Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Diabetologia 3/2016

Open Access 01.03.2016 | Article

Random plasma glucose in early pregnancy is a better predictor of gestational diabetes diagnosis than maternal obesity

verfasst von: Claire L. Meek, Helen R. Murphy, David Simmons

Erschienen in: Diabetologia | Ausgabe 3/2016

download
DOWNLOAD
print
DRUCKEN
insite
SUCHEN

Abstract

Aims/hypothesis

Asymptomatic pregnant women are screened for gestational diabetes (GDM) at 24–28 weeks’ gestation. Recent guidelines also recommend screening early in gestation to identify undiagnosed pre-existing overt diabetes. We assessed the performance of random plasma glucose (RPG) testing at antenatal booking in predicting GDM diagnosis later in pregnancy.

Methods

Data from 25,543 consecutive singleton pregnancies at the Rosie Hospital in Cambridge (UK) were obtained from hospital electronic records as a service evaluation. All women were invited for an antenatal RPG (12–16 weeks) and a 50 g glucose challenge test (GCT; 24–28 weeks) with a 75 g OGTT if GCT >7.7 mmol/l (139 mg/dl).

Results

At booking, 17,736 women had an RPG that was able to predict GDM (receiver operating characteristic AUC 0.8) according to various diagnostic criteria in common use. A cut-off point of ≥7.5 mmol/l (135 mg/dl) gave a sensitivity of 0.70 and a specificity of 0.90 for GDM diagnosis. Theoretically, using this screening policy, 13.2% of women would have been categorised at high risk (26.3% had GDM) and 86.8% of women at low risk (1.7% had GDM). RPG performed better than maternal age (AUC 0.60) or BMI (AUC 0.65) at predicting GDM diagnosis.

Conclusions/interpretation

RPG at booking has reasonable performance as a screening test and is better than maternal age or BMI for identifying women at high risk of GDM. RPG cannot replace OGTT for diagnosis but it may be useful to exclude women who do not need further investigation for GDM and to identify women who could be prioritised for early diagnosis or lifestyle interventions.
Begleitmaterial
Hinweise

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.​1007/​s00125-015-3811-5) contains peer-reviewed but unedited supplementary material, which is available to authorised users.
Abkürzungen
ACOG
American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
FPG
Fasting plasma glucose
GDM
Gestational diabetes
GCT
Glucose challenge test
IADPSG
International Association of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Groups
LGA
Large for gestational age
NICE
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
RPG
Random plasma glucose
USPSTF
US Preventative Services Task Force

Introduction

Gestational diabetes (GDM), defined as carbohydrate intolerance causing hyperglycaemia with first onset or recognition during pregnancy, is associated with adverse maternal and fetal outcomes [1, 2]. The Hyperglycaemia and Adverse Perinatal Outcomes (HAPO) study identified that all degrees of hyperglycaemia are linked linearly to adverse outcomes in pregnancy, with no obvious inflection point for this risk [3]. This has led to considerable difficulty in defining GDM. The International Association of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) recommended setting diagnostic cut-off points at a level consistent with an OR of 1.75 [4] (see electronic supplementary material [ESM] Table 1), which has resulted in a larger number of diagnoses. These criteria have been adopted by the WHO [5] and the ADA [6] but have not been universally accepted [7, 8], in part due to concerns about resource allocation with the increasing prevalence of GDM and concerns about excessive medicalisation of healthy pregnancy [9]. Although many countries are adopting the WHO 2013 criteria, there remains great heterogeneity of diagnostic criteria used for GDM, even within the same country [10].
There is also considerable controversy about how best to identify women with GDM. The ADA and US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommend that all pregnant women should be screened at 24–28 weeks unless they are known to have pre-existing diabetes [6]. The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) guidelines agree that all women should be screened at 24–28 weeks’ gestation but suggest that this could be performed by assessment of ‘the patient’s medical history, clinical risk factors, or laboratory screening test results to determine blood glucose levels’ [11]. Guidelines published by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the UK recommend screening only women with risk factors, including obesity, previous GDM, family history of diabetes or ethnicity with a high diabetes prevalence [8]. Although universal screening policies whereby all women are screened biochemically for GDM are considered expensive, there is some concern that risk-factor-based approaches miss many cases who might otherwise benefit from treatment [12] and create added complexity for healthcare professionals conducting the screening [13].
There is also considerable controversy regarding the type and timing of blood tests with which to diagnose GDM. The ACOG and USPSTF recommendations from the USA have favoured a two-step approach using a 50 g glucose challenge test (GCT) and a confirmatory test using the 100 g OGTT [11]. The WHO, ADA and IADPSG all recommend a one-step approach, using a 75 g OGTT with glucose determination carried out at baseline and at 1 and 2 h after the glucose load. The NICE guidelines recommend a 75 g OGTT with glucose measurement at baseline and at 2 h post load. Other groups have suggested that tests such as fasting plasma glucose [14] or random plasma glucose (RPG) [15] might have validity in screening for GDM, either alone or as a method of rationing OGTTs. A previous systematic review of the use of RPG to screen for GDM concluded that there was inadequate evidence to support the use of RPG, but only six relevant studies (including a total of 3,537 women) were identified [16].
In our institution, an RPG is taken at antenatal booking (12–16 weeks) to exclude overt diabetes [17]. Because women who develop GDM have abnormal glucose handling or insulin resistance prior to pregnancy, we hypothesised that the RPG may also be able to identify women who may later develop GDM. The aim of this study was to assess the usefulness of an RPG taken at antenatal booking as a screening test for GDM, diagnosed at any point during pregnancy.

Methods

Population and standard care
As described previously [18], data from all singleton pregnancies (2004–2008) at the Rosie Hospital, Cambridge Universities NHS Foundation Trust were obtained retrospectively from hospital medical and obstetric records as part of an approved service evaluation. At that time in our institution, all pregnant women had been invited to attend an antenatal appointment at which RPG (n = 17,736; typically 12–16 weeks’ gestation) was measured. Women with RPG >7.0 mmol/l or who had a previous diagnosis of GDM were offered an early 75 g OGTT. All women without known GDM/pre-existing diabetes were screened at 24–28 weeks with a 50 g GCT: women with a GCT result >7.7 mmol/l (139 mg/dl) were then referred for a 75 g OGTT [18]. Additional OGTTs were performed in later pregnancy if symptoms were present. Therefore, all women who had an OGTT (n = 3,848) had already had at least one abnormal glucose test result during pregnancy, symptoms consistent with hyperglycaemia or GDM in a previous pregnancy. Women with known pre-existing diabetes were excluded from the study. The study period of 2004–2008 was chosen as electronic records, screening procedures and treatment protocols were constant during this time.
Laboratory analysis
Both venous and capillary blood samples were used during 2004–2008 for glucose testing in our institution. Venous blood was collected using fluoride–oxalate tubes and analysed using a hexokinase method (Dimension RXL MAX Clinical Chemistry System; Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, Deerfield, IL, USA) in our accredited laboratory (Clinical Pathology Accreditation, UK Accreditation Service, Feltham, UK). Capillary samples were analysed using the Bayer Elite glucose monitoring system (Bayer, Newbury, UK). Although both laboratory and point-of-care methods were regularly calibrated, small differences exist between capillary and venous glucose testing [19]. The same diagnostic criteria were used for both capillary and venous tests.
Statistical analysis
Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to estimate AUC and the 95% CI. Statistical analysis was performed using STATA (version 12.0; StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA).

