Gestational diabetes mellitus: Confusion among medical doctors caused by multiple international criteria.

AIM: The aim of this study was to appraise the current regional practices of screening, diagnosis and follow-up of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) because the approach to GDM is frequently inconsistent. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A 21-item questionnaire was distributed to physicians taking care of pregnant women in seven hospitals in the United Arab Emirates and one hospital in Oman. Besides assessing their attitudes towards testing for GDM, the questionnaire assessed familiarity with the Hyperglycemia and Pregnancy Outcome study and the International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Groups GDM guidelines. RESULTS: One hundred and forty-eight (93%) of the 159 questionnaires distributed to the medical doctors (106 [72%] obstetricians and 42 [28%] internists) were returned. For GDM screening, six hospitals used five different tests; two hospitals utilized one single test. For GDM diagnosis, six hospitals employed the 2-h, 75-g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) (four different criteria) while two hospitals used the 3-h, 100-g OGTT (single criteria). For post-delivery follow-up, the 2-h, 75-g OGTT and fasting plasma glucose were accepted by 103 (70%) and 38 (26%) of the 148 medical doctors, respectively. Ninety-eight (69%) of 143 responding physicians were aware of the Hyperglycemia and Pregnancy Outcome study, while 85 (61%) of 140 responders were familiar with the guidelines of the International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Groups; this knowledge was independent of specialty, seniority, academia, years in practice or country trained. CONCLUSIONS: Although this study is parochial, its implications are global; that is, further education of caregivers would make the discordant approach to GDM (within and between hospitals) more harmonious and improve the obstetric care of pregnant women.

Gestational diabetes in a tertiary care hospital: implications of applying the IADPSG criteria.

BACKGROUND: The American Diabetes Association has endorsed the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Groups (IADPSG) recommendation that every pregnant woman should undergo the 75 g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) to screen for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). PURPOSE: To find the cost and workload implications of switching from the current two-step screening of GDM to the one-step IADPSG approach. METHODS: The cost (US $) and laboratory workload units (WLU) were calculated for three possible strategies: (1) 50 g glucose screen, if positive, followed by the 100 g OGTT; (2) universal 75 g OGTT; and (3) screening with the initial fasting plasma glucose of the OGTT. RESULTS: For the 1,101 pregnant women screened in 1 year, the cost of the three strategies was $ 31,985, $ 55,250 and $ 35,875, respectively; the laboratory burden was 28,975 WLU, 18,662 WLU and 12,215 WLU, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Switching to the one-step, strategy 2 (IADPSG) would increase the cost by 42 % but decrease the laboratory workload by 36 % compared to the two-step, strategy 1. However, an initial screen by the fasting plasma glucose of the OGTT is the ideal strategy, both in terms of cost and laboratory workload.

Performance of the Roche Accu-Chek active glucose meter to screen for gestational diabetes mellitus using fasting capillary blood.

BACKGROUND: Point-of-care (POC) blood glucose measurement using glucose meters is used by diabetes patients to mange their disease. POC glucose testing also is also used in tight glycemic control protocols and as a screening tool for diabetes. We report the performance and effectiveness of the Accu-Chek® Active (Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Mannheim, Germany) glucose meter to screen for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) using blood fasting capillary glucose (FCG). METHODS: To screen for GDM, 1,465 pregnant women underwent an oral glucose glucose tolerance test. Correlation between the FCG and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) levels was determined by Passing and Bablok regression analysis. Total error (TE) of the glucometer was ascertained using the Bland-Altman method with the DXC-800 analyzer (Beckman-Coulter Instruments, Brea, CA) as the reference method. The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve was used to analyze the performance of the FCG to predict GDM. RESULTS: FPG and FCG identified 361 (24.6%) and 338 (23%) women as having GDM, respectively. The Bland-Altman TE at 95% limits of agreement was -11.1% to 10.8%. The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve was 0.953 (95% confidence interval 0.943 to 0.964). CONCLUSIONS: The Roche Accu-Chek Active glucometer meets analytical and clinical quality requirements. A TE of±15% is acceptable for glucose meters used in ambulatory care, including home self-monitoring of blood glucose, and different TE targets should be set for acute critical care settings.

Gestational diabetes: an evaluation of serum fructosamine as a screening test in a high-risk population.

AIM: To evaluate the value of serum fructosamine as a screening test for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). METHODS: 849 pregnant women underwent the one-step 75 g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) for universal screening of GDM. The fasting serum fructosamine (cFruc) was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). The GDM diagnostic criteria used were those of the American Diabetes Association; however, the cFruc performance was also evaluated using criteria of the World Health Organization, Australian (ADIPS), European (EASD) and International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG). RESULTS: 113 (13.3%) women had GDM. The AUC of the cFruc was 0.60 (95% CI 0.54-0.66). A cFruc threshold of 237 µmol/l achieved an acceptable sensitivity of 85.8% (95% CI 78.0-91.0%), but the associated specificity remained poor at 23.4% (95% CI 20.0-27.0%) with a positive predictive value of just 14.7%. Overall, over 4 out of 5 pregnant women, being over this cutoff, would need the confirmatory OGTT. No cFruc threshold reached acceptable likelihood ratios to rule-in or rule-out GDM. The AUC for cFruc remained unacceptable independent of the diagnostic criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Despite all the advances in technology, serum fructosamine is a poor test to screen for GDM.