Evidence

Studies have shown that a lower A1C may reduce microvascular and macrovascular complications associated with type 1 diabetes mellitus.1,2

Dexcom CGM System Use is Proven to Lower A1C in Insulin-Dependent Populations<sup>*</sup>3

Use of a Dexcom Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) System* improves glucose awareness, which leads to a cascade of benefits, including: reduction in severe hypoglycemia and a sustained decrease in A1C.3

CGM users spend more time in the target range,3 reducing diabetes-related complications that can positively impact absenteeism and presenteeism.1,2 

*Study conducted with subjects with type 1 diabetes using the Dexcom G4® PLATINUM CGM System, which uses the same software as the Dexcom G5® Mobile CGM System.

The More Time Using CGM, the Greater the Improvement in A1C6

Leading Compliance and Persistence

 A majority (88%) of Dexcom G5® Mobile Continuous Glucose Monitoring System users and Dexcom G4® PLATINUM CGM System users (88%) reporting wearing their device 24/74
and 86% of Dexcom patients still using the product after one year.5 With studies showing that greater CGM compliance leads to improved glycemic outcomes6,7 and that these benefits persist with over time with regular CGM usage8, Dexcom CGM is poised to deliver a strong return on investment.9

 

Source: Patient Reported Usage & Loyalty Scores. dQ&A study. January 2017

Clinical Studies

Explore in-depth clinical studies detailing the benefits of GCM.

DIaMonD Study

Dexcom CGM System demonstrates improvement of several measures of glycemic control in MDI Patients

The Dexcom DIaMonD study compared CGM with SMBG in type 1 adult patients on multiple daily insulin (MDI) therapy. The CGM group showed significant A1C reductions, independent of age, education level, math ability and other factors. The CGM group also spent significantly more time in the euglycemic range, with less hyper- and hypoglycemia, especially at night.

 

Lean more about how CGM drives A1C reduction, regardless of delivery method.

Details

COMISAIR Study

Comparing treatment modalities, including insulin pump with CGM, over 52 weeks

A 2016 study of type 1 patients on insulin compared real-time CGM (RT-CGM) with self-monitored blood glucose (SMBG), along with insulin pump usage and multiple daily insulin injections (MDIs). 65 patients were followed for a year.

 

Learn more about this landmark study.

Details
1

Nathan D, Cleary PA, Backlund JC, Genuth SM, et al. The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (DCCT/EDIC) Study Research Group. Intensive Diabetes Treatment and Cardiovascular Disease in Patients with Type 1 Diabetes. N Engl J Med 2005;353:2643-53.

2

Nathan et al. The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group - The Eect of Intensive Treatment of Diabetes on the Development and Progression of Long-Term Complications in Insulin-Dependent Diabetes Mellitus. N Engl J Med. Vol 329 No. 14. 1993.

3

Beck RW, Riddlesworth T, Ruedy K, et al. Effect of continuous glucose monitoring on glycemic control in adults with type 1 diabetes using insulin injections: The diamond randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2017;317(4):371-378. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.19975.

4

Patient Reported Usage & Loyalty Scores. dQ&A study, January 2017.

5

Dexcom internal data on file, 2017.

6

Bergenstal  RM, Tamborlane  WV, Ahmann  A, et al. Effectiveness of Sensor-Augmented Insulin-Pump Therapy in Type 1 Diabetes. New England Journal of Medicine. 2010;363(4):311-320.

7

Ehrhardt NM, Chellappa M. The Effect of Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring on Glycemic Control in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2011;5(3):668-675.

8

Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Continuous Glucose Monitoring Study Group. Continuous Glucose Monitoring and Intensive Treatment of Type 1 Diabetes, N Engl J Med. 2008: 359(14); 1464-1476.

9

Grabner M, Abbott S, Nguyen M, Chen Y, Quimbo R. Estimated Cost Savings Associated with A1c Reductions in a Large US Commercial Health Plan. Value in Health, Volume 16, Issue 3, A160. May 2013.