Key result
CGM identifies abnormal glucose profiles in ~20% of patients with normal OGTT findings.
Why the study?
Does Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) improve the diagnosis of prediabetes compared to the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT)?
Observational (n=109)
Does Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) improve the diagnosis of prediabetes compared to the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT)?
Effect estimate: phi=0.78
p-value: p=<0.05
Continuous Glucose Monitoring may identify early prediabetes in approximately 20% of patients who are missed by standard oral glucose tolerance testing.
Introduction and Objective: The oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) is used for diagnosis of carbohydrate abnormalities. Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) is already routinely used in diabetes patients for control assessment, but it is also used for determining early prediabetes. The objective is to estimate the ability to use CGM for carbohydrate disorders diagnosis when observing prediabetes. Methods: 109 patients (57 women, mean age 40.01±8.87 years) performed CGM by using DexcomONE+ for ten days and consequent OGTT afterwards. Mean weight was 89.07±12.73 kg, mean BMI was 32.86±2.0 kg/sq.m. and mean HbA1c 5.58±0.38 %. Results: For assessment of diagnostic potency of CGM we compared time-above-the-range (TAR), time-within-the-range (TIR) and fasting and 120th minute glucose level. 75 patients were with normal glucose tolerance according to OGTT. Of them 20% were with higher TAR (>5.0%) and showed abnormal increase in glucose level usually after meal. 7 patients were diagnosed with diabetes based on OGTT and were excluded from data assessment. In patients with diagnosed impaired glucose tolerance or with increased fasting glucose, CGM showed increased time above the set range (TAR) of 7.8 mmol/l and area above the curve (phi=0.78, p<0.05). Conclusion: CGM reveals additional opportunities for early prediabetes diagnosis as OGTT is omitting approximately 20 % of case with changes in glucose profile. CGM could lead to appropriate recommendations and treatment. Disclosure T. Totomirova: None. M. Arnaudova: None. N. Kostadinov: None.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
TOTOMIROVA et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Prediabetes (n=109). Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) vs. Oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) was evaluated on Diagnostic potency for carbohydrate disorders (time-above-the-range, time-within-the-range, and fasting/120th minute glucose) (phi=0.78, p=<0.05). Continuous Glucose Monitoring identified abnormal glucose profiles (higher time-above-range) in 20% of patients who had normal glucose tolerance according to standard OGTT.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: