New clinical research suggests that wearable glucose monitors may help adults with type 2 diabetes improve blood sugar control—even when they manage the condition without insulin injections.
For years, continuous glucose monitors were primarily associated with people who needed insulin to manage diabetes. These small wearable sensors provide regular glucose readings throughout the day, helping users understand how their blood sugar responds to meals, exercise, medication and sleep.
Now, a clinical trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine on October 14, 2026, has added important evidence that people with type 2 diabetes who do not use insulin may also benefit from the technology.
The study found that participants using continuous glucose monitoring achieved a greater improvement in average blood sugar levels over six months than those receiving routine care. The results could influence how healthcare professionals approach diabetes management, although questions about affordability, accessibility and long-term benefits remain.
What Is Continuous Glucose Monitoring?
Continuous glucose monitoring, commonly known as CGM, uses a small sensor worn on the skin, usually on the upper arm or abdomen, to measure glucose in the fluid beneath the skin.
The sensor sends readings to a compatible smartphone, receiver or other display. Depending on the device, users can view current glucose estimates, follow trends and receive alerts when levels become unusually high or low.
Traditional finger-prick testing works differently. A person uses a lancet to obtain a small blood sample and checks the glucose level using a meter. Each measurement provides information about that particular moment.
A CGM provides a more continuous picture, revealing patterns that occasional testing might miss. For example, glucose may rise significantly after a meal and remain elevated for hours. Other people may experience overnight changes or discover that physical activity affects their readings differently from what they expected.
The technology does not treat diabetes directly. Instead, it provides information that patients and healthcare professionals can use when making decisions about diet, activity and prescribed treatment.
What Did the New Clinical Trial Discover?
The CONNECT study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, examined whether continuous glucose monitoring could improve diabetes control in adults who were not using insulin.
Researchers conducted a 26-week randomised trial across 22 primary care practices in the United States. A total of 283 adults with type 2 diabetes participated. Of these, 145 were assigned to the CGM group and 138 to the routine-care group.
The researchers measured glycated haemoglobin, or HbA1c, which reflects average blood glucose levels over approximately the previous two to three months.
The results were encouraging.
Among participants using CGM, average HbA1c decreased from 8.8% at the beginning of the study to 7.2% after 26 weeks. In the routine-care group, the average fell from 8.7% to 8.0%.
After statistical adjustment, the difference between the groups was 0.9 percentage points in favour of continuous monitoring.
Participants using CGM also spent more time within the study’s target glucose range of 70–180 milligrams per decilitre. The difference in time spent within that range was 21 percentage points compared with routine care.
No severe hypoglycaemia events were reported during the trial.
These findings suggest that continuous glucose monitoring can improve glucose control for some adults with type 2 diabetes who do not use insulin. However, a six-month study cannot establish whether these improvements will necessarily prevent long-term complications.
The research was funded by Dexcom, a manufacturer of glucose-monitoring devices. This financial relationship is relevant when evaluating the findings, although industry funding alone does not invalidate a clinical trial.
Why Could a Glucose Monitor Help Without Insulin?
Type 2 diabetes involves problems with how the body responds to insulin and, in many cases, how much glucose the liver releases into the bloodstream. People who do not use insulin can still experience substantial fluctuations in blood sugar.
A CGM may help them identify patterns that are difficult to recognise through occasional testing alone.
Consider someone who notices that their glucose rises sharply after breakfast but remains relatively stable after lunch. That information could encourage a discussion with a dietitian about meal composition, portion sizes or the timing of physical activity.
Another person might discover that a short walk after dinner is followed by a different glucose pattern. Someone else may notice higher readings during illness, stressful periods or nights of poor sleep.
These observations can make diabetes management more personalised. Rather than relying entirely on general advice, patients and clinicians can examine actual glucose patterns and decide whether changes to the treatment plan are appropriate.
However, glucose responses vary from person to person. A single reading should not be treated as proof that a particular food is universally harmful or beneficial.
