Viral N Shah1, Stephanie N DuBose2, Zoey Li2, Roy W Beck2, Anne L Peters3, Ruth S Weinstock4, Davida Kruger5, Michael Tansey6, David Sparling7, Stephanie Woerner8, Francesco Vendrame9, Richard Bergenstal10, William V Tamborlane11, Sara E Watson12, Jennifer Sherr11. 1. Barbara Davis Center for Diabetes, Aurora, Colorado. 2. Jaeb Center for Health Research, Tampa, Florida. 3. Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California. 4. SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, New York. 5. Henry Ford Medical Center, Detroit, Michigan. 6. University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa. 7. University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. 8. Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana. 9. University of Miami, Miami, Florida. 10. International Diabetes Center Park Nicollet, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 11. Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut. 12. University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is increasing for insulin-requiring patients with diabetes. Although data on glycemic profiles of healthy, nondiabetic individuals exist for older sensors, assessment of glycemic metrics with new-generation CGM devices is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To establish reference sensor glucose ranges in healthy, nondiabetic individuals across different age groups using a current generation CGM sensor. DESIGN: Multicenter, prospective study. SETTING: Twelve centers within the T1D Exchange Clinic Network. PATIENTS OR PARTICIPANTS: Nonpregnant, healthy, nondiabetic children and adults (age ≥6 years) with nonobese body mass index. INTERVENTION: Each participant wore a blinded Dexcom G6 CGM, with once-daily calibration, for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: CGM metrics of mean glucose, hyperglycemia, hypoglycemia, and glycemic variability. RESULTS: A total of 153 participants (age 7 to 80 years) were included in the analyses. Mean average glucose was 98 to 99 mg/dL (5.4 to 5.5 mmol/L) for all age groups except those over 60 years, in whom mean average glucose was 104 mg/dL (5.8 mmol/L). The median time between 70 to 140 mg/dL (3.9 to 7.8 mmol/L) was 96% (interquartile range, 93 to 98). Mean within-individual coefficient of variation was 17 ± 3%. Median time spent with glucose levels >140 mg/dL was 2.1% (30 min/d), and median time spent with glucose levels <70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L) was 1.1% (15 min/d). CONCLUSION: By assessing across age groups in a healthy, nondiabetic population, normative sensor glucose data have been derived and will be useful as a benchmark for future research studies.
CONTEXT: Use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is increasing for insulin-requiring patients with diabetes. Although data on glycemic profiles of healthy, nondiabetic individuals exist for older sensors, assessment of glycemic metrics with new-generation CGM devices is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To establish reference sensor glucose ranges in healthy, nondiabetic individuals across different age groups using a current generation CGM sensor. DESIGN: Multicenter, prospective study. SETTING: Twelve centers within the T1D Exchange Clinic Network. PATIENTS OR PARTICIPANTS: Nonpregnant, healthy, nondiabetic children and adults (age ≥6 years) with nonobese body mass index. INTERVENTION: Each participant wore a blinded Dexcom G6 CGM, with once-daily calibration, for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: CGM metrics of mean glucose, hyperglycemia, hypoglycemia, and glycemic variability. RESULTS: A total of 153 participants (age 7 to 80 years) were included in the analyses. Mean average glucose was 98 to 99 mg/dL (5.4 to 5.5 mmol/L) for all age groups except those over 60 years, in whom mean average glucose was 104 mg/dL (5.8 mmol/L). The median time between 70 to 140 mg/dL (3.9 to 7.8 mmol/L) was 96% (interquartile range, 93 to 98). Mean within-individual coefficient of variation was 17 ± 3%. Median time spent with glucose levels >140 mg/dL was 2.1% (30 min/d), and median time spent with glucose levels <70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L) was 1.1% (15 min/d). CONCLUSION: By assessing across age groups in a healthy, nondiabetic population, normative sensor glucose data have been derived and will be useful as a benchmark for future research studies.
Authors: Michael Bergman; Muhammad Abdul-Ghani; João Sérgio Neves; Mariana P Monteiro; Jose Luiz Medina; Brenda Dorcely; Martin Buysschaert Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2020-08-01 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Rose A Gubitosi-Klug; Barbara H Braffett; Ionut Bebu; Mary L Johnson; Kaleigh Farrell; David Kenny; Victoria R Trapani; Lynne Meadema-Mayer; Elsayed Z Soliman; Rodica Pop-Busui; John M Lachin; Richard M Bergenstal; William V Tamborlane Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2022-03-01 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Kevin J Scully; Jordan S Sherwood; Kimberly Martin; Melanie Ruazol; Peter Marchetti; Mary Larkin; Hui Zheng; Gregory S Sawicki; Ahmet Uluer; Isabel Neuringer; Lael M Yonker; Leonard Sicilian; Deborah J Wexler; Melissa S Putman Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2022-03-24 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Michael Bergman; Muhammad Abdul-Ghani; Ralph A DeFronzo; Melania Manco; Giorgio Sesti; Teresa Vanessa Fiorentino; Antonio Ceriello; Mary Rhee; Lawrence S Phillips; Stephanie Chung; Celeste Cravalho; Ram Jagannathan; Louis Monnier; Claude Colette; David Owens; Cristina Bianchi; Stefano Del Prato; Mariana P Monteiro; João Sérgio Neves; Jose Luiz Medina; Maria Paula Macedo; Rogério Tavares Ribeiro; João Filipe Raposo; Brenda Dorcely; Nouran Ibrahim; Martin Buysschaert Journal: Diabetes Res Clin Pract Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 5.602
Authors: Daniel Lee; Jonathan M Dreyfuss; Amanda Sheehan; Alexa Puleio; Christopher M Mulla; Mary Elizabeth Patti Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2021-07-13 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Yu Kuei Lin; Danielle Groat; Owen Chan; Man Hung; Anu Sharma; Michael W Varner; Ramkiran Gouripeddi; Julio C Facelli; Simon J Fisher Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2020-10-13 Impact factor: 6.118