Cargando…
Improved gestational diabetes screening protocol
OBJECTIVES: This work aimed to assess the diagnostic validity of two approaches for the screening of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) with less discomfort for pregnant women. METHODS: A prospective diagnostic validation study was conducted with 2007 pregnant women. According to risk factors for G...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
De Gruyter
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10197282/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37359196 http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/almed-2020-0072 |
_version_ | 1785044517930401792 |
---|---|
author | Calero Rojas, Miguel Jurado Roger, Aurora Gutiérrez Grúa, Marta de la Peña Carretero, Lourdes Romero Sotomayor, Victoria López Braos, Javier Izquierdo Carrasco, Federico Herrero Tabanera, Luis Moreno Aguilar, Carmen |
author_facet | Calero Rojas, Miguel Jurado Roger, Aurora Gutiérrez Grúa, Marta de la Peña Carretero, Lourdes Romero Sotomayor, Victoria López Braos, Javier Izquierdo Carrasco, Federico Herrero Tabanera, Luis Moreno Aguilar, Carmen |
author_sort | Calero Rojas, Miguel |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: This work aimed to assess the diagnostic validity of two approaches for the screening of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) with less discomfort for pregnant women. METHODS: A prospective diagnostic validation study was conducted with 2007 pregnant women. According to risk factors for GDM, women were classified into high-risk and low-risk groups. The current diagnostic procedure, based on oral glucose overload, was followed; simultaneously HbA(1c) was tested and an algorithm combining both biomarkers was applied. RESULTS: In the low-risk group, the Glucose challenge test (GCT) showed a higher area under the curve (AUC 0.953; 95% CI 0.915–0.992) than the HbA(1c) test (0.688; 95% CI 0.541–0.834). The best GCT cut-off, 153.5 mg/dL (8.52 mmol/L), showed higher diagnostic validity than that for HbA(1c), 28 mmol/mol (4.75%), and that the algorithm using both tests. In the high-risk group, the GCT showed better diagnostic performance than the HbA(1c) and the algorithm; the optimal GCT cut-offs were higher than those recommended in current protocols. 13th week: GCT AUC 0.882 (95% CI 0.843–0.921), HbA(1c) AUC 0.624 (95% CI 0.562–0.686), GCT cut-off 140.5 mg/dL (7.8 mmol/L), HbA(1c) cut-off 33 mmol/mol (5.15%). 24th week: GCT AUC 0.944 (95% CI 0.925–0.962), HbA(1c) AUC 0.642 (95% CI 0.575–0.709), GCT cut-off, 145.5 mg/dL (8.08 mmol/L), HbA(1c) cut-off 29 mmol/mol (4.85%). CONCLUSIONS: The GDM diagnostic approach using as the first step the GCT with higher cut-offs showed the best diagnostic validity. Applying these thresholds, 55.6 and 13.7% of 100 g. Oral glucose overloads would have been avoided in low-risk and high-risk pregnant women. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10197282 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | De Gruyter |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-101972822023-06-23 Improved gestational diabetes screening protocol Calero Rojas, Miguel Jurado Roger, Aurora Gutiérrez Grúa, Marta de la Peña Carretero, Lourdes Romero Sotomayor, Victoria López Braos, Javier Izquierdo Carrasco, Federico Herrero Tabanera, Luis Moreno Aguilar, Carmen Adv Lab Med Article OBJECTIVES: This work aimed to assess the diagnostic validity of two approaches for the screening of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) with less discomfort for pregnant women. METHODS: A prospective diagnostic validation study was conducted with 2007 pregnant women. According to risk factors for GDM, women were classified into high-risk and low-risk groups. The current diagnostic procedure, based on oral glucose overload, was followed; simultaneously HbA(1c) was tested and an algorithm combining both biomarkers was applied. RESULTS: In the low-risk group, the Glucose challenge test (GCT) showed a higher area under the curve (AUC 0.953; 95% CI 0.915–0.992) than the HbA(1c) test (0.688; 95% CI 0.541–0.834). The best GCT cut-off, 153.5 mg/dL (8.52 mmol/L), showed higher diagnostic validity than that for HbA(1c), 28 mmol/mol (4.75%), and that the algorithm using both tests. In the high-risk group, the GCT showed better diagnostic performance than the HbA(1c) and the algorithm; the optimal GCT cut-offs were higher than those recommended in current protocols. 13th week: GCT AUC 0.882 (95% CI 0.843–0.921), HbA(1c) AUC 0.624 (95% CI 0.562–0.686), GCT cut-off 140.5 mg/dL (7.8 mmol/L), HbA(1c) cut-off 33 mmol/mol (5.15%). 24th week: GCT AUC 0.944 (95% CI 0.925–0.962), HbA(1c) AUC 0.642 (95% CI 0.575–0.709), GCT cut-off, 145.5 mg/dL (8.08 mmol/L), HbA(1c) cut-off 29 mmol/mol (4.85%). CONCLUSIONS: The GDM diagnostic approach using as the first step the GCT with higher cut-offs showed the best diagnostic validity. Applying these thresholds, 55.6 and 13.7% of 100 g. Oral glucose overloads would have been avoided in low-risk and high-risk pregnant women. De Gruyter 2021-02-17 /pmc/articles/PMC10197282/ /pubmed/37359196 http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/almed-2020-0072 Text en © 2021 Miguel Calero Rojas et al., published by De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. |
spellingShingle | Article Calero Rojas, Miguel Jurado Roger, Aurora Gutiérrez Grúa, Marta de la Peña Carretero, Lourdes Romero Sotomayor, Victoria López Braos, Javier Izquierdo Carrasco, Federico Herrero Tabanera, Luis Moreno Aguilar, Carmen Improved gestational diabetes screening protocol |
title | Improved gestational diabetes screening protocol |
title_full | Improved gestational diabetes screening protocol |
title_fullStr | Improved gestational diabetes screening protocol |
title_full_unstemmed | Improved gestational diabetes screening protocol |
title_short | Improved gestational diabetes screening protocol |
title_sort | improved gestational diabetes screening protocol |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10197282/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37359196 http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/almed-2020-0072 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT calerorojasmiguel improvedgestationaldiabetesscreeningprotocol AT juradorogeraurora improvedgestationaldiabetesscreeningprotocol AT gutierrezgruamarta improvedgestationaldiabetesscreeningprotocol AT delapenacarreterolourdes improvedgestationaldiabetesscreeningprotocol AT romerosotomayorvictoria improvedgestationaldiabetesscreeningprotocol AT lopezbraosjavier improvedgestationaldiabetesscreeningprotocol AT izquierdocarrascofederico improvedgestationaldiabetesscreeningprotocol AT herrerotabaneraluis improvedgestationaldiabetesscreeningprotocol AT morenoaguilarcarmen improvedgestationaldiabetesscreeningprotocol |