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
References
- 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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
Authors
Burcu Dinçgez
*
0000-0002-2697-7501
Türkiye
Gülten Özgen
0000-0002-7888-7583
Türkiye
Levent Özgen
0000-0003-0070-2646
Türkiye
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