Aim
The Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of India (DIPSI) guidelines recommend the non-fasting 75-g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) as a single-step screening and diagnostic test for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). The aim of this study was to compare the DIPSI criteria with the World Health Organization (WHO) 1999 and the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria for GDM.MethodsA total of 1,031 pregnant women attending antenatal clinics in urban and rural Tamil Nadu, India, underwent a 75-g OGTT in both non-fasting and fasting states, 2–3 days apart. Venous plasma glucose was measured using an autoanalyser, and GDM was diagnosed by DIPSI, WHO 1999 and IADPSG criteria.ResultsOf the 83 women identified to have GDM by WHO 1999 criteria, only 23 were diagnosed by DIPSI criteria. Of the 106 women diagnosed to have GDM by the IADPSG criteria, only 24 were diagnosed by DIPSI. The DIPSI non-fasting OGTT 2-h VPG cut point of 140 mg/dl (7.8 mmol/l) had a very low sensitivity when compared to the WHO 1999 criteria (sensitivity 27.7 %, specificity 97.7 %) and IADPSG criteria (sensitivity 22.6 %, specificity 97.8 %).ConclusionsThe DIPSI non-fasting OGTT criteria cannot be recommended for diagnosis of GDM due to its low sensitivity. Thus, as a single-step diagnostic test for GDM, the fasting OGTT needs to be done. When this is not possible, the well-established two-step procedure using the 50-g glucose challenge test as an initial screening test, followed by the diagnostic fasting OGTT, can be continued.
PA levels are inadequate amongst this group of pregnant women studied i.e. those with and without GDM. However, a low-cost, culturally appropriate MOC can bring about significant improvements in PA in women with GDM. These changes are associated with improved glycemic control and reduction in adverse neonatal outcomes.
AimsThe aim of the study was to evaluate usefulness of capillary blood glucose (CBG) for diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) in resource-constrained settings where venous plasma glucose (VPG) estimations may be impossible.MethodsConsecutive pregnant women (n = 1031) attending antenatal clinics in southern India underwent 75-g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). Fasting, 1- and 2-h VPG (AU2700 Beckman, Fullerton, CA) and CBG (One Touch Ultra-II, LifeScan) were simultaneously measured. Sensitivity and specificity were estimated for different CBG cut points using the International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria for the diagnosis of GDM as gold standard. Bland–Altman plots were drawn to look at the agreement between CBG and VPG. Correlation and regression equation analysis were also derived for CBG values.ResultsPearson’s correlation between VPG and CBG for fasting was r = 0.433 [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.596, p < 0.001], for 1H, it was r = 0.653 (ICC = 0.776, p < 0.001), and for 2H, r = 0.784 (ICC = 0.834, p < 0.001). Comparing a single CBG 2-h cut point of 140 mg/dl (7.8 mmol/l) with the IADPSG criteria, the sensitivity and specificity were 62.3 and 80.7 %, respectively. If CBG cut points of 120 mg/dl (6.6 mmol/l) or 110 mg/dl (6.1 mmol/l) were used, the sensitivity improves to 78.3 and 92.5 %, respectively. ConclusionsIn settings where VPG estimations are not possible, CBG can be used as an initial screening test for GDM, using lower 2H CBG cut points to maximize the sensitivity. Those who screen positive can be referred to higher centers for definitive testing, using VPG.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00592-015-0761-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.