The case for CGM, in the words of the people living it.

Lived experience

“I often wonder how I managed my blood glucose levels before having a CGM. The truth is, I did not. It was a best-guess effort, relying on occasional finger pricks that provided only a snapshot. With my CGM, I can finally manage my diabetes effectively — it empowers me to make informed decisions, reduces stress and lowers the risk of complications. If you truly want to manage your diabetes, a CGM is essential.”

Lived experience

“The glucose sensor is not a gadget, but a bitter necessity.”

Community story

“After many years of advocacy and persistent work by patient associations, this is an important step forward for people with type 1 diabetes in Serbia. Still, the job isn't finished — our goal remains that all people with type 1 diabetes have continuous access to sensors, in quantities that truly cover monthly needs, not just one sensor a month.”

Institutional voice

“For the first time ever, diabetes has a place in our Programme for Government. This is a major step forward — but it must be backed by action and funding, as there are many gaps to be addressed to improve diabetes care in Ireland.”

Institutional voice

“Many of the over 500,000 Swedes living with diabetes don't get the care they need. The health minister should appoint a national coordinator for diabetes care.”

Community story

“Life is not sweet — where is the money for our sensors?”

Lived experience

“Not every 'good' app fits every person with diabetes equally well. For him, everything is moving much too slowly.”

Lived experience

“Every type 2 patient should be equipped with a sensor for a period at the onset of illness.”

Institutional voice

“I can't imagine that it wouldn't also be economically worthwhile to give people with diabetes access to periods with this technology — regardless of whether they're on insulin.”

Institutional voice

“For the first time, continuous glucose monitoring is recommended for people with type 2 diabetes, including those who are not on insulin.”

Institutional voice

“We do not have any consensus guidelines or high-quality evidence to guide CGM goals and metrics for use in prediabetes.”

Community story

“Until recently, CGMs were not available through Malta's national health system. Sustained patient advocacy changed that: around 950 of Malta's ~1,600 people living with T1D now have reimbursed CGM access. The fight for the remaining 40% continues.”

Institutional voice

“The European Union is lagging behind — where people are not protected — because we don't have standards for CGM quality and performance.”

Institutional voice

“Breakthrough T1D UK believes everybody who wants and needs access to type 1 diabetes technology should receive it.”

Institutional voice

“We warn against jeopardising patient welfare through hasty and scientifically untenable assessments of CGM for financial reasons — a step backwards at the expense of patients who clearly benefit.”

Institutional voice

“We demand equal and uniform access to continuous glucose monitoring devices for all people with type 2 diabetes with a clinical indication — regardless of current therapy.”

Institutional voice

“The gap between guidelines and clinical reality is striking. EUDF calls for sustainable and equitable access to diabetes technology across all European member states, to ensure no patient is left behind.”

Institutional voice

“Continuous glucose monitoring should be offered to all children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes to optimise glycaemic control and reduce the burden of care.”

Institutional voice

“The use of CGM is associated with a greater reduction in HbA1c and a lower risk of hypoglycaemia compared with self-monitoring of blood glucose — recommended for all adults with T1D, and to be considered for adults with T2D on multiple daily insulin injections.”

Institutional voice

“CGM should be evaluated as a long-term healthcare investment, not simply as a medical device. Complications — not diabetes management itself — consume most healthcare spending, and investing in prevention costs less than treating them.”

Registry evidence

“Among people living with diabetes, CGM use was associated with lower HbA1c and significantly fewer severe hypoglycaemic events — at population scale, across years of follow-up.”

Registry evidence

“CGM users showed improved glycaemic control and fewer diabetes-related complications compared with peers relying on finger-prick monitoring alone.”