With the recent approval of over-the-counter continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) by the Food and Drug Administration, there has been a surge in interest from individuals without diabetes who wish to track their glucose levels for health and wellness purposes. However, a new study from Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine reveals a significant gap in expert guidelines for interpreting CGM data from non-diabetic individuals.
The study, published in the Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, highlights the lack of consensus among healthcare professionals regarding the interpretation of CGM reports for people without diabetes. CGMs, which measure glucose levels in real time via sensors that penetrate the skin, are primarily used by individuals with diabetes. However, their potential use in health monitoring among the broader population has led to confusion about how to properly assess the data.
Nicole L. Spartano, Ph.D., assistant professor of medicine and corresponding author of the study, stressed the need for targeted research to develop clear guidelines for interpreting CGM reports in non-diabetic individuals. “This should be a wake-up call that research needs to be done that will inform the creation of guidelines for clinical interpretation of CGM for patients without diabetes,” Spartano said.
To assess how experts evaluate CGM data from non-diabetic individuals, the researchers surveyed specialists who typically manage complex diabetes cases. They were asked to review 20 potentially challenging CGM reports from individuals without diabetes and provide recommendations for follow-up care. The results revealed significant disagreement among the clinicians, underscoring the need for standardized practices and normative data for this population.
“Our results suggest that even clinicians with extensive CGM experience do not agree on how to interpret or provide follow-up recommendations based on CGM data from individuals without diabetes,” Spartano noted.
As interest in CGM use grows among the general population—driven by goals such as promoting healthy behavior and preventing prediabetes—Spartano emphasized that more research is essential to understand the potential applications of CGM in predicting or diagnosing conditions like prediabetes. While CGMs are not currently approved for such purposes, their future role could be transformative.
Until formal guidelines are established, Spartano suggests that healthcare providers with expertise in continuous glucose monitoring can offer valuable guidance on how non-diabetic individuals should interpret their CGM data.
Related topics:
Lower Cardiovascular Risk in Type 1 Diabetes Compared to Type 2, New Study Finds
Mapping Blood Vessel Cells Could Pave the Way for New Diabetes Treatments
Addressing Gaps in Postpartum Care for Women with Gestational Diabetes
