Cargando…

Accuracy of glycosuria, random blood glucose and risk factors as selective screening tools for gestational diabetes mellitus in comparison with universal diagnosing

OBJECTIVE: Despite the short-term and long-term health implications of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), opinions are divided on selective vis-à-vis universal screening. We validated the accuracy of screening tests for GDM. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Pregnant women (n=491) were recruited to thi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Agbozo, Faith, Abubakari, Abdulai, Narh, Clement, Jahn, Albrecht
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6014183/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29942522
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjdrc-2017-000493
_version_ 1783334181567201280
author Agbozo, Faith
Abubakari, Abdulai
Narh, Clement
Jahn, Albrecht
author_facet Agbozo, Faith
Abubakari, Abdulai
Narh, Clement
Jahn, Albrecht
author_sort Agbozo, Faith
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: Despite the short-term and long-term health implications of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), opinions are divided on selective vis-à-vis universal screening. We validated the accuracy of screening tests for GDM. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Pregnant women (n=491) were recruited to this prospective, blind comparison with a gold standard study. We did selective screening between 13 and 20 weeks using reagent-strip glycosuria, random capillary blood glucose (RBG) and the presence of ≥1 risk factor(s). Between 20 and 34 weeks, we did universal screening following the ‘one-step’ approach using glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting venous plasma glucose (FPG), and the 1-hour and the ‘gold standard’ 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). Tests accuracy was estimated following the WHO and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) diagnostic criteria. Overall test performance was determined from the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). RESULTS: GDM prevalence per 2-hour OGTT was 9.0% for the WHO criteria and 14.3% for the NICE criteria. Selective screening using glycosuria, RBG and risk factors missed 97.4%, 87.2% and 45.7% of cases, respectively. FPG threshold ≥5.1 mmol/L had the highest clinically relevant sensitivity (68%) and specificity (81%), but FPG threshold ≥5.6 mmol/L had higher positive predictive value. Although sensitivity of 1-hour OGTT was 39.5%, it had the highest accuracy and diagnostic OR. Regarding test performance, 1-hour OGTT and FPG were very good (AUC>0.8), RBG was poor (AUC≈0.60), whereas HbA1c was invaluable (AUC<0.5). CONCLUSIONS: Selective screening using glycosuria and random blood glucose is unnecessary due to its low sensitivity. Fasting glucose ≥5.1 mmol/L could be applicable for screening at the population level. Where 2-hour OGTT is not available, FPG ≥5.6 mmol/L, complemented by the presence of risk factors, could be useful in making therapeutic decision.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6014183
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60141832018-06-25 Accuracy of glycosuria, random blood glucose and risk factors as selective screening tools for gestational diabetes mellitus in comparison with universal diagnosing Agbozo, Faith Abubakari, Abdulai Narh, Clement Jahn, Albrecht BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care Epidemiology/Health Services Research OBJECTIVE: Despite the short-term and long-term health implications of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), opinions are divided on selective vis-à-vis universal screening. We validated the accuracy of screening tests for GDM. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Pregnant women (n=491) were recruited to this prospective, blind comparison with a gold standard study. We did selective screening between 13 and 20 weeks using reagent-strip glycosuria, random capillary blood glucose (RBG) and the presence of ≥1 risk factor(s). Between 20 and 34 weeks, we did universal screening following the ‘one-step’ approach using glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting venous plasma glucose (FPG), and the 1-hour and the ‘gold standard’ 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). Tests accuracy was estimated following the WHO and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) diagnostic criteria. Overall test performance was determined from the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). RESULTS: GDM prevalence per 2-hour OGTT was 9.0% for the WHO criteria and 14.3% for the NICE criteria. Selective screening using glycosuria, RBG and risk factors missed 97.4%, 87.2% and 45.7% of cases, respectively. FPG threshold ≥5.1 mmol/L had the highest clinically relevant sensitivity (68%) and specificity (81%), but FPG threshold ≥5.6 mmol/L had higher positive predictive value. Although sensitivity of 1-hour OGTT was 39.5%, it had the highest accuracy and diagnostic OR. Regarding test performance, 1-hour OGTT and FPG were very good (AUC>0.8), RBG was poor (AUC≈0.60), whereas HbA1c was invaluable (AUC<0.5). CONCLUSIONS: Selective screening using glycosuria and random blood glucose is unnecessary due to its low sensitivity. Fasting glucose ≥5.1 mmol/L could be applicable for screening at the population level. Where 2-hour OGTT is not available, FPG ≥5.6 mmol/L, complemented by the presence of risk factors, could be useful in making therapeutic decision. BMJ Publishing Group 2018-06-15 /pmc/articles/PMC6014183/ /pubmed/29942522 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjdrc-2017-000493 Text en © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted. This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
spellingShingle Epidemiology/Health Services Research
Agbozo, Faith
Abubakari, Abdulai
Narh, Clement
Jahn, Albrecht
Accuracy of glycosuria, random blood glucose and risk factors as selective screening tools for gestational diabetes mellitus in comparison with universal diagnosing
title Accuracy of glycosuria, random blood glucose and risk factors as selective screening tools for gestational diabetes mellitus in comparison with universal diagnosing
title_full Accuracy of glycosuria, random blood glucose and risk factors as selective screening tools for gestational diabetes mellitus in comparison with universal diagnosing
title_fullStr Accuracy of glycosuria, random blood glucose and risk factors as selective screening tools for gestational diabetes mellitus in comparison with universal diagnosing
title_full_unstemmed Accuracy of glycosuria, random blood glucose and risk factors as selective screening tools for gestational diabetes mellitus in comparison with universal diagnosing
title_short Accuracy of glycosuria, random blood glucose and risk factors as selective screening tools for gestational diabetes mellitus in comparison with universal diagnosing
title_sort accuracy of glycosuria, random blood glucose and risk factors as selective screening tools for gestational diabetes mellitus in comparison with universal diagnosing
topic Epidemiology/Health Services Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6014183/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29942522
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjdrc-2017-000493
work_keys_str_mv AT agbozofaith accuracyofglycosuriarandombloodglucoseandriskfactorsasselectivescreeningtoolsforgestationaldiabetesmellitusincomparisonwithuniversaldiagnosing
AT abubakariabdulai accuracyofglycosuriarandombloodglucoseandriskfactorsasselectivescreeningtoolsforgestationaldiabetesmellitusincomparisonwithuniversaldiagnosing
AT narhclement accuracyofglycosuriarandombloodglucoseandriskfactorsasselectivescreeningtoolsforgestationaldiabetesmellitusincomparisonwithuniversaldiagnosing
AT jahnalbrecht accuracyofglycosuriarandombloodglucoseandriskfactorsasselectivescreeningtoolsforgestationaldiabetesmellitusincomparisonwithuniversaldiagnosing