RESUMO
AIMS: The oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), used for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) diagnosis for over 65 years, has poor acceptability and tolerability. Continuous glucose monitoring is being considered as potential alternative. The aim of our study was to formally assess women's and health care professionals' perception of both tests as diagnostic tools for GDM. METHODS: Participants in a pilot study on continuous glucose monitoring for GDM diagnosis were invited to fill two questionnaires, each of 6 Likert-scale and one optional open-ended question. A range of healthcare practitioners were also invited to fill a questionnaire of 13 Likert-scale and 7 optional open-ended questions. RESULTS: Sixty women completed the OGTT and 70 the continuous glucose monitoring questionnaire. OGTT was reported as poorly acceptable. Continuous glucose monitoring was described as significantly more tolerable (81% vs 27% 5/5 general acceptability rate, p < 0.001); ninety-three percent of the participants would recommend it for GDM diagnosis. Thirty health care professionals completed the survey. Most of them (73%) had confidence in OGTT as a diagnostic test for GDM with 66% raising some concerns. Doubts on continuous glucose monitoring were raised in terms of costs, accessibility and accuracy for GDM diagnosis due to "lack of evidence". CONCLUSIONS: Continuous glucose monitoring was substantially better tolerated for women than OGTT. Current lack of evidence for diagnostic accuracy for GDM underlines the need for studies on correlation between continuous glucose monitoring parameters and pregnancy outcomes to strengthen evidence for its use as diagnostic test for GDM.
Assuntos
Diabetes Gestacional , Gravidez , Feminino , Humanos , Diabetes Gestacional/diagnóstico , Teste de Tolerância a Glucose , Glicemia , Automonitorização da Glicemia , Projetos Piloto , Monitoramento Contínuo da Glicose , Inquéritos e QuestionáriosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM) incidence and adverse outcomes have increased globally. The validity of the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) for GDM diagnosis has long been questioned, with no suitable substitute reported yet. Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) is potentially a more acceptable and comprehensive test. The aim of this study was to assess the Freestyle Libre Pro 2 acceptability as a diagnostic test for GDM, then triangulating its results with OGTT results as well as risk factors and sonographic features of GDM. METHODS: Women wore the CGM device for 7 days at 24-28 weeks, undergoing the OGTT before CGM removal. CGM/OGTT acceptability as well as GDM risk factors evaluation occurred via three online surveys. CGM distribution/variability/time in range parameters, combined in a CGM Score of Variability (CGMSV), were triangulated with OGTT results and a risk-factor-based Total Risk Score (TRS). In a subgroup, GDM ultrasound features (as modified Ultrasound Gestational Diabetes Score - m-UGDS) were also incorporated. RESULTS: Of 107 women recruited, 87 (81%) were included: 74 (85%) with negative OGTT (NGT) and 13 (15%) positive (GDM). No significant difference was found between NGT and GDM in terms of demographics (apart from family history of diabetes mellitus), CGM parameters and perinatal outcomes. Women considered CGM significantly more acceptable than OGTT (81% versus 27% rating 5/5, p < 0.001). Of the 55 NGT with triangulation data, 28 were considered 'true negative' (TRS concordant with OGTT and CGMSV): of these 4/5 evaluated at ultrasound had m-UGDS below the cut-off. Five women were considered 'false negative' (negative OGTT with both TRS and CGMSV above the respective cut-offs). Triangulation identified also six 'false positive' women (positive OGTT but TRS and CGM both below the cut-offs). Only one woman for each of the last two categories had m-UGDS evaluated, with discordant results. CONCLUSIONS: CGM represents a more acceptable alternative for GDM diagnosis to the OGTT. CGM triangulation analysis suggests OGTT screening may result in both false positives and negatives. Further research including larger cohorts of patients, and additional triangulation elements (such as GDM biomarkers/outcomes and expanded m-UGDS) is needed to explore CGM potential for GDM diagnosis.
Assuntos
Diabetes Gestacional , Gravidez , Humanos , Feminino , Diabetes Gestacional/diagnóstico , Diabetes Gestacional/epidemiologia , Glicemia , Projetos Piloto , Automonitorização da Glicemia , Teste de Tolerância a GlucoseRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Established risk factors for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM) include age, ethnicity, family history of diabetes and previous GDM. Additional significant influences have recently been demonstrated in the literature. The oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) used for GDM diagnosis has sub-optimal sensitivity and specificity, thus often results in GDM misdiagnoses. Comprehensive screening of risk factors may allow more targeted monitoring and more accurate diagnoses, preventing the devastating consequences of untreated or misdiagnosed GDM. We aimed to develop a comprehensive online questionnaire of GDM risk factors and triangulate it with the OGTT and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) parameters to better evaluate GDM risk and diagnosis. METHODS: Pregnant women participating in two studies on the use of CGM for GDM were invited to complete the online questionnaire. A risk score, based on published literature, was calculated for each participant response and compared with the OGTT result. A total risk score (TRS) was then calculated as a normalised sum of all risk factors. Triangulation of OGTT, TRS and CGM score of variability (CGMSV) was analysed to expand evaluation of OGTT results. RESULTS: Fifty one women completed the questionnaire; 29 were identified as 'high-risk' for GDM. High-risk ethnic background (p < 0.01), advanced age, a family diabetic history (p < 0.05) were associated with a positive OGTT result. The triangulation analysis (n = 45) revealed six (13%) probable misdiagnoses (both TRS and CGMSV discordant with OGTT), consisting of one probable false positive and five probable false negative by OGTT results. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified pregnant women at high risk of developing GDM based on an extended evaluation of risk factors. Triangulation of TRS, OGTT and CGMSV suggested potential misdiagnoses of the OGTT. Future studies to explore the correlation between TRS, CGMSV and pregnancy outcomes as well as additional GDM pregnancy biomarkers and outcomes to efficiently evaluate OGTT results are needed.
Assuntos
Diabetes Gestacional , Glicemia , Automonitorização da Glicemia , Diabetes Gestacional/diagnóstico , Feminino , Humanos , Programas de Rastreamento , Gravidez , Fatores de RiscoRESUMO
Background: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is diabetes first diagnosed in pregnancy. GDM, together with its short- and long-term negative outcomes, is increasing in incidence all over the world. The current diagnostic method for GDM, the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), is dated and has been reported as inconvenient for women as well as poorly reproducible and reliable. Aims: We aimed at assessing the acceptability, feasibility, and accuracy of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) as a diagnostic test for GDM and explore its correlation with the OGTT and risk factors for GDM. Methods: In this prospective cohort study, pregnant women due for or having completed OGTT underwent CGM for seven days, performing daily finger-prick blood glucose levels before completing an acceptability questionnaire. Data on GDM risk factors and CGM variability were analyzed and compared with OGTT results. Results: Seventy-three women completed CGM (40 GDM, 33 normal glucose tolerances); 34 concurrently underwent OGTT. CGM was acceptable and generally well-tolerated, with skin irritation/itchiness the only adverse event (11 mild, one severe). CGM and OGTT strongly correlated for fasting glucose values (r = 0.86, p < 0.05) only. Triangulating GDM risk factors, OGTT results and CGM variability parameters with the application of machine learning highlighted the possibility of unmasking false positive (11 showed low CGM variability and demographic risks but positive OGTT) and false-negative OGTT diagnoses (1 showed high CGM variability and demographic risks but negative OGTT). Conclusions: CGM was well-tolerated, showing poorer glycaemic control in GDM, and revealing potential misdiagnosis of the OGTT when combined with GDM risk factors. Future research is needed to determine cut-off values for CGM-defined and OGTT-independent screening criteria for GDM.