	CGM used as a motivational intervention improved HbA1c
Cox et al. (2020)22	RCT 1:2 ratio Routine care versus CGM to educate on pp excursions	N = 30 2 months active 3-month follow-up	No insulin	HbA1c ↓ 1.3% Decreased medication use	NR	Improved QOL, diabetes distress, and DM knowledge	CGM helps behavioral modification to ↓ pp excursions
Ehrhardt et al. (2011)23	RCT rtCGM versus SMBG	N = 100 12 weeks	Oral agents ± basal insulin	HbA1c ↓ 1.0% Δ = 0.5%	NR	QOL NR No Δ in weight	First RCT to show benefit with prandial insulin
Beck et al. (2017)24	RCT rtCGM versus SMBG Blinded CGM data in SMBG group	N = 158 24 weeks	MDI No detailed dietary or exercise effort	HbA1c ↓ 0.8% Δ = 0.3%	Low rate at baseline. No statistical difference	No difference in QOL scales Highly satisfied Perceived less hassle	Best study, but low glucose variability and hypoglycemia at baseline
Telemedicine prospective and observational trials
Majithia et al. (2020)25	Prospective Single-arm study	N = 55 4 months	36% on insulin Telemedicine visits with CGM	HbA1c ↓ 1.6% TIR ↑10.2%	No change in glucose less than 70 mg/dL	No QOL study Weight ↓9 lbs	CGM facilitated glucose control in telehealth
Dixon et al. (2020)26	Observational study	N = 740 90–180 days	Telehealth with CGM support 31% on insulin	HbA1c ↓ 0.85% when starting HbA1c >7.0%	NR	NR	Potential benefit of CGM in telehealth

TIR (70–180 mg/dL).

HbA1c, hemoglobin A1c; CGM, continuous glucose monitoring (refers to rtCGM in this study); MDI, multiple daily insulin dosing; NR, not reported; QOL, quality of life; RCT, randomized controlled trial; rtCGM, real-time CGM; SMBG, self-monitoring of blood glucose.