Results

Records were obtained for 25,789 births; 25,543 records were included in the analysis after exclusion of pregnancies resulting in miscarriage (n = 59) or termination (n = 65) and records with no birthweight information (n = 3), duplicate data (n = 20) and data consistent with overt diabetes (RPG ≥11.1 mmol/l at booking; n = 99). Of these, only 17,736 pregnancies had a documented RPG at booking. Those without RPG measurements recorded have been described more thoroughly elsewhere [17].
Baseline characteristics of women are described according to the presence or absence of GDM according to the IADPSG criteria (Table 1). As expected, women with GDM present had higher rates of obesity (BMI ≥30 kg/m2), higher age at delivery and were more likely to give birth to a macrosomic or large-for-gestational-age (LGA) infant compared with women who did not have GDM.
Table 1
Characteristics of all pregnancies and those identified as GDM-positive and GDM-negative according to the IADPSG criteria
Characteristic
All pregnancies
GDM-negative (IADPSG)
GDM-positive (IADPSG)
No. of pregnancies
25,543
24,362
1,181
Maternal age ≥30 years at delivery
15,773 (61.8)
14,890 (61.1)
883 (74.8)
Maternal smoking at booking
2,416 (9.5)
2,342 (9.6)
74 (6.3)
Maternal white ethnicity
22,762 (89.3)
21,785 (89.6)
977 (82.8)
Maternal obesity
3,016 (13.9)
2,701 (13.1)
315 (30.0)
Primiparous
9,895 (38.8)
9,437 (38.8)
458 (38.9)
Macrosomia (BW >4 kg)
3,097 (12.1)
2,854 (11.7)
243 (20.6)
LGA (BW >90th percentile)
3,010 (12.2)
2,700 (11.5)
310 (26.9)
Method of delivery
  SVD
15,321 (60.0)
14,790 (60.7)
531 (45.0)
  CS
6,795 (26.6)
6,301 (25.9)
494 (41.8)
Data are shown as n (%)
Note that approximately 99.9% of records had data available for pregnancy outcome, mode of delivery and antenatal complications but only 84.9% of records had data available for their usual maternal adult BMI
BW, birthweight; CS, Caesarean section; SVD, spontaneous vertex delivery
The ability of the RPG to predict GDM was tested using ROC curves (Fig. 1). RPG was able to predict GDM according to the IADPSG (n = 1,181 positive diagnoses, n = 884 with RPG; AUC 0.81; 95% CI 0.80, 0.83), NICE 2015 (n = 1,055 positive diagnoses, n = 806 with RPG; AUC 0.81; 95% CI 0.79, 0.83), WHO 1999 (n = 1,016 positive diagnoses; n = 775 with RPG; AUC 0.81; 95% CI 0.79, 0.83) and Modified WHO 1999 (n = 1,025 positive diagnoses; n = 782 with RPG; AUC 0.80; 95% CI 0.78, 0.83) criteria.
Using a cut-off value of RPG ≥7.5 mmol/l (135 mg/dl), which produced best overall performance of sensitivity and specificity, RPG was able to predict GDM diagnosis using IADPSG (sensitivity 0.70, specificity 0.90), NICE 2015 (sensitivity 0.69, specificity 0.89), WHO 1999 (sensitivity 0.69, specificity 0.89) and Modified WHO 1999 (sensitivity 0.69, specificity 0.89) criteria. In this dataset of 17,736 pregnancies with RPG data, 15,396 women (86.81%) fell below this threshold and 2,340 fell above the threshold (13.19%).
As the clinical value of RPG would be in excluding women who do not need further investigation for GDM, a higher cut-off value of ≥8.5 mmol/l (153 mg/dl) was also assessed to maximise specificity while providing acceptable sensitivity. At this level, RPG was able to predict GDM according to IADPSG (sensitivity 0.43, specificity 0.97), NICE 2015 (sensitivity 0.42, specificity 0.96), WHO 1999 (sensitivity 0.42, specificity 0.96) and Modified WHO 1999 (sensitivity 0.42, specificity 0.96) criteria. In this dataset of 17,736 pregnancies with recorded RPG, 16,789 women fell below this threshold and 947 fell above the threshold.
As the range of RPG values was considerable in women who later developed GDM (see Fig. 1e), a cut-off point of around ≥4.7 mmol/l (85 mg/dl) was required to give a sensitivity of 90% using any diagnostic criteria. Of the 3,863 women who had values <4.7 mmol/l, 68 (1.76%) were eventually diagnosed with GDM according to IADPSG criteria.
Theoretically, adopting an RPG screening policy in this population using IADPSG criteria with a cut-off point of ≥7.5 mmol/l (135 mg/dl) would have identified 2,340 women as being at high risk of GDM (Fig. 2; 615 [26.3%] were later found to be positive for GDM). This screening policy would also have identified 15,396 women as being at low risk of GDM (of whom 15,127 [98.3%] were negative for GDM). However, this low-risk group contained 269 women who were confirmed positive for GDM later in pregnancy (30.4% of cases of GDM). Interestingly, our data suggests that these 269 women might not have been readily identified using risk-factor-based screening methods as approximately 38.7% were of normal pre-pregnancy BMI (<25 kg/m2). They had a 33.7% risk of having an LGA infant (Fig. 2).
The use of RPG at booking compared favourably with other screening strategies in current clinical use (Fig. 3a, b). For example, maternal pre-pregnancy BMI and maternal age were both inferior at predicting GDM using the IADPSG criteria (n = 1,181 positive diagnoses, n = 884 with RPG; BMI AUC 0.65, 95% CI 0.63, 0.67; age AUC 0.60, 95% CI 0.59, 0.62). Maternal age ≥30 years predicted IADPSG GDM with a sensitivity of 74.8% and a specificity of 38.9%. Maternal pre-pregnancy BMI ≥30 k/m2 predicted IADPSG GDM with a sensitivity of 0.30 and a specificity of 0.87. Combining the risk factors age and BMI with RPG did not improve the overall predictive ability compared with using RPG alone (Fig. 3c–f) when using thresholds of RPG ≥7.5 mmol/l, age ≥30 years and BMI ≥30 kg/m2. However, combining age and BMI (Fig. 3c), RPG and age (Fig. 3d) or RPG and BMI (Fig. 3e) gave an improvement in test sensitivity to 0.83–0.95, but at the cost of reducing the overall ROC AUC.

