EASD 2026: CGM Use Linked to Lower Mortality Risk in Type 2 Diabetes

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has become an increasingly important tool for helping people with diabetes understand glucose patterns throughout the day. Now, new research presented at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2026 Annual Meeting suggests that its potential value may extend beyond glucose readings alone.

In a large real-world analysis of adults with type 2 diabetes using basal insulin, starting CGM was associated with a lower risk of death from any cause and fewer major cardiovascular events compared with not using CGM.

After 12 months, all-cause mortality was 1.16% among CGM users compared with 2.09% among matched non-users. After 24 months, the rates were 2.12% and 3.26%, respectively.

Those differences corresponded to a reported 44% lower relative risk of death at one year and a 35% lower relative risk at two years.

The findings are important, but they also require careful interpretation. The study was based on real-world health records rather than a randomized controlled trial, so it shows an association between CGM use and better outcomes—not proof that CGM itself caused the reduction in mortality.

Here is what the study found, what the numbers actually mean, and how the findings fit into the broader evidence on continuous glucose monitoring.

What Did the EASD 2026 CGM Study Find?

Researchers analyzed U.S. electronic health record data from adults with type 2 diabetes who were receiving basal insulin, with or without additional non-insulin diabetes medications.

The analysis used a method known as a target trial emulation, which attempts to use observational data in a way that resembles some aspects of a randomized clinical trial.

Study Design and Participants

Researchers compared:

• 13,935 adults who started CGM

• 13,935 matched adults who did not use CGM

The two groups were matched across 29 baseline characteristics, including age, sex, diabetes duration, HbA1c, diabetes complications, other health conditions, medication use and healthcare utilization.

Participants were approximately 58 years old on average, and 47% were women.

Matching patients in this way can reduce some of the differences between CGM users and non-users. However, it cannot eliminate every possible difference between the two groups.

CGM Use and All-Cause Mortality

One of the most notable findings involved death from any cause.

Follow-Up	CGM Users	Non-CGM Users	Reported Relative Risk Difference
12 months	1.16%	2.09%	44% lower
24 months	2.12%	3.26%	35% lower

These percentages require some context.

A statement such as “44% lower mortality risk” refers to a relative difference between groups. It does not mean that CGM reduced every individual patient's chance of dying by 44 percentage points.

At 12 months, the absolute difference between the two groups was approximately 0.93 percentage points—2.09% among non-users compared with 1.16% among CGM users.

Looking at both absolute and relative differences provides a clearer picture of the magnitude of the finding.

CGM Use and Cardiovascular Outcomes

The researchers also evaluated major cardiovascular and vascular events.

At 12 months, a new macrovascular event occurred in:

• 1.03% of CGM users

• 1.39% of non-CGM users

This represented a reported 26% lower relative risk among CGM users.

At 24 months, rates were:

• 1.64% among CGM users

• 2.17% among non-CGM users

The reported relative risk was 24% lower in the CGM group.

The cardiovascular outcome included events such as heart attack, heart failure, stroke or transient ischemic attack, and peripheral artery disease.

The researchers also reported lower rates of recurrent cardiovascular events and heart-failure hospitalization among CGM users.

Taken together, the findings suggest that CGM use may be associated with outcomes extending beyond glucose measurements in adults with type 2 diabetes receiving basal insulin.

However, an important question remains.

Does CGM Actually Reduce Mortality Risk?

Not necessarily—at least, this study alone cannot prove that it does.

The distinction between association and causation is especially important when interpreting real-world medical research.

Unlike a randomized controlled trial, patients in this analysis were not randomly assigned to use or not use CGM.

People who start CGM may differ from non-users in ways that are difficult to measure. For example, they may have different access to healthcare, different levels of diabetes education, different engagement with their treatment plan, or other health-related behaviors.

The researchers attempted to reduce these differences by matching patients across 29 baseline characteristics. That makes the comparison more informative, but unmeasured confounding may still remain.

Changes in medication and other clinical factors occurring after the study began could also affect long-term outcomes.

