Research Article

Could different cut-off values be used for 50-gram glucose tolerance test in low and high risk groups?

Volume: 10 Number: 5 September 4, 2024
EN

Could different cut-off values be used for 50-gram glucose tolerance test in low and high risk groups?

Abstract

Objectives: There are controversies about screening strategy and cut-off levels for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). Here, we aimed to identify optimal cut-off values for 50-gram oral glucose tolerance testing (OGTT) in high and low risk pregnant women.

Methods: A total of 500 patients who underwent two step OGTT were divided into two groups as GDM (n=31) and controls (n=469). Moreover, patients were grouped as high (n=114) and low risk (n=386) for GDM. Having≥2 risk factors such as family history of type-2 diabetes, obesity, glucosuria, previous history of GDM, macrosomia and diabetic complications were accepted as high risk. Demographic data, OGTT results, birth characteristics were recorded and compared between groups. A cut-off value for 50-gram OGTT was evaluated in low and high risk groups.

Results: The 50-gram OGTT value above 140 mg/dL discriminated GDM with 100% sensitivity and 92.11% specificity in all patients (AUC=0.969, P<0.001). The prevalence of GDM was 19.3% in high and 2.3% in low risk group. The 50-gram OGTT value above 140 mg/dL discriminated GDM with 100% sensitivity and 94.57% specificity in high risk patients (AUC=0.992, P<0.001). Furthermore, 50-gram OGTT value above 149 mg/dL discriminated GDM with 100% sensitivity and 93.63% specificity in low risk patients (AUC=0.976, P<0.001).

Conclusions: Although screening in low risk population is a debating issue worldwide, our local guidelines still recommend screening all pregnant women. We suggest that performing 100-gram OGTT only in patients who have higher values than 149 mg/dL in 50-gram OGTT can be an alternative screening strategy in low risk group.

Keywords

Ethical Statement

Local ethics committee approved this study with a decision number of 2024-TBEK 2024/06-11.

References

  1. 1. Diagnostic criteria and classification of hyperglycaemia first detected in pregnancy: a World Health Organization Guideline. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2014;103(3):341-363. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2013.10.012.
  2. 2. Ye W, Luo C, Huang J, Li C, Liu Z, Liu F. Gestational diabetes mellitus and adverse pregnancy outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2022;377:e067946. doi: 10.1136/bmj-2021-067946.
  3. 3. Evans MJ. Review: Diabetes and pregnancy: a review of pathology. Br J Diabetes Vasc Dis. 2009;9(5):201-206. doi: 10.1177/1474651409344924.
  4. 4. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Practice Bulletin No. 30. Clinical management guidelines for obstetrician-gynecologists. Gestational Diabetes. Washington DC: ACOG; September 2001.
  5. 5. American Diabetes Association. Position statement: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2006. Diabetes Care 2006;29(Suppl_1):S4-S42. doi: 10.2337/diacare.29.s1.06.s4.
  6. 6. US Preventive Services Task Force; Davidson KW, Barry MJ, Mangione CM, et al. Screening for Gestational Diabetes: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2021;326(6):531-538. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.11922.
  7. 7. American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee. 2. Classification and Diagnosis of Diabetes: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2022. Diabetes Care. 2022;45(Suppl 1):S17-S38. doi: 10.2337/dc22-S002.
  8. 8. Crowther CA, Tran T. Lower versus Higher Glycemic Criteria for Diagnosis of Gestational Diabetes. Reply. N Engl J Med. 2022;387(18):1720-1721. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2212585.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Journal Section

Research Article

Early Pub Date

July 25, 2024

Publication Date

September 4, 2024

Submission Date

June 25, 2024

Acceptance Date

July 17, 2024

Published in Issue

Year 1970 Volume: 10 Number: 5

AMA
1.Dinçgez B, Özgen G, Özgen L. Could different cut-off values be used for 50-gram glucose tolerance test in low and high risk groups? Eur Res J. 2024;10(5):448-455. doi:10.18621/eurj.1505012