Discussion

This retrospective study in 17,736 pregnant women demonstrates that RPG at antenatal booking has reasonable performance as a screening test for GDM and performs better overall than screening based upon established risk factors (maternal age and BMI). RPG may have a role in identifying women who are at low risk of GDM and who would be considered to be of relatively low priority for early diagnosis or screening. Conversely, RPG could be used to identify women at high risk of GDM who might benefit from earlier diagnosis or from more intensive lifestyle interventions in early pregnancy. However, women with a low RPG still can develop GDM. This data suggests that reliance on the RPG at booking alone, without universal testing in the second trimester, would miss around 30% of cases of GDM. The test sensitivity could be improved by combining RPG with risk-factor information for age or BMI, but with a reduction in the specificity and overall ROC AUC.
This study has several strengths. First, the large sample size and unselected nature of the population allows robust assessment of the validity of RPG in clinical practice. Second, the RPG measured at antenatal booking was followed by universal screening for GDM using a two-step GCT and 75 g OGTT protocol. However, this protocol is no longer recommended by international guidelines [4, 5] and, importantly, GDM has not been definitively excluded using an OGTT in all 17,736 women. This was a single centre study in a relatively mono-ethnic population with a low prevalence of GDM. The overall performance of any screening tests may vary in different populations with different prevalence rates for GDM [16]. Over 7,000 women did not have evidence of an RPG measurement. These women have been described elsewhere and are otherwise comparable with the general population giving no evidence of selection bias [17]. The blood was analysed in a single accredited laboratory or using point-of-care devices under established laboratory quality control protocols. However, during this period both capillary and venous testing was used for glucose quantification in our institution. This may introduce small differences between measured and actual glucose concentrations. We have no data about the timing of OGTT testing in relation to the RPG although most OGTTs were performed at around 28 weeks following a GCT at 24–28 weeks. Although we have detailed information on some maternal risk factors, such as obesity and age, we do not have consistent information about previous history of GDM or family history of type 2 diabetes.
The use of RPG has many advantages. First, it is inexpensive and can be performed during the antenatal booking visit with no special pre-test preparation. Second, the opportunity to use point-of-care analysis on a capillary sample allows the clinician to have prompt access to the results, facilitating early lifestyle intervention or confirmatory testing. This may be particularly beneficial in resource-poor or rural environments where women travel a great distance to appointments. However, the RPG result is affected by pre-testing conditions, such as food intake and exercise, and this gives a wide range of RPG values in both GDM-positive and GDM-negative populations.
Previous studies of the RPG have had conflicting results. van Leeuwen and colleagues prospectively assessed the validity of RPG vs OGTT in 322 pregnant women and found that the RPG at 24–28 weeks had an ROC AUC of 0.69 (95% CI 0.61, 0.78) [20]. The same authors also performed a systematic review assessing the validity of RPG in the diagnosis of GDM. Six papers met the entry criteria and included data from the Netherlands [20], China [21], Japan [22], UK [15], India [23] and Kuwait [24], with a broad range of prevalence rates for GDM. All the studies dealt with the performance of RPG in the second or third trimester except for one study by Maegawa and colleagues [22] who studied 749 pregnant women in Japan (2.9% had GDM). They found that the RPG and GCT had reasonable performance for detecting GDM in the first trimester. Some older studies indicated that GDM can be successfully diagnosed earlier in pregnancy [2527], but the validity of using the WHO 2013 criteria outside the standard 24–28 week period has been questioned [28].
In our study, RPG with a sensitivity of 70% and specificity of 90% compares favourably with other approaches used for the screening of patients for GDM. A meta-analysis of the performance of the 50 g GCT, which included 13,564 women, showed that it had a sensitivity of 0.74 (95% CI 0.62, 0.87) and a specificity of 0.85 (95% CI 0.80, 0.91) for consecutive patients (not just those pre-selected based on risk factors) [29]. Other investigators have recommended a risk-factor-based approach. Göbl and colleagues designed a risk calculator based upon a woman’s history of previous GDM, glycosuria, family history of diabetes, age, pre-conception dyslipidaemia and ethnic origin [14]. The risk calculator in addition to a fasting plasma glucose concentration was able to predict GDM with a ROC AUC of 0.9. However, in clinical practice, collecting detailed risk-factor information can be challenging and prone to error and pre-conception lipid results are often unavailable. Interestingly, other reports from a different ethnic population did not support the use of fasting blood glucose or risk-factor-based screening. Dahanayaka and colleagues in Sri Lanka found that fasting blood glucose alone was a poor predictor of GDM and that a risk-factor-based approach was only able to identify around two-thirds of affected women [12].
This study indicates that RPG measurement could form part of a useful testing strategy to identify women in early pregnancy who are at risk of developing GDM, or to prioritise second trimester OGTT testing to those most at risk of GDM. Interestingly, although GDM is thought to develop after 20 weeks’ gestation in the majority of cases, this study shows that women in the first trimester can already be categorised biochemically according to their risk of later developing frank hyperglycaemia. In healthcare systems where universal biochemical screening with an OGTT is considered prohibitively expensive, RPG measurement at booking is likely to be a cost-effective and convenient way of identifying women who need to be prioritised for early lifestyle intervention and an OGTT in the second trimester.

