Continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) are becoming increasingly available, yet the relationship between CGM metrics and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) among individuals with prediabetes and normoglycemia remains unclear. We examined associations between HbA1c and eight CGM metrics across glycemic status. Our cohort included 972 individuals: 421 (43.3%) with type 2 diabetes, 319 (32.8%) with prediabetes, and 232 (23.9%) with normoglycemia. Associations were strongest in type 2 diabetes, with mean glucose showing the strongest relationships (standardized β = 0.79, P < 0.001). In prediabetes, associations were substantially attenuated, with mean glucose showing moderate association (standardized β = 0.22, P < 0.001). Among individuals with normoglycemia, CGM metrics showed minimal associations with HbA1c, with mean glucose demonstrating a weak association (standardized β = 0.10, P = 0.022) and time in range showing no significant relationship. All interaction terms were statistically significant (P < 0.001). These findings suggest that standard CGM metrics should not be interpreted to reflect HbA1c for individuals with prediabetes and normoglycemia.
KlonoffDC, NguyenKT, XuNY, et al.Use of continuous glucose monitors by people without diabetes: An idea whose time has come? J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2023; 17(6):1686–1697; doi: 10.1177/19322968221110830
DanneT, NimriR, BattelinoT, et al.International consensus on use of continuous glucose monitoring. Diabetes Care, 2017; 40(12):1631–1640; doi: 10.2337/dc17-1600
4.
BattelinoT, AlexanderCM, AmielSA, et al.Continuous glucose monitoring and metrics for clinical trials: An international consensus statement. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol, 2023; 11(1):42–57; doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(22)00319-9
5.
MontaserE, FabrisC, KovatchevB. Essential continuous glucose monitoring metrics: The principal dimensions of glycemic control in diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2022; 24(11):797–804; doi: 10.1089/dia.2022.0104
6.
SelvinE. The glucose management indicator: Time to change course? Diabetes Care, 2024; 47(6):906–914; doi: 10.2337/dci23-0086
7.
MontaserE, AbadSE, ShahVN. Changes in A1C versus GMI across glycemic categories in clinical trials of Type 1 diabetes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab, 2025:dgaf211; doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgaf211
8.
ShahVN, VigersT, PyleL, et al.Discordance between glucose management indicator and glycated hemoglobin in people without diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2023; 25(5):324–328; doi: 10.1089/dia.2022.0544
9.
SpartanoNL, SultanaN, LinH, et al.Defining continuous glucose monitor time in range in a large, community-based cohort without diabetes. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 2025; 110(4):dgae626–d1134; doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgae626
10.
KeshetA, ShiloS, GodnevaA, et al.CGMap: Characterizing continuous glucose monitor data in thousands of non-diabetic individuals. Cell Metab, 2023; 35(5):758–769.e3; doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2023.04.002
11.
LutskerG, SapirG, ShiloS, et al.From glucose patterns to health outcomes: A generalizable foundation model for continuous glucose monitor data analysis. ArXiv, 2025; doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.11876
12.
MontaserE, FarhyLS, KovatchevBP. Novel detection and progression markers for diabetes based on continuous glucose monitoring data dynamics. J Clin Endocrinol Metab, 2024; 110(1):254–262; doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgae379
13.
Documentation for the AI-READI Dataset. Available from: https://docs.aireadi.org/ [Last accessed: March17, 2025].
14.
BaxterSL, et al.; AI-READI Consortium, Writing Committee. AI-READI: Rethinking AI data collection, preparation and sharing in diabetes research and beyond. Nat Metab, 2024; 6(12):2210–2212; doi: 10.1038/s42255-024-01165-x
15.
ServiceFJ, NelsonRL. Characteristics of glycemic stability. Diabetes Care, 1980; 3(1):58–62; doi: 10.2337/diacare.3.1.58
16.
FernandesNJ, NguyenN, ChunE, et al.Open-source algorithm to calculate mean amplitude of glycemic excursions using short and long moving averages. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2022; 16(2):576–577; doi: 10.1177/19322968211061165
WójcickiJM. J”-Index. A New proposition of the assessment of current glucose control in diabetic patients. Horm Metab Res, 1995; 27(1):41–42; doi: 10.1055/s-2007-979906
BrollS, UrbanekJ, BuchananD, et al.Interpreting blood GLUcose data with R package iglu. PLoS One, 2021; 16(4):e0248560; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248560
21.
EichenlaubM, WaldenmaierD, WehrstedtS, et al.Performance of three continuous glucose monitoring systems in adults with Type 1 Diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2025:19322968251315459; doi: 10.1177/19322968251315459
22.
XuY, BergenstalRM, DunnTC, et al.Interindividual variability in average glucose-glycated haemoglobin relationship in type 1 diabetes and implications for clinical practice. Diabetes Obes Metab, 2022; 24(9):1779–1787; doi: 10.1111/dom.14763
23.
DunnTC, XuY, BergenstalRM, et al.Personalized glycated hemoglobin in diabetes management: Closing the gap with glucose management indicator. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2023; 25(S3):S65–S74; doi: 10.1089/dia.2023.0146
24.
SpartanoNL, PrescottB, WalkerME, et al.Expert clinical interpretation of continuous glucose monitor reports from individuals without diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol, 2025:19322968251315171; doi: 10.1177/19322968251315171
25.
RichardsonKM, SchembreSM, da SilvaV, et al.Adding a brief continuous glucose monitoring intervention to the national diabetes prevention program: A multimethod feasibility study. J Diabetes Res, 2024; 2024:7687694; doi: 10.1155/2024/7687694
26.
MayberryLS, GuyC, HendricksonCD, et al.Rates and correlates of uptake of continuous glucose monitors among adults with Type 2 Diabetes in primary care and endocrinology settings. J Gen Intern Med, 2023; 38(11):2546–2552; doi: 10.1007/s11606-023-08222-3
27.
RodriguezJA, Prada-ReyN, GaoC, et al.Language disparities in continuous glucose monitoring for Type 2 diabetes. JAMA Netw Open, 2025; 8(6):e2516523; doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.16523
28.
RichardsonS, LawrenceK, SchoenthalerAM, MannD. A framework for digital health equity. NPJ Digit Med, 2022; 5(1):119; doi: 10.1038/s41746-022-00663-0
29.
RodriguezJA, ZelenM, SzulakJ, et al.A system-wide approach to digital equity: The Digital Access Coordinator program in primary care. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 2024; 31(7):ocae104–o1587; doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocae104
30.
MarcoA, Pazos-CouseloM, Moreno-FernandezJ, et al.Time above range for predicting the development of type 2 diabetes. Front Public Health, 2022; 10:1005513; doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1005513
31.
DurnwaldC, BeckRW, LiZ, et al.Continuous glucose monitoring profiles in pregnancies with and without gestational diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care, 2024; 47(8):1333–1341; doi: 10.2337/dc23-2149
32.
ForemanYD, BrouwersMCGJ, van der KallenCJH, et al.Glucose variability assessed with continuous glucose monitoring: Reliability, reference values, and correlations with established glycemic indices-The Maastricht Study. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2020; 22(5):395–403; doi: 10.1089/dia.2019.0385
33.
DayaNR, FangM, WangD, et al.Glucose abnormalities detected by continuous glucose monitoring in very old adults with and without diabetes. Diabetes Care, 2025; 48(3):416–421; doi: 10.2337/dc24-1990
34.
CohenRM, FrancoRS, KheraPK, et al.Red cell life span heterogeneity in hematologically normal people is sufficient to alter HbA1c. Blood, 2008; 112(10):4284–4291; doi: 10.1182/blood-2008-04-154112
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
