Reproducibility of continuous glucose monitoring results under real-life conditions in an adult population: a functional data analysis

Innovative solution or cause for concern? The use of continuous glucose monitors in people not living with diabetes: A narrative review

AIMS

Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) have expanded their scope beyond indicated uses for diabetes management and are gaining traction among people not living with diabetes (PNLD). CGMs track in time glucose levels and are proposed as tools for the early detection of abnormal glucose and a potential solution for its normalisation through behavioural change, particularly, diet personalisation and motivation of physical activity. This becomes relevance given the growing incidence of metabolic conditions, such as type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Clinical guidelines, however, do not recommend CGMs in contexts outside type 1 diabetes (T1DM) or insulin-treated T2DM. Therefore, there is a visible disconnect between the indicated and real-world usage of these medical devices. While the commercial market for CGMs in PNLD is expanding rapidly, a comprehensive and evidence-based evaluation of the devices' utility in this population has not been done. Therefore, this review aims to formulate a working model for CGM utility in PNLD as proposed by the 'health and wellness' market that advertises and distributes it to these individuals.

METHODS

We aim to critically analyse the available research addressing components of the working model, that is (1) detection of abnormal glucose; (2) behavioural change, and (3) metabolic health improvement.

RESULTS

We find a lack of consistent and high-quality evidence to support the utility of CGMs for these purposes. We identify significantly under-reserved areas including clinical benchmarks and scoring procedures for CGM measures, device acceptability, and potential adverse effects of CGMs on eating habits in PNLD. We also raise concerns about the robustness of available CGM research.

CONCLUSION

In the face of these research gaps, we urge for the commercial claims suggesting the utility of the device in PNLD to be labelled as misleading. We argue that there is a regulatory inadequacy that fuels 'off-label' CGM distribution and calls for the strengthening of post-market clinical follow-up oversight for CGMs. We hope this will help to avert the continued misinformation risk to PNLD and 'off-label' exacerbation of health disparities.

Myths and methodologies: Assessing glycaemic control and associated regulatory mechanisms in human physiology research

Accurate measurements of glycaemic control and the underpinning regulatory mechanisms are vital in human physiology research. Glycaemic control is the maintenance of blood glucose concentrations within optimal levels and is governed by physiological variables including insulin sensitivity, glucose tolerance and β-cell function. These can be measured with a plethora of methods, all with their own benefits and limitations. Deciding on the best method to use is challenging and depends on the specific research question(s). This review therefore discusses the theory and procedure, validity and reliability and any special considerations of a range common methods used to measure glycaemic control, insulin sensitivity, glucose tolerance and β-cell function. Methods reviewed include glycosylated haemoglobin, continuous glucose monitors, the oral glucose tolerance test, mixed meal tolerance test, hyperinsulinaemic euglycaemic clamp, hyperglycaemic clamp, intravenous glucose tolerance test and indices derived from both fasting concentrations and the oral glucose tolerance test. This review aims to help direct understanding, assessment and decisions regarding which method to use based on specific physiology-related research questions.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring for Prediabetes: What Are the Best Metrics?

BACKGROUND

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has transformed the care of type 1 and type 2 diabetes, and there is potential for CGM to also become influential in prediabetes identification and management. However, to date, we do not have any consensus guidelines or high-quality evidence to guide CGM goals and metrics for use in prediabetes.

METHODS

We searched PubMed for all English-language articles on CGM use in nonpregnant adults with prediabetes published by November 1, 2023. We excluded any articles that included subjects with type 1 diabetes or who were known to be at risk for type 1 diabetes due to positive islet autoantibodies.

RESULTS

Based on the limited data available, we suggest possible CGM metrics to be used for individuals with prediabetes. We also explore the role that glycemic variability (GV) plays in the transition from normoglycemia to prediabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

Glycemic variability indices beyond the standard deviation and coefficient of variation are emerging as prominent identifiers of early dysglycemia. One GV index in particular, the mean amplitude of glycemic excursion (MAGE), may play a key future role in CGM metrics for prediabetes and is highlighted in this review.

Real World Interstitial Glucose Profiles of a Large Cohort of Physically Active Men and Women

The use of continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) in individuals living without diabetes is increasing. The purpose of this study was to profile various CGM metrics around nutritional intake, sleep and exercise in a large cohort of physically active men and women living without any known metabolic disease diagnosis to better understand the normative glycemic response to these common stimuli. A total of 12,504 physically active adults (age 40 ± 11 years, BMI 23.8 ± 3.6 kg/m2; 23% self-identified as women) wore a real-time CGM (Abbott Libre Sense Sport Glucose Biosensor, Abbott, USA) and used a smartphone application (Supersapiens Inc., Atlanta, GA, USA) to log meals, sleep and exercise activities. A total of >1 M exercise events and 274,344 meal events were analyzed. A majority of participants (85%) presented an overall (24 h) average glucose profile between 90 and 110 mg/dL, with the highest glucose levels associated with meals and exercise and the lowest glucose levels associated with sleep. Men had higher mean 24 h glucose levels than women (24 h-men: 100 ± 11 mg/dL, women: 96 ± 10 mg/dL). During exercise, the % time above >140 mg/dL was 10.3 ± 16.7%, while the % time <70 mg/dL was 11.9 ± 11.6%, with the remaining % within the so-called glycemic tight target range (70-140 mg/dL). Average glycemia was also lower for females during exercise and sleep events (p < 0.001). Overall, we see small differences in glucose trends during activity and sleep in females as compared to males and higher levels of both TAR and TBR when these active individuals are undertaking or competing in endurance exercise training and/or competitive events.