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge D. Church (Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Addenbrooke’s Hospital), E. Te Braake, K. Stubbington (both from the Rosie Hospital, Addenbrooke’s Hospital) and M. Wilson (Wolfson Diabetes and Endocrinology Clinic, Addenbrooke’s Hospital) for their contributions to data collection and A. Thornton and A. Herrick (both from Information Technology Services, Addenbrooke’s Hospital) for their contributions to data extraction.

Funding

This project was not supported by any specific funding. CLM receives salary funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013; grant agreement no. 266408) and from the Wellcome Trust Translational Medicine and Therapeutics Programme, which is funded by the Wellcome Trust in association with Glaxo SmithKline.

Duality of interest

CLM receives salary funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013; grant agreement no. 266408) and from the Wellcome Trust Translational Medicine and Therapeutics Programme, which is funded by the Wellcome Trust in association with Glaxo SmithKline.
HRM receives salary funding from an NIHR fellowship and has received honoraria for speaking engagements from Medtronic, Roche, Novo Nordisk and Eli-Lilly and is a member of the Medtronic European Advisory Board. DS has received honoraria from Astra Zeneca.

Contribution statement

CLM designed the study, performed the data analysis and interpretation and wrote and revised the manuscript. HRM made a substantial contribution to data acquisition and analysis, reviewed and revised the manuscript and contributed to the discussion. DS identified the study questions, made a substantial contribution to data acquisition and analysis, reviewed and revised the manuscript and contributed to the discussion. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript prior to publication. The database used in this study has previously been used in other published works [17, 18].
CLM is the guarantor of this work and, as such, had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Unsere Produktempfehlungen

e.Med Interdisziplinär

Kombi-Abonnement

Für Ihren Erfolg in Klinik und Praxis - Die beste Hilfe in Ihrem Arbeitsalltag

Mit e.Med Interdisziplinär erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Fachzeitschriften auf SpringerMedizin.de.

e.Med Innere Medizin

Kombi-Abonnement

Mit e.Med Innere Medizin erhalten Sie Zugang zu CME-Fortbildungen des Fachgebietes Innere Medizin, den Premium-Inhalten der internistischen Fachzeitschriften, inklusive einer gedruckten internistischen Zeitschrift Ihrer Wahl.

e.Med Allgemeinmedizin

Kombi-Abonnement

Mit e.Med Allgemeinmedizin erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Premium-Inhalten der allgemeinmedizinischen Zeitschriften, inklusive einer gedruckten Allgemeinmedizin-Zeitschrift Ihrer Wahl.

