Difference on Glucose Profile From Continuous Glucose Monitoring in People With Prediabetes vs. Normoglycemic Individuals: A Matched-Pair Analysis.

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Comprehensive characteristics of the glycemic profile for prediabetes derived by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) are unknown. We evaluate the difference of CGM profiles between individuals with prediabetes and normoglycemic individuals, including the response to oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). METHODS: Individuals with prediabetes matched for age, sex, and BMI with normoglycemic individuals were instructed to use professional CGM for 1 week. OGTT was performed on the second day. The primary outcomes were percentages of glucose readings time below range (TBR) <54 or <70 mg/dL, time in range (TIR) 70 to 180 mg/dL, and time above range (TAR) >180 or >250 mg/dL. Area under the curve (AUC) was calculated following the OGTT. Glucose variability was depicted by coefficient of variation (CV), SD, and mean amplitude of glucose excursion (MAGE). Wilcoxon sign-ranked test, McNemar mid P-test and linear regression models were employed. RESULTS: In all, 36 participants (median age 51 years; median body mass index [BMI] = 26.4 kg/m2) formed 18 matched pairs. Statistically significant differences were observed for 24-hour time in range (TIR; median 98.5% vs. 99.9%, P = .013), time above range (TAR) >180 mg/dl (0.4% vs. 0%, P = .0062), and 24-hour mean interstitial glucose (113.8 vs. 108.8 mg/dL, P = .0038) between people with prediabetes compared to normoglycemic participants. Statistically significant differences favoring the normoglycemic group were found for glycemic variability indexes (median CV 15.2% vs. 11.9%, P = .0156; median MAGE 44.3 vs. 33.3 mg/dL, P = 0.0043). Following OGTT, the AUC was significantly lower in normoglycemic compared to the prediabetes group (median 18615.3 vs. 16370.0, P = .0347 for total and 4666.5 vs. 2792.7, P = .0429 for incremental 2-hour post OGTT). CONCLUSION: Individuals with prediabetes have different glucose profiles compared to normoglycemic individuals. CGM might be helpful in individuals with borderline glucose values for a more accurate reclassification.