Glucose values from the same continuous glucose monitoring sensor significantly differ among readers with different generations of algorithm

• Published in: Scientific reports Vol. 14; no. 1; pp. 5099 - 8
• Main Authors: Babaya, Naru, Noso, Shinsuke, Hiromine, Yoshihisa, Taketomo, Yasunori, Niwano, Fumimaru, Yoshida, Sawa, Yasutake, Sara, Kawabata, Yumiko, Maeda, Norikazu, Ikegami, Hiroshi
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London Nature Publishing Group UK 01.03.2024; Nature Publishing Group; Nature Portfolio
• Subjects: 692/163/2743; 692/163/2743/137; Algorithms; Blood Glucose; Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring; Continuous Glucose Monitoring; Diabetes mellitus; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1; Glucose; Glucose monitoring; Glycated Hemoglobin; Hemoglobin; Humanities and Social Sciences; Humans; multidisciplinary; Science; Science (multidisciplinary); Sensors
• ISSN: 2045-2322; 2045-2322
• DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-55124-3

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) values obtained from CGM systems using the same sensor but with different internal algorithms (the first- and third-generation FreeStyle Libre (1st-gen-libre and 3rd-gen-libre, respectively)) were compared. We used 19,819 paired and simultaneously measured CGM values of 13 patients with diabetes. The average CGM value was significantly higher ( P  < 0.0001) and the time below range (CGM value < 70 mg/dL) was significantly lower ( P  < 0.0001) with the 3rd-gen-libre than with the 1st-gen-libre. There was a significant correlation ( P  < 0.0001) between the CGM values of the 3rd-gen-libre (y-axis, mg/dL) and 1st-gen-libre (x-axis, mg/dL) using the following formula: y = 0.9728x + 10.024. On assessing the association between glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c (%), y-axis) and the average CGM values (x-axis, mg/dL) by applying the obtained equation to previously reported 1st-gen-libre data and converting it to 3rd-gen-libre data, we obtained the equation y = 0.02628x + 3.233, indicating that the glucose management indicator reported in the West may be underestimated compared with the laboratory-measured HbA1c in the Japanese population. Glucose values from the same sensor were found to be significantly different between readers with different algorithms, and the calculation of CGM-related indices may need to be individualized for each device.