BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group India (DIPSI) recommends 2-h Plasma glucose (PG) > or = 140 mg/dL with 75g oral glucose load to diagnose GDM, akin to WHO criteria. Recently, International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group (IADPSG) recommends any one value of Fasting plasma glucose (FPG) > or = 92 mg/ dL, 1-h PG > or = 180 mg/dL or 2-h PG > or = 153 mg/dL to diagnose GDM. The objective of this study was to find out whether DIPSI guidelines could still be continued to diagnose GDM in our country, as this requires one blood test compared to three tests of IADPSG, which is expensive. METHOD: Consecutive pregnant women (N = 1463) underwent 75g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). The proportion of GDM was computed based on IADPSG and DIPSI criteria and the discordant pair of diagnosing GDM was examined by McNemar test. Analysis was two tailed and P-value <0.05 was considered for statistical significance. RESULT: The prevalence of GDM was 14.6% (N = 214) by IADPSG criteria and 13.4% (n = 196) by DIPSI criteria. The discordant pair between the two criteria examined by McNemar's test indicated that there was no statistical significance (P = 0.21) and thereby implying a close agreement between these two procedures. CONCLUSION: DIPSI procedure is cost-effective, without compromising the clinical equipoise and can be continued to diagnose GDM in our country, as well as other less resource countries.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE:Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group India (DIPSI) recommends 2-h Plasma glucose (PG) > or = 140 mg/dL with 75g oral glucose load to diagnose GDM, akin to WHO criteria. Recently, International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group (IADPSG) recommends any one value of Fasting plasma glucose (FPG) > or = 92 mg/ dL, 1-h PG > or = 180 mg/dL or 2-h PG > or = 153 mg/dL to diagnose GDM. The objective of this study was to find out whether DIPSI guidelines could still be continued to diagnose GDM in our country, as this requires one blood test compared to three tests of IADPSG, which is expensive. METHOD: Consecutive pregnant women (N = 1463) underwent 75g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). The proportion of GDM was computed based on IADPSG and DIPSI criteria and the discordant pair of diagnosing GDM was examined by McNemar test. Analysis was two tailed and P-value <0.05 was considered for statistical significance. RESULT: The prevalence of GDM was 14.6% (N = 214) by IADPSG criteria and 13.4% (n = 196) by DIPSI criteria. The discordant pair between the two criteria examined by McNemar's test indicated that there was no statistical significance (P = 0.21) and thereby implying a close agreement between these two procedures. CONCLUSION:DIPSI procedure is cost-effective, without compromising the clinical equipoise and can be continued to diagnose GDM in our country, as well as other less resource countries.
Authors: V Gopalakrishnan; R Singh; Y Pradeep; D Kapoor; A K Rani; S Pradhan; E Bhatia; S B Yadav Journal: J Postgrad Med Date: 2015 Jul-Sep Impact factor: 1.476