For that reason, the most accurate interpretation is:

Among adults with type 2 diabetes receiving basal insulin, CGM initiation was associated with lower all-cause mortality and cardiovascular event rates over one and two years.

Further research will be needed to determine how much of that difference is directly attributable to CGM and which mechanisms may be responsible.

How Does Continuous Glucose Monitoring Work?

Traditional blood glucose meters provide a glucose reading at a specific moment in time.

A continuous glucose monitor works differently.

A small sensor placed under or on the skin measures glucose levels in the fluid surrounding the body's cells. The system collects readings repeatedly throughout the day and can display glucose trends through a compatible reader or smartphone.

Instead of seeing only an isolated number, users may be able to see:

• whether glucose is rising or falling,

• how glucose changes after meals,

• patterns that occur overnight,

• periods of high or low glucose,

• and the percentage of time glucose remains within a target range.

CGM therefore provides a more continuous picture of glucose patterns than occasional finger-stick measurements alone.

For people using insulin, this additional information can be particularly useful when glucose levels change throughout the day.

Why Might CGM Support Better Diabetes Management?

The EASD study was not designed to prove exactly why CGM users experienced better long-term outcomes.

However, existing evidence helps explain several ways continuous glucose data may support diabetes management.

Understanding Daily Glucose Patterns

HbA1c provides useful information about average glucose levels over several months, but it does not show every rise and fall that occurs during the day.

CGM can reveal patterns that might otherwise be difficult to detect.

For example, two people with similar HbA1c values may spend very different amounts of time above or below their target glucose range.

That additional information can help patients and healthcare professionals better understand how glucose behaves between appointments.

Recognizing High and Low Glucose Levels

CGM can also help identify episodes of hyperglycemia or hypoglycemia.

This can be especially relevant for people taking insulin or medications associated with hypoglycemia.

The American Diabetes Association's 2026 Standards of Care notes that randomized trials in people with type 2 diabetes using insulin have shown improvements in measures such as HbA1c and time in range with CGM use.

Real-world studies have also reported reductions in some acute diabetes-related complications.

Supporting More Informed Treatment Decisions

The value of CGM is not simply the collection of more data.

The information becomes useful when patients and healthcare professionals can interpret it and use it appropriately.

Patterns observed through CGM may inform conversations about meals, physical activity, medications and other parts of a diabetes management plan.

The ADA emphasizes that diabetes technology should be individualized based on each person's needs, circumstances, preferences and ability to use the device effectively.

What Does Other Research Say About CGM?

The EASD 2026 mortality analysis adds to an existing body of evidence supporting CGM in diabetes care.

Randomized controlled trials in people with type 2 diabetes using insulin have generally shown improvements in glucose-related outcomes such as HbA1c and time in range.

Research is also expanding among people with type 2 diabetes who do not use insulin.

According to the ADA's 2026 Standards of Care, growing randomized trial evidence in people with type 2 diabetes who are not using insulin has shown improvements in measures including HbA1c, time in range and time above range in some populations.

Observational research has also linked CGM initiation with reductions in acute diabetes-related complications and hospitalizations.

These studies measure different outcomes and include different patient populations, so their results should not be treated as interchangeable.

Still, together they suggest that CGM is becoming relevant to a broader range of people with diabetes than the technology's earliest users.

Who Should Discuss CGM With a Healthcare Professional?

CGM is widely used by people with diabetes who take insulin, but whether it is appropriate for a particular person depends on more than a diagnosis alone.

Factors that may be considered include:

• the person's current diabetes treatment,

• risk of hypoglycemia,

• glucose variability,

• ability to use and interpret CGM data,

• personal preferences,

• access and insurance coverage,

• and the broader treatment plan.

The ADA's 2026 recommendations support CGM for people with diabetes using insulin and also recognize its potential role in other treatment settings where CGM can help with management.

A healthcare professional can help determine whether continuous monitoring is appropriate and how CGM data should be interpreted.

CGM should not be viewed as a replacement for professional diabetes care or prescribed treatment.

