A new international consensus statement provides guidance for the use of diabetes technology during pregnancy for women with type 1 diabetes (T1D), type 2 diabetes (T2D), or gestational diabetes (GD).

Organized by the diaTribe Foundation, the document was based on evidence where available, as well as opinion from an international group of experts in endocrinology, diabetes technology, and obstetrics & gynecology, among others.

This is the first set of recommendations specifically addressing the use of diabetes technology in pregnancy, lead author Katrien Benhalima, MD, of the Department of Endocrinology at University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium, told Medscape Medical News.

“I hope it will be used hands-on and give some practical guidance. It is both for healthcare providers and for women themselves, on how to best use technology to make informed decisions,” Benhalima said.

While the evidence is strongest in T1D, “we also provide guidance for [T2D] and gestational diabetes although we acknowledge that much more research is needed so it’s mostly based on expert opinion,” she noted. “We felt it was important to give recommendations because in some areas the technology is already being used.”

Endorsing organizations include the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology, the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD), the International Diabetes Federation, and the European Board of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. Several other professional organizations from around the world also signed on, including groups from India, Brazil, Australia, and Japan. In addition, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology “supports the value of this clinical document as an educational tool.” The statement was published online in the February 2026 issue of The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

Recommendations for Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) and Automated Insulin Delivery (AID)

For women with T1D, the statement recommends both CGM and AID systems during both preconception and pregnancy. For those with T2D, capillary blood glucose measurement is recommended before and during pregnancy, while CGM use “can be used” preconception and “can be offered” during pregnancy. Similarly, for GD, capillary glucose testing is recommended, while CGM “can be offered” based on availability.

The document provides two tables listing all the different AID systems available worldwide, along with suggested intrapartum and postpartum settings.

Other topics addressed in the statement include integration of CGM data into the care and workflow of pregnant women, use of CGM in diagnosing GD, and a caution about CGM selection. “We mention that it’s important to have strict quality control for sensors because some sensors come from [countries] where the quality control is not the same,” said Benhalima. “There have been some quality issues, which can be dangerous. So there is a recommendation stating that it’s important to use sensors that have really been tested appropriately.”

Also included are a long list of priorities for future research and acknowledgement of the need to reduce global disparities in access to the technologies. CGM isn’t available in many parts of the world, even for T1D, Benhalima noted. “But hopefully, if prices go down and there are more alternatives, other countries will gain more access.”

Anne L. Peters, MD, professor of clinical medicine and director of the Clinical Diabetes Programs at the University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, told Medscape Medical News that she believes the document “is a good summary of the data we have so far. Recommendations are aligned with what has already been published but continue to push forward the need for CGM for all people with diabetes in pregnancy as well as AID systems with pregnancy-specific targets.” Peters reviewed the document in advance as part of the EASD Committee on Clinical Affairs.

Benhalima reported receiving consulting fees from AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly; receiving speakers fees from Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca, and Mundipharma Medtronic; receiving support for attending meetings or for travel from AstraZeneca and Novo Nordisk; receiving grants or contracts from Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Metagenics, and Abbott; receiving equipment, materials, or drugs from Medtronic, Dexcom, Novo Nordisk, Abbott, and Lifescan; and being the recipient of a Senior Fellowship of The Flemish Research Foundation. 

Peters reported serving as an advisor for Medscape and Vertex and receiving research grants from Insulet, Abbott, and Zucara.

Miriam E. Tucker is a freelance journalist based in the Washington, DC, area. She is a regular contributor to Medscape, with other work appearing in the Washington Post, NPR’s Shots blog, and Diatribe. She is on X @MiriamETucker and BlueSky @miriametucker.bsky.social.