Scientific Reports (Mar 2024)

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

  • Naru Babaya,
  • Shinsuke Noso,
  • Yoshihisa Hiromine,
  • Yasunori Taketomo,
  • Fumimaru Niwano,
  • Sawa Yoshida,
  • Sara Yasutake,
  • Yumiko Kawabata,
  • Norikazu Maeda,
  • Hiroshi Ikegami

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-55124-3
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 14, no. 1
pp. 1 – 8

Abstract

Read online

Abstract 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.