CGM Versus Finger-Prick Testing: Which Is Better?
Both methods can play a useful role in diabetes care, but they serve different purposes.
Finger-prick meters are widely used, provide direct blood glucose measurements and can be relatively inexpensive. They may be sufficient for some people who need occasional checks under a clinician’s recommended monitoring plan.
CGMs provide a broader view of glucose trends and may reduce the need for repeated finger-prick measurements, although some devices and situations still require confirmatory blood testing.
The main advantage of CGM is visibility. Users can see whether glucose is rising, falling or remaining stable, rather than receiving a single measurement without much information about what happened before or after it.
However, CGMs can be more expensive because sensors must be replaced periodically. Their readings also measure glucose in interstitial fluid rather than directly in blood, which can introduce a delay during rapid glucose changes.
Neither method is automatically the best choice for everyone. The appropriate option depends on the person’s diabetes treatment, glucose targets, monitoring needs, preferences and budget.
Who Might Benefit Most From Continuous Monitoring?
The technology may be particularly useful for people whose HbA1c remains above their individual target, those experiencing substantial glucose fluctuations, or those who want to understand how everyday habits affect their diabetes.
It may also help healthcare professionals assess whether an existing treatment plan is working as expected. Reviewing glucose patterns can support more informed conversations about medication, nutrition and exercise.
Nevertheless, the CONNECT trial does not establish that every person with type 2 diabetes needs a CGM. Some people with stable glucose levels may gain less from continuous monitoring, while others may find the additional information particularly valuable.
The decision should be made with a qualified healthcare professional who can explain the likely benefits, limitations and costs.
What Does This Mean for People With Diabetes in India?
In India, where diabetes affects millions of people, affordability and access are important considerations when evaluating newer monitoring technologies.
A CGM may provide useful information, but the cost of the sensor, replacement supplies and compatible devices can make regular use difficult for some households. Availability and coverage also vary, so patients should check the full ongoing cost rather than considering only the initial purchase price.
People who cannot afford continuous monitoring can still manage diabetes effectively with an appropriate care plan, recommended glucose testing, prescribed medication, balanced nutrition and physical activity suited to their circumstances.
Patients should not delay diabetes care or feel that they need to purchase a wearable sensor to manage the condition responsibly.
For those considering CGM, a doctor or diabetes educator can help determine whether a short trial of monitoring could answer specific questions about glucose patterns and whether the information would change management decisions.
Are There Risks or Limitations?
Although CGMs offer useful information, they are not perfect.
Sensors may cause skin irritation, become detached or produce readings that do not match how a person feels. Frequent alerts and constant access to glucose data can also create anxiety for some users.
People who do not understand glucose trends may overreact to ordinary fluctuations. A single high reading after a meal does not necessarily mean that a treatment plan has failed, just as a single normal reading does not prove that diabetes is well controlled.
Patients should follow device instructions and seek confirmatory testing when recommended, particularly when readings do not match their symptoms. They should not independently stop medication or change doses based on an isolated sensor reading.
The study also had limitations. It lasted 26 weeks, involved 283 participants and was conducted in US primary care settings. Further research is needed to establish how durable the benefits are, which patient groups gain the most and whether improved glucose control translates into fewer long-term complications.
The Bottom Line
Continuous glucose monitoring may be useful for adults with type 2 diabetes even when they do not use insulin. The CONNECT trial found greater improvements in HbA1c and time spent within the target glucose range among participants using CGM than among those receiving routine care.
The results challenge the assumption that wearable glucose monitors are relevant only to people receiving insulin therapy. They also highlight the potential value of making glucose patterns easier for patients and healthcare professionals to understand.
However, CGM is a monitoring tool, not a cure, and it is not essential for every patient. Cost, accessibility, individual needs and clinical guidance should all influence the decision to use one.
The most important lesson is that better information can support better-informed diabetes care. For some people, a wearable sensor may provide the missing insight needed to work more effectively with their healthcare team—but the right monitoring approach remains a personal medical decision.