Anhänge

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Metzger BE, Coustan DR (1998) Summary and recommendations of the Fourth International Workshop-Conference on Gestational Diabetes Mellitus. The Organizing Committee. Diabetes Care 21(Suppl 2):B161–B167PubMed Metzger BE, Coustan DR (1998) Summary and recommendations of the Fourth International Workshop-Conference on Gestational Diabetes Mellitus. The Organizing Committee. Diabetes Care 21(Suppl 2):B161–B167PubMed
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Jensen DM, Korsholm L, Ovesen P, Beck-Nielsen H, Mølsted-Pedersen L, Damm P (2008) Adverse pregnancy outcome in women with mild glucose intolerance: is there a clinically meaningful threshold value for glucose? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 87:59–62CrossRefPubMed Jensen DM, Korsholm L, Ovesen P, Beck-Nielsen H, Mølsted-Pedersen L, Damm P (2008) Adverse pregnancy outcome in women with mild glucose intolerance: is there a clinically meaningful threshold value for glucose? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 87:59–62CrossRefPubMed
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Metzger BE, Lowe LP, Dyer AR et al (2008) Hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcomes. N Engl J Med 358:1991–2002CrossRefPubMed Metzger BE, Lowe LP, Dyer AR et al (2008) Hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcomes. N Engl J Med 358:1991–2002CrossRefPubMed
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Metzger BE, Gabbe SG, Persson B et al (2010) International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups recommendations on the diagnosis and classification of hyperglycemia in pregnancy. Diabetes Care 33:676–682CrossRefPubMed Metzger BE, Gabbe SG, Persson B et al (2010) International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups recommendations on the diagnosis and classification of hyperglycemia in pregnancy. Diabetes Care 33:676–682CrossRefPubMed
6.
Zurück zum Zitat American Diabetes Association (2014) Standards of medical care in diabetes—2014. Diabetes Care 37(Suppl 1):S14–S80CrossRef American Diabetes Association (2014) Standards of medical care in diabetes—2014. Diabetes Care 37(Suppl 1):S14–S80CrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Vandorsten JP, Dodson WC, Espeland MA et al (2013) NIH consensus development conference: diagnosing gestational diabetes mellitus. NIH Consens State Sci Statements 29:1–31PubMed Vandorsten JP, Dodson WC, Espeland MA et al (2013) NIH consensus development conference: diagnosing gestational diabetes mellitus. NIH Consens State Sci Statements 29:1–31PubMed
8.
Zurück zum Zitat National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) (2015) Diabetes in pregnancy: management of diabetes and its complications from preconception to the postnatal period. National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) guideline NG3. Available from www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng3/, accessed 30 October 2015 National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) (2015) Diabetes in pregnancy: management of diabetes and its complications from preconception to the postnatal period. National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) guideline NG3. Available from www.​nice.​org.​uk/​guidance/​ng3/​, accessed 30 October 2015
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Cundy T, Ackermann E, Ryan EA (2014) Gestational diabetes: new criteria may triple the prevalence but effect on outcomes is unclear. BMJ 348:g1567CrossRefPubMed Cundy T, Ackermann E, Ryan EA (2014) Gestational diabetes: new criteria may triple the prevalence but effect on outcomes is unclear. BMJ 348:g1567CrossRefPubMed
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Committee on Practice Bulletins (Obstetrics) (2013) Practice bulletin no. 137: gestational diabetes mellitus. Obstet Gynaecol 122:406–416CrossRef Committee on Practice Bulletins (Obstetrics) (2013) Practice bulletin no. 137: gestational diabetes mellitus. Obstet Gynaecol 122:406–416CrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Dahanayaka NJ, Agampodi SB, Ranasinghe OR et al (2012) Inadequacy of the risk factor based approach to detect gestational diabetes mellitus. Ceylon Med J 57:5–9CrossRefPubMed Dahanayaka NJ, Agampodi SB, Ranasinghe OR et al (2012) Inadequacy of the risk factor based approach to detect gestational diabetes mellitus. Ceylon Med J 57:5–9CrossRefPubMed
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Simmons D, Devers MC, Wolmarans L, Johnson E (2009) Difficulties in the use of risk factors to screen for gestational diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care 32, e8CrossRefPubMed Simmons D, Devers MC, Wolmarans L, Johnson E (2009) Difficulties in the use of risk factors to screen for gestational diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care 32, e8CrossRefPubMed
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Göbl CS, Bozkurt L, Rivic P et al (2012) A two-step screening algorithm including fasting plasma glucose measurement and a risk estimation model is an accurate strategy for detecting gestational diabetes mellitus. Diabetologia 55:3173–3181CrossRefPubMed Göbl CS, Bozkurt L, Rivic P et al (2012) A two-step screening algorithm including fasting plasma glucose measurement and a risk estimation model is an accurate strategy for detecting gestational diabetes mellitus. Diabetologia 55:3173–3181CrossRefPubMed
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Jowett NI, Samanta AK, Burden AC (1987) Screening for diabetes in pregnancy: is a random blood glucose enough? Diabet Med 4:160–163CrossRefPubMed Jowett NI, Samanta AK, Burden AC (1987) Screening for diabetes in pregnancy: is a random blood glucose enough? Diabet Med 4:160–163CrossRefPubMed
16.
Zurück zum Zitat van Leeuwen M, Opmeer BC, Yilmaz Y, Limpens J, Serlie MJ, Mol BW (2011) Accuracy of the random glucose test as screening test for gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 154:130–135CrossRefPubMed van Leeuwen M, Opmeer BC, Yilmaz Y, Limpens J, Serlie MJ, Mol BW (2011) Accuracy of the random glucose test as screening test for gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 154:130–135CrossRefPubMed
