Skip to main content
Download PDF

Early diabetes screening in women with previous gestational diabetes: a new insight

Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome volume 8, Article number: 61 (2016) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a risk factor for the development of diabetes mellitus (DM). However, there is a low return rate for this screening, so it is important to search for earlier methods for evaluation after delivery, to increase the number of pregnant women screened, so you can start the treatment or prevention of these early comorbidities. To determine the accuracy of the 75 g 2-h oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) performed between 48–72 h after delivery for the diagnosis of DM using the OGTT after 6 weeks as the gold standard criterion, and to identify the optimal cutoff points for this exam for diabetes screening after a pregnancy complicated by GDM.

Methods

82 women with previous GDM underwent an OGTT between 48–72 h postpartum and repeated the test 6 weeks after delivery.

Results

The prevalence of DM and prediabetes based on the first OGTT was 3.7 and 32.9 %, respectively, and 8.5 and 20.7 %, respectively, at the second OGTT. For those with DM, the area under the curve (AUC) based on the fasting plasma glucose (FPG) was 0.77 (95 % CI 0.61–0.92), and based on 2-h OGTT was 0.82 (95 % CI 0.66–0.97). For patients with prediabetes, the AUC based on the FPG was 0.73 (95 % CI 0.59–0.86) and based on the 2-h OGTT was 0.74 (95 % CI 0.61–0.87). Using a FPG cutoff value of 78 mg/dl (4.3 mmol/L) and a 2-h OGTT cutoff value of 130 mg/dl (7.2 mmol/L) for DM, the specificity was 58.7 and 60 %, the sensitivity was 71.4 and 85.7 %, the positive predictive value was 13.9 and 16.7 and the negative predictive value was 95.7 and 97.9 %, respectively.

Conclusions

OGTT performed early in postpartum is a useful tool for identifying women with previous GDM who must perform an OGTT 6 weeks after delivery.

Background

The number of patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) has increased significantly in recent decades. Despite better awareness and developments in treatment and prevention of type 2 diabetes, one in two adults with diabetes is undiagnosed [1]. The increasing prevalence of overweight and obesity in both developed and developing countries are the main factors for this rise [2]. Likewise, a growing number of cases of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) have been described in the last decades [3].

The frequency of GDM varies between 3–14 % depending on the method used for diagnosis and the study population [4–7]. The magnitude of the risk of postpartum diabetes depends on the ethnicity, the duration of follow up and the specific criteria for GDM diagnosis. Studies have shown that 3–65 % of women with previous GDM develop type 2 diabetes within 5–16 years after the index pregnancy [8–13]. When screened 6–12 weeks postpartum, up to 10 % of women who had GDM were diagnosed with diabetes and an additional 12–36 % had impaired fasting glucose or impaired glucose tolerance [14, 15]. Postpartum screening aims to identify women that developed or have an elevated risk of developing diabetes after pregnancy. Early recognition is important because lifestyle modifications and medications can reduce the incidence of diabetes in individuals at high risk [16–18]. Additionally, the early treatment of diabetes can prevent or delay microvascular end organ complications and reduce the risk of experiencing complications in subsequent pregnancies [19–23].

Both the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the World Health Organisation (WHO) recommend postpartum screening after 6–12 weeks, using the 75 g 2-h oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) [24–26]. The United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) recommends the fasting plasma glucose (FPG) test be administered at least 6 weeks after childbirth, instead of the traditional OGTT [27, 28]. The OGTT is more sensitive, with reported sensitivities of 100 % compared with 67 % for the FPG [29]. Previous studies of postpartum diabetes screening in women with GDM-affected pregnancies have noted test completion rates that range from 14–61 % [15, 20, 30, 31]. Alternative diagnostic tools may increase the number of evaluated women with previous GDM. The ADA recommends that women with a history of GDM with a normal postpartum screening might be rescreened every 3 years, and women with impaired fasting glucose (IFG) or impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) or both (prediabetes) should be rescreened annually [18].

The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of the 2-h OGTT performed between 48–72 h after delivery for the diagnosis of diabetes and to identify the optimal 2-h OGTT cutoff points for screening dysglycaemia in the early postpartum period using the follow-up 2-h OGTT after 6 weeks as the gold standard criteria.

Methods

Study design

In this prospective observational study, women with previous GDM who were recruited from a multi-ethnic population were evaluated. The diagnosis of GDM in pregnant women prior to December 2010 was made according to the Carpenter and Coustan criteria [32]; after January 2011, the diagnosis was made according to the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) [33]. The inclusion criteria were pregnant women diagnosed with GDM with regular follow-up in the diabetes and pregnancy outpatient clinic of the maternity school at Rio de Janeiro Federal University. Women who used medications known to affect glucose metabolism, and mothers diagnosed with GDM who were discharged before 48 h after delivery were excluded (8.1 %). All women identified with GDM underwent self-monitoring of blood glucose measurements, as well as dietary management. Insulin treatment was initiated when dietary management did not achieve the glycaemic goal (fasting blood glucose >95 mg/dl, 1 h postprandial blood glucose >140 mg/dl, or 2 h postprandial blood glucose >120 mg/dl). The standard care was to screen all pregnant women with previous GDM with the 2-h OGTT at six weeks after delivery.

Data collection included a detailed clinical and obstetric history. Measurements of FPG and a 2-h OGTT were assessed using an enzymatic colorimetric method between 48–72 h and 6 weeks after delivery. Study subjects were instructed to fast overnight for at least 8 h prior to their testing day and to eat at least 150 g of carbohydrate the day prior to testing. The OGTT used a 75 g anhydrous glucose load and followed the standard WHO procedures [34]. The diagnostic categories of normal, prediabetes (i.e., impaired fasting glucose or impaired glucose tolerance) and diabetes were determined from the results of the FPG and 2-h OGTT using the WHO 2006/ADA criteria [35].

Ethical considerations

All participants provided written informed consent. The Local Ethics Committee approved this study.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analyses were performed with SPSS version 20.0. Differences in the classifications between normal, prediabetes and diabetes using the FPG and OGTT were assessed using a non-parametric test (Wilcoxon). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were developed, and the area under the curve (AUC) with 95 % CIs was determined. The ROC curves were constructed to calculate the sensitivity, specificity, predictive value positive and predictive value negative at different cutoff values. The optimal FPG and 2 h OGTT-screening cutoff points between 48–72 h after delivery were determined by taking the greatest sum of the sensitivity and specificity for the measured FPG and 2-h OGTT values between the two diagnosed groups (diabetes and prediabetