Validity of continuous glucose monitoring for categorizing glycemic responses to diet: Implications for use in personalized nutrition

TY - JOUR

T1 - Validity of continuous glucose monitoring for categorizing glycemic responses to diet

T2 - Implications for use in personalized nutrition

AU - Merino, Jordi

AU - Linenberg, Inbar

AU - Bermingham, Kate M.

AU - Ganesh, Sajaysurya

AU - Bakker, Elco

AU - Delahanty, Linda M.

AU - Chan, Andrew T.

AU - Capdevila Pujol, Joan

AU - Wolf, Jonathan

AU - Al Khatib, Haya

AU - Franks, Paul W.

AU - Spector, Tim D.

AU - Ordovas, Jose M.

AU - Berry, Sarah E.

AU - Valdes, Ana M.

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2022 The Author(s) 2022.

PY - 2022/6/1

Y1 - 2022/6/1

N2 - Background: Continuous glucose monitor (CGM) devices enable characterization of individuals' glycemic variation. However, there are concerns about their reliability for categorizing glycemic responses to foods that would limit their potential application in personalized nutrition recommendations. Objectives: We aimed to evaluate the concordance of 2 simultaneously worn CGM devices in measuring postprandial glycemic responses. Methods: Within ZOE PREDICT (Personalised Responses to Dietary Composition Trial) 1, 394 participants wore 2 CGM devices simultaneously [n = 360 participants with 2 Abbott Freestyle Libre Pro (FSL) devices; n = 34 participants with both FSL and Dexcom G6] for ≤14 d while consuming standardized (n = 4457) and ad libitum (n = 5738) meals. We examined the CV and correlation of the incremental area under the glucose curve at 2 h (glucoseiAUC0-2 h). Within-subject meal ranking was assessed using Kendall τ rank correlation. Concordance between paired devices in time in range according to the American Diabetes Association cutoffs (TIRADA) and glucose variability (glucose CV) was also investigated. Results: The CV of glucoseiAUC0-2 h for standardized meals was 3.7% (IQR: 1.7%-7.1%) for intrabrand device and 12.5% (IQR: 5.1%-24.8%) for interbrand device comparisons. Similar estimates were observed for ad libitum meals, with intrabrand and interbrand device CVs of glucoseiAUC0-2 h of 4.1% (IQR: 1.8%-7.1%) and 16.6% (IQR: 5.5%-30.7%), respectively. Kendall τ rank correlation showed glucoseiAUC0-2h-derived meal rankings were agreeable between paired CGM devices (intrabrand: 0.9; IQR: 0.8-0.9; interbrand: 0.7; IQR: 0.5-0.8). Paired CGMs also showed strong concordance for TIRADA with a intrabrand device CV of 4.8% (IQR: 1.9%-9.8%) and an interbrand device CV of 3.2% (IQR: 1.1%-6.2%). Conclusions: Our data demonstrate strong concordance of CGM devices in monitoring glycemic responses and suggest their potential use in personalized nutrition.

AB - Background: Continuous glucose monitor (CGM) devices enable characterization of individuals' glycemic variation. However, there are concerns about their reliability for categorizing glycemic responses to foods that would limit their potential application in personalized nutrition recommendations. Objectives: We aimed to evaluate the concordance of 2 simultaneously worn CGM devices in measuring postprandial glycemic responses. Methods: Within ZOE PREDICT (Personalised Responses to Dietary Composition Trial) 1, 394 participants wore 2 CGM devices simultaneously [n = 360 participants with 2 Abbott Freestyle Libre Pro (FSL) devices; n = 34 participants with both FSL and Dexcom G6] for ≤14 d while consuming standardized (n = 4457) and ad libitum (n = 5738) meals. We examined the CV and correlation of the incremental area under the glucose curve at 2 h (glucoseiAUC0-2 h). Within-subject meal ranking was assessed using Kendall τ rank correlation. Concordance between paired devices in time in range according to the American Diabetes Association cutoffs (TIRADA) and glucose variability (glucose CV) was also investigated. Results: The CV of glucoseiAUC0-2 h for standardized meals was 3.7% (IQR: 1.7%-7.1%) for intrabrand device and 12.5% (IQR: 5.1%-24.8%) for interbrand device comparisons. Similar estimates were observed for ad libitum meals, with intrabrand and interbrand device CVs of glucoseiAUC0-2 h of 4.1% (IQR: 1.8%-7.1%) and 16.6% (IQR: 5.5%-30.7%), respectively. Kendall τ rank correlation showed glucoseiAUC0-2h-derived meal rankings were agreeable between paired CGM devices (intrabrand: 0.9; IQR: 0.8-0.9; interbrand: 0.7; IQR: 0.5-0.8). Paired CGMs also showed strong concordance for TIRADA with a intrabrand device CV of 4.8% (IQR: 1.9%-9.8%) and an interbrand device CV of 3.2% (IQR: 1.1%-6.2%). Conclusions: Our data demonstrate strong concordance of CGM devices in monitoring glycemic responses and suggest their potential use in personalized nutrition.

KW - continuous glucose monitoring

KW - diet

KW - glycemic variability

KW - meal responses

KW - precision nutrition

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85130256988&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/ajcn/nqac026

DO - 10.1093/ajcn/nqac026

M3 - Article

C2 - 35134821

AN - SCOPUS:85130256988

SN - 0002-9165

VL - 115

SP - 1569

EP - 1576

JO - American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

JF - American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

IS - 6

ER -