What About CGM for People Without Diabetes?

The results presented at EASD 2026 should not automatically be applied to people without diabetes.

The mortality study specifically examined adults with type 2 diabetes receiving basal insulin. That is very different from a healthy adult using a CGM to learn how meals, exercise or sleep affect glucose.

CGM products are increasingly discussed in general wellness settings, but the evidence, goals and potential benefits are not the same across populations.

For a separate look at this topic, read our guide to CGM for Non-Diabetics .

Why Daily Lifestyle Habits Still Matter

CGM can provide information, but the device itself does not replace the broader foundations of health or diabetes care.

Nutrition, physical activity, sleep, medication adherence when prescribed, regular medical follow-up and diabetes self-management education all remain important parts of long-term management.

One useful way to think about CGM is as a source of information. The potential benefit comes from understanding that information and using it appropriately with the rest of a person's care plan.

For people building a broader daily wellness routine, nutrition and lifestyle choices should remain grounded in individual needs rather than being treated as substitutes for medical care.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can CGM reduce the risk of death?

The EASD 2026 study found that CGM use was associated with lower all-cause mortality among adults with type 2 diabetes receiving basal insulin.

Mortality was 1.16% among CGM users and 2.09% among non-users after one year, and 2.12% versus 3.26% after two years.

However, because the study was observational rather than randomized, it cannot establish that CGM directly caused the lower mortality rate.

Does CGM help people with type 2 diabetes?

For many people with type 2 diabetes, particularly those using insulin, research supports CGM as a useful tool for glucose management.

Clinical trials have reported improvements in measures including HbA1c and time in range, while continuous data may also help identify high and low glucose patterns.

Individual benefits depend on a person's treatment plan and how CGM information is used.

Can you use CGM without insulin?

Yes. Some people with type 2 diabetes who are not using insulin may use CGM, and research in this population is increasing.

The ADA's 2026 Standards of Care recommends individualized consideration of CGM based on treatment, circumstances and management needs.

The EASD 2026 mortality findings discussed in this article, however, specifically involved people receiving basal insulin.

Is CGM necessary for people without diabetes?

For healthy people without diabetes, CGM has a different purpose and evidence base than it does for people being treated for diabetes.

CGM may provide information about short-term glucose responses, but that does not mean every healthy person needs continuous glucose monitoring.

Whether the information is useful depends on the person's goals, health status and how the data are interpreted.

Key Takeaways

The EASD 2026 findings add an important new dimension to research on continuous glucose monitoring.

In nearly 28,000 matched adults with type 2 diabetes receiving basal insulin, CGM initiation was associated with:

• lower all-cause mortality after one and two years,

• fewer new macrovascular events,

• and lower rates of several cardiovascular outcomes.

At 12 months, mortality was 1.16% among CGM users compared with 2.09% among non-users. At 24 months, it was 2.12% versus 3.26%.

These findings are promising, but they do not prove that CGM directly prevents death or cardiovascular disease.

CGM remains a tool within a broader diabetes management strategy. Decisions about whether and how to use it should be individualized with a qualified healthcare professional.

References

1. European Association for the Study of Diabetes. New evidence links continuous glucose monitoring with lower risk of death and cardiovascular events in people with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin. EASD 2026 Annual Meeting news release. September 27, 2026.

2. American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee for Diabetes. 7. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Care in Diabetes—2026. Diabetes Care. 2026;49(Suppl. 1)–S165. doi:10.2337/dc26-S007.

3. American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee for Diabetes. 6. Glycemic Goals, Hypoglycemia, and Hyperglycemic Crises: Standards of Care in Diabetes—2026. Diabetes Care. 2026;49(Suppl. 1).

Medical Disclaimer: This article is for educational and informational purposes only and is not intended as medical advice. It should not be used to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease or to replace advice from a qualified healthcare professional. If you have diabetes, take glucose-lowering medication, or are considering changes to your glucose-monitoring or treatment plan, consult your healthcare provider.