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Church D, Halsall D, Meek C, Parker RA, Murphy HR, Simmons D (2011) Random blood glucose measurement at antenatal booking to screen for overt diabetes in pregnancy: a retrospective study. Diabetes Care 34:2217–2219PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Church D, Halsall D, Meek C, Parker RA, Murphy HR, Simmons D (2011) Random blood glucose measurement at antenatal booking to screen for overt diabetes in pregnancy: a retrospective study. Diabetes Care 34:2217–2219PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Meek CL, Lewis HB, Patient C, Murphy HR, Simmons D (2015) Diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus: falling through the net. Diabetologia 58:2003–2012PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Meek CL, Lewis HB, Patient C, Murphy HR, Simmons D (2015) Diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus: falling through the net. Diabetologia 58:2003–2012PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Kupke IR, Kather B, Zeugner S (1981) On the composition of capillary and venous blood serum. Clin Chim Acta 112:177–185CrossRefPubMed Kupke IR, Kather B, Zeugner S (1981) On the composition of capillary and venous blood serum. Clin Chim Acta 112:177–185CrossRefPubMed
20.
Zurück zum Zitat van Leeuwen M, Zweers EJ, Opmeer BC et al (2007) Comparison of accuracy measures of two screening tests for gestational diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care 30:2779–2784CrossRefPubMed van Leeuwen M, Zweers EJ, Opmeer BC et al (2007) Comparison of accuracy measures of two screening tests for gestational diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care 30:2779–2784CrossRefPubMed
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Tam WH, Rogers MS, Yip SK, Lau TK, Leung TY (2000) Which screening test is the best for gestational impaired glucose tolerance and gestational diabetes mellitus? Diabetes Care 23:1432CrossRefPubMed Tam WH, Rogers MS, Yip SK, Lau TK, Leung TY (2000) Which screening test is the best for gestational impaired glucose tolerance and gestational diabetes mellitus? Diabetes Care 23:1432CrossRefPubMed
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Maegawa Y, Sugiyama T, Kusaka H, Mitao M, Toyoda N (2003) Screening tests for gestational diabetes in Japan in the 1st and 2nd trimester of pregnancy. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 62:47–53CrossRefPubMed Maegawa Y, Sugiyama T, Kusaka H, Mitao M, Toyoda N (2003) Screening tests for gestational diabetes in Japan in the 1st and 2nd trimester of pregnancy. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 62:47–53CrossRefPubMed
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Mathai M, Thomas TJ, Kuruvila S, Jairaj P (1994) Random plasma glucose and the glucose challenge test in pregnancy. Natl Med J India 7:160–162PubMed Mathai M, Thomas TJ, Kuruvila S, Jairaj P (1994) Random plasma glucose and the glucose challenge test in pregnancy. Natl Med J India 7:160–162PubMed
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Nasrat AA, Johnstone FD, Hasan SA (1988) Is random plasma glucose an efficient screening test for abnormal glucose tolerance in pregnancy? Br J Obstet Gynaecol 95:855–860CrossRefPubMed Nasrat AA, Johnstone FD, Hasan SA (1988) Is random plasma glucose an efficient screening test for abnormal glucose tolerance in pregnancy? Br J Obstet Gynaecol 95:855–860CrossRefPubMed
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Bartha JL, Martinez-Del-Fresno P, Comino-Delgado R (2000) Gestational diabetes mellitus diagnosed during early pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 182:346–350CrossRefPubMed Bartha JL, Martinez-Del-Fresno P, Comino-Delgado R (2000) Gestational diabetes mellitus diagnosed during early pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 182:346–350CrossRefPubMed
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Bartha JL, Martinez-Del-Fresno P, Comino-Delgado R (2003) Early diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus and prevention of diabetes-related complications. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 109:41–44CrossRefPubMed Bartha JL, Martinez-Del-Fresno P, Comino-Delgado R (2003) Early diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus and prevention of diabetes-related complications. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 109:41–44CrossRefPubMed
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Super DM, Edelberg SC, Philipson EH, Hertz RH, Kalhan SC (1991) Diagnosis of gestational diabetes in early pregnancy. Diabetes Care 14:288–294CrossRefPubMed Super DM, Edelberg SC, Philipson EH, Hertz RH, Kalhan SC (1991) Diagnosis of gestational diabetes in early pregnancy. Diabetes Care 14:288–294CrossRefPubMed
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Zhu WW, Yang HX, Wei YM et al (2013) Evaluation of the value of fasting plasma glucose in the first prenatal visit to diagnose gestational diabetes mellitus in China. Diabetes Care 36:586–590PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Zhu WW, Yang HX, Wei YM et al (2013) Evaluation of the value of fasting plasma glucose in the first prenatal visit to diagnose gestational diabetes mellitus in China. Diabetes Care 36:586–590PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
29.
Zurück zum Zitat van Leeuwen M, Louwerse MD, Opmeer BC et al (2012) Glucose challenge test for detecting gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review. BJOG 119:393–401CrossRefPubMed van Leeuwen M, Louwerse MD, Opmeer BC et al (2012) Glucose challenge test for detecting gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review. BJOG 119:393–401CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Random plasma glucose in early pregnancy is a better predictor of gestational diabetes diagnosis than maternal obesity
verfasst von
Claire L. Meek
Helen R. Murphy
David Simmons
Publikationsdatum
01.03.2016
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
Diabetologia / Ausgabe 3/2016
Print ISSN: 0012-186X
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-0428
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-015-3811-5

