Cargando…

Approaches to screening for hyperglycaemia in pregnant women during and after the COVID‐19 pandemic

AIM: To evaluate the diagnostic and prognostic performance of alternative diagnostic strategies to oral glucose tolerance tests, including random plasma glucose, fasting plasma glucose and HbA(1c), during the COVID‐19 pandemic. METHODS: Retrospective service data (Cambridge, UK; 17 736 consecutive s...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Meek, C. L., Lindsay, R. S., Scott, E. M., Aiken, C. E., Myers, J., Reynolds, R. M., Simmons, D., Yamamoto, J. M., McCance, D. R., Murphy, H. R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7436759/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32750184
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/dme.14380
_version_ 1783572542853742592
author Meek, C. L.
Lindsay, R. S.
Scott, E. M.
Aiken, C. E.
Myers, J.
Reynolds, R. M.
Simmons, D.
Yamamoto, J. M.
McCance, D. R.
Murphy, H. R.
author_facet Meek, C. L.
Lindsay, R. S.
Scott, E. M.
Aiken, C. E.
Myers, J.
Reynolds, R. M.
Simmons, D.
Yamamoto, J. M.
McCance, D. R.
Murphy, H. R.
author_sort Meek, C. L.
collection PubMed
description AIM: To evaluate the diagnostic and prognostic performance of alternative diagnostic strategies to oral glucose tolerance tests, including random plasma glucose, fasting plasma glucose and HbA(1c), during the COVID‐19 pandemic. METHODS: Retrospective service data (Cambridge, UK; 17 736 consecutive singleton pregnancies, 2004–2008; 826 consecutive gestational diabetes pregnancies, 2014–2019) and 361 women with ≥1 gestational diabetes risk factor (OPHELIA prospective observational study, UK) were included. Pregnancy outcomes included gestational diabetes (National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence or International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups criteria), diabetes in pregnancy (WHO criteria), Caesarean section, large‐for‐gestational age infant, neonatal hypoglycaemia and neonatal intensive care unit admission. Receiver‐operating characteristic curves and unadjusted logistic regression were used to compare random plasma glucose, fasting plasma glucose and HbA(1c) performance. RESULTS: Gestational diabetes diagnosis was significantly associated with random plasma glucose at 12 weeks [area under the receiver‐operating characteristic curve for both criteria 0.81 (95% CI 0.79–0.83)], fasting plasma glucose [National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence: area under the receiver‐operating characteristic curve 0.75 (95% CI 0.65–0.85); International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups: area under the receiver‐operating characteristic curve 0.92 (95% CI 0.85–0.98)] and HbA(1c) at 28 weeks' gestation [National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence: 0.83 (95% CI 0.75–0.90); International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups: 0.84 (95% CI 0.77–0.91)]. Each measure predicts some, but not all, pregnancy outcomes studied. At 12 weeks, ~5% of women would be identified using random plasma glucose ≥8.5 mmol/l (sensitivity 42%; specificity 96%) and at 28 weeks using HbA(1c) ≥39 mmol/mol (sensitivity 26%; specificity 96%) or fasting plasma glucose ≥5.2–5.4 mmol/l (sensitivity 18–41%; specificity 97–98%). CONCLUSIONS: Random plasma glucose at 12 weeks, and fasting plasma glucose or HbA(1c) at 28 weeks identify women with hyperglycaemia at risk of suboptimal pregnancy outcomes. These opportunistic laboratory tests perform adequately for risk stratification when oral glucose tolerance testing is not available.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7436759
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74367592020-08-19 Approaches to screening for hyperglycaemia in pregnant women during and after the COVID‐19 pandemic Meek, C. L. Lindsay, R. S. Scott, E. M. Aiken, C. E. Myers, J. Reynolds, R. M. Simmons, D. Yamamoto, J. M. McCance, D. R. Murphy, H. R. Diabet Med Research: Care Delivery AIM: To evaluate the diagnostic and prognostic performance of alternative diagnostic strategies to oral glucose tolerance tests, including random plasma glucose, fasting plasma glucose and HbA(1c), during the COVID‐19 pandemic. METHODS: Retrospective service data (Cambridge, UK; 17 736 consecutive singleton pregnancies, 2004–2008; 826 consecutive gestational diabetes pregnancies, 2014–2019) and 361 women with ≥1 gestational diabetes risk factor (OPHELIA prospective observational study, UK) were included. Pregnancy outcomes included gestational diabetes (National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence or International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups criteria), diabetes in pregnancy (WHO criteria), Caesarean section, large‐for‐gestational age infant, neonatal hypoglycaemia and neonatal intensive care unit admission. Receiver‐operating characteristic curves and unadjusted logistic regression were used to compare random plasma glucose, fasting plasma glucose and HbA(1c) performance. RESULTS: Gestational diabetes diagnosis was significantly associated with random plasma glucose at 12 weeks [area under the receiver‐operating characteristic curve for both criteria 0.81 (95% CI 0.79–0.83)], fasting plasma glucose [National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence: area under the receiver‐operating characteristic curve 0.75 (95% CI 0.65–0.85); International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups: area under the receiver‐operating characteristic curve 0.92 (95% CI 0.85–0.98)] and HbA(1c) at 28 weeks' gestation [National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence: 0.83 (95% CI 0.75–0.90); International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups: 0.84 (95% CI 0.77–0.91)]. Each measure predicts some, but not all, pregnancy outcomes studied. At 12 weeks, ~5% of women would be identified using random plasma glucose ≥8.5 mmol/l (sensitivity 42%; specificity 96%) and at 28 weeks using HbA(1c) ≥39 mmol/mol (sensitivity 26%; specificity 96%) or fasting plasma glucose ≥5.2–5.4 mmol/l (sensitivity 18–41%; specificity 97–98%). CONCLUSIONS: Random plasma glucose at 12 weeks, and fasting plasma glucose or HbA(1c) at 28 weeks identify women with hyperglycaemia at risk of suboptimal pregnancy outcomes. These opportunistic laboratory tests perform adequately for risk stratification when oral glucose tolerance testing is not available. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-09-21 2021-01 /pmc/articles/PMC7436759/ /pubmed/32750184 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/dme.14380 Text en © 2020 The Authors. Diabetic Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Diabetes UK This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research: Care Delivery
Meek, C. L.
Lindsay, R. S.
Scott, E. M.
Aiken, C. E.
Myers, J.
Reynolds, R. M.
Simmons, D.
Yamamoto, J. M.
McCance, D. R.
Murphy, H. R.
Approaches to screening for hyperglycaemia in pregnant women during and after the COVID‐19 pandemic
title Approaches to screening for hyperglycaemia in pregnant women during and after the COVID‐19 pandemic
title_full Approaches to screening for hyperglycaemia in pregnant women during and after the COVID‐19 pandemic
title_fullStr Approaches to screening for hyperglycaemia in pregnant women during and after the COVID‐19 pandemic
title_full_unstemmed Approaches to screening for hyperglycaemia in pregnant women during and after the COVID‐19 pandemic
title_short Approaches to screening for hyperglycaemia in pregnant women during and after the COVID‐19 pandemic
title_sort approaches to screening for hyperglycaemia in pregnant women during and after the covid‐19 pandemic
topic Research: Care Delivery
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7436759/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32750184
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/dme.14380
work_keys_str_mv AT meekcl approachestoscreeningforhyperglycaemiainpregnantwomenduringandafterthecovid19pandemic
AT lindsayrs approachestoscreeningforhyperglycaemiainpregnantwomenduringandafterthecovid19pandemic
AT scottem approachestoscreeningforhyperglycaemiainpregnantwomenduringandafterthecovid19pandemic
AT aikence approachestoscreeningforhyperglycaemiainpregnantwomenduringandafterthecovid19pandemic
AT myersj approachestoscreeningforhyperglycaemiainpregnantwomenduringandafterthecovid19pandemic
AT reynoldsrm approachestoscreeningforhyperglycaemiainpregnantwomenduringandafterthecovid19pandemic
AT simmonsd approachestoscreeningforhyperglycaemiainpregnantwomenduringandafterthecovid19pandemic
AT yamamotojm approachestoscreeningforhyperglycaemiainpregnantwomenduringandafterthecovid19pandemic
AT mccancedr approachestoscreeningforhyperglycaemiainpregnantwomenduringandafterthecovid19pandemic
AT murphyhr approachestoscreeningforhyperglycaemiainpregnantwomenduringandafterthecovid19pandemic