Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) technology has revolutionized diabetes management by providing users with real-time information about their blood glucose levels. However, a recent study revealed that CGM metrics may not be accurate when used by people without diabetes. This has raised important questions about the reliability of CGM technology as a health monitoring tool for non-diabetic individuals. In this article, we explore the study’s findings and their implications for people who use CGM devices for health tracking purposes.
Continuous glucose monitoring, or CGM, has been proven to be beneficial for people with diabetes, helping them understand their glucose profile. However, a recent study published in Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics found a discordance between glucose management indicator (GMI), a CGM metric that estimates HbA1c, and laboratory-measured HbA1c. The study analysed data from 153 children and adults without diabetes who wore a masked CGM for 10 days, and found that the cohort’s mean GMI was 0.59% higher than laboratory-measured HbA1c. In addition, 71% of participants had a difference between GMI and HbA1c of 0.4% or more, which is much higher than the 39% of adults with diabetes who had a difference between GMI and HbA1c of 0.4% or more in the original GMI study published in 2018. Researchers are calling for more studies to analyse whether CGM use benefits people without diabetes.
The number of people without diabetes using CGM has risen in recent years, with start-up companies promoting CGMs as an adjunct to lifestyle modifications to help people improve their well-being and metabolic health, prevent the progression of prediabetes to diabetes, or achieve weight loss. However, the study found that it would not be appropriate to use GMI as a substitute for HbA1c in people without diabetes, as GMI will overestimate HbA1c by about 0.6%, and it may misclassify many people without diabetes as prediabetes.
Experts are discussing whether to adjust reference ranges for existing CGM metrics or create new metrics for people without diabetes. The consensus is that the current CGM metrics were developed for people with diabetes and not for people without diabetes, and thus should not be used to assess health status or changes in health status. While CGM may be helpful to improve lifestyle and dietary changes and to improve adherence to lifestyle, more studies are needed before recommending CGM to people without diabetes.
There have not been any large studies analyzing whether CGM is beneficial for making lifestyle or dietary changes in people without diabetes. Some small-scale studies have been presented during various meetings, but there is not a good phase 3 study with definite outcomes. Further research is needed before it can be said that CGM is useful for people without diabetes.
In conclusion, while CGM metrics have proven to be incredibly useful for people living with diabetes, the same may not hold true for those without the condition. It is important to understand that relying solely on CGM data for health metrics can lead to inaccurate results for non-diabetic individuals. As with any health technology, CGMs should be used as a tool in conjunction with other health markers to provide a more complete picture of one’s overall health. As research continues to be conducted in this area, we can expect to see advancements in the use of CGMs for the wider population.