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2016

Diabetologia 3/2016 Zur Ausgabe

Leitlinien kompakt für die Innere Medizin

Mit medbee Pocketcards sicher entscheiden.

Seit 2022 gehört die medbee GmbH zum Springer Medizin Verlag

Echinokokkose medikamentös behandeln oder operieren?

06.05.2024 DCK 2024 Kongressbericht

Die Therapie von Echinokokkosen sollte immer in spezialisierten Zentren erfolgen. Eine symptomlose Echinokokkose kann – egal ob von Hunde- oder Fuchsbandwurm ausgelöst – konservativ erfolgen. Wenn eine Op. nötig ist, kann es sinnvoll sein, vorher Zysten zu leeren und zu desinfizieren. 

Aquatherapie bei Fibromyalgie wirksamer als Trockenübungen

03.05.2024 Fibromyalgiesyndrom Nachrichten

Bewegungs-, Dehnungs- und Entspannungsübungen im Wasser lindern die Beschwerden von Patientinnen mit Fibromyalgie besser als das Üben auf trockenem Land. Das geht aus einer spanisch-brasilianischen Vergleichsstudie hervor.

Wo hapert es noch bei der Umsetzung der POMGAT-Leitlinie?

03.05.2024 DCK 2024 Kongressbericht

Seit November 2023 gibt es evidenzbasierte Empfehlungen zum perioperativen Management bei gastrointestinalen Tumoren (POMGAT) auf S3-Niveau. Vieles wird schon entsprechend der Empfehlungen durchgeführt. Wo es im Alltag noch hapert, zeigt eine Umfrage in einem Klinikverbund.

Das Risiko für Vorhofflimmern in der Bevölkerung steigt

02.05.2024 Vorhofflimmern Nachrichten

Das Risiko, im Lauf des Lebens an Vorhofflimmern zu erkranken, ist in den vergangenen 20 Jahren gestiegen: Laut dänischen Zahlen wird es drei von zehn Personen treffen. Das hat Folgen weit über die Schlaganfallgefährdung hinaus.

Update Innere Medizin

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.