Digital biomarkers for type 2 diabetes
The condition where digital measurement moved furthest into routine practice, because the new measures were simply better than the old one.
.png)
Type 2 diabetes is the condition where digital measurement has moved furthest into routine practice, largely because continuous glucose monitoring produced measures that were better than the existing standard rather than merely more convenient.
The measures collected here come from two sources that belong together. Continuous glucose monitoring provides time in range, time below range, mean glucose and glycaemic variability, describing not just average exposure but the shape of the days that produced it. Wearable activity measures provide step count, activity intensity and sedentary time, describing the behaviour that shapes glucose.
Collecting both in one recording period is what makes digital measurement distinctive in this condition. Glycated haemoglobin tells a clinician what happened over the preceding months but nothing about why, and it conceals both the highs and the hypoglycaemia that produced the average. A continuous trace paired with continuous activity data shows the exposure and the behaviour together, which is the combination behaviour change interventions and treatment adjustment both depend on.
Digital biomarkers used in type 2 diabetes research
How these measures are used
Time in range is the most used digital endpoint in registered clinical trials in this library, and time below range is second. In type 2 diabetes trials they appear both as efficacy endpoints and, in the case of time below range, as safety measures, since a treatment that improves range control while increasing hypoglycaemia has not straightforwardly succeeded.
Activity measures are used in lifestyle and behavioural intervention trials, where the intervention targets movement directly, and as covariates in pharmacological trials where activity change could otherwise confound the glucose result.
Both sets of measures are typically reported alongside patient reported instruments covering diabetes distress, treatment satisfaction and quality of life. This pairing is not decorative. Intensive monitoring and tighter targets carry a real burden, and a regimen that improves glucose metrics while increasing distress is a result that needs to be visible in the reporting rather than absent from it.
What the evidence supports today
This is the strongest evidence base in the library. The 2019 international consensus defined targets for continuous glucose monitoring metrics explicitly so they could function as clinical endpoints, and time in range has been validated against the long term outcome data that established glycated haemoglobin as a surrogate. Professional society standards of care now incorporate these metrics directly.
Sensor accuracy is well characterised, with the caveat that it is weakest in the hypoglycaemic range where time below range operates, so hypoglycaemia estimates carry more uncertainty than the headline range figure implies.
Activity measurement in type 2 diabetes has consistent observational evidence and established international physical activity guidance behind it, though minimal important differences specific to this population are less well defined than the glucose targets. The gap in evidence quality between the glucose measures and the activity measures in this condition is genuine and worth respecting when weighting endpoints in a study design.
Common questions
Is time in range better than glycated haemoglobin?
It is not a replacement but it captures something the laboratory value cannot. Glycated haemoglobin summarises average exposure over months and conceals how that average arose, including hypoglycaemia. Guidelines now recommend reporting both, and continuous glucose metrics have become standard rather than supplementary in this condition.
Is continuous glucose monitoring used in type 2 diabetes or only type 1?
Both, and its use in type 2 diabetes has expanded considerably, including in people not using insulin. The consensus targets cover type 2 diabetes explicitly, and trials in this population routinely use the range metrics as endpoints.
Why collect activity data alongside glucose?
Because they explain each other. Movement affects glucose within hours, and recording both across the same period shows the relationship rather than only the outcome. For behavioural interventions this is the mechanism of action, and measuring only the result leaves the study unable to say what changed.
What are the risks of intensive monitoring for participants?
Burden and distress. Continuous data can increase anxiety about numbers, and tighter targets can shift the balance towards hypoglycaemia. This is why diabetes distress and treatment satisfaction instruments are reported alongside the glucose metrics, so that improvement in numbers is not reported as success without checking what it cost.
Run a study on these measures
WeGuide captures wearable data and patient reported outcomes in one platform, from screening through to analysis.
