Glycemic Variability and Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Occupational Health: A Narrative Review of Emerging Evidence and Potential Applications in Working Populations

Background: Fasting plasma glucose, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), and oral glucose tolerance testing remain central to the diagnosis and monitoring of dysglycemia, but they mainly reflect the average glycemic exposure or discrete time-point measurements and may not capture intraday and interday glucose fluctuations. Glycemic variability (GV) has been associated with oxidative stress, endothelial dysfunction, inflammation, and diabetes-related complications, although much of the evidence derives from experimental, clinical, and diabetes-care settings rather than occupational cohorts. Aim: This narrative review examines the physiological basis, measurement, and potential occupational relevance of GV and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in working populations. Methods: Literature was narratively selected from biomedical databases, major guidelines, consensus statements, and occupational-health sources, prioritizing reviews, clinical guidelines, cohort studies, mechanistic studies, and CGM studies. No systematic search, risk-of-bias assessment, or quantitative synthesis was performed. Main findings: CGM is an established technology in selected diabetes-care contexts and provides metrics such as coefficient of variation, time in range, time above range, and time below range. Its use in occupational medicine, however, remains investigational outside selected clinical circumstances. Work-related factors such as shift work, circadian disruption, sleep loss, psychosocial stress, irregular meal timing, sedentary behavior, and variable physical workload may influence glucose regulation, but direct evidence linking these exposures to CGM-measured GV in workers remains limited. Implications: Potential applications include research on occupational determinants of metabolic health, monitoring of workplace lifestyle interventions, and individualized management of workers with diabetes in safety-sensitive roles, provided that consent, confidentiality, clinical follow-up, equity, and data-governance safeguards are ensured. Conclusions: GV assessment may complement traditional metabolic markers in selected occupational-health contexts, but routine CGM-based surveillance of general worker populations is not currently supported by sufficient evidence. Further longitudinal and interventional studies are required.