Prospective observational study assesses hypoglycemia and glycemic patterns in type 2 diabetes treated with insulin glargine, indicating the relevance of continuous glucose monitoring.
Hypoglycemia is a common complication in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treated with basal insulin, yet its true prevalence in real-world primary care remains underexplored. This study used blinded continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) to assess glycemic patterns in patients with T2DM on basal insulin-supported oral therapy (BOT) with insulin glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100) in Spain. GPDetect was a prospective, multicenter, observational study in adults with T2DM treated with Gla-100 for ≥ 6 months in primary care. Participants underwent 14 days of blinded CGM (FreeStyle Libre ® Pro iQ ® ). The primary objective of the present study was to estimate the proportion of patients with T2DM treated with Gla-100 whose TBR (glucose < 70 mg/dL) exceeded the internationally recommended threshold of 4%. Secondary endpoints included time in range (TIR), time above range (TAR), episodes of clinically significant hypoglycemia (< 54 mg/dL), cognitive function (MMSE), and fear of hypoglycemia (EsHFS). Among 136 patients (mean age 69 years), 16.9% had TBR > 4%, with a higher prevalence at night (23.5%) than during the day (12.5%). Clinically significant hypoglycemia (< 54 mg/dL > 1%) occurred in 8.8% of patients. Hyperglycemia was common: 46.3% spent > 25% of the day between 181–250 mg/dL, and 28.7% spent time > 250 mg/dL. Only 55.9% achieved TIR ≥ 70%. Patients receiving SGLT2i had lower mean glucose and EsHFS scores. Cognitive impairment (MMSE < 23) was associated with longer hypoglycemia duration. Blinded CGM revealed a relevant burden of unrecognized hypoglycemia—particularly nocturnal—as well as daytime hyperglycemia in patients with T2DM treated with Gla-100 in primary care. These results support the clinical value of CGM in informing treatment decisions and improving individualized diabetes management.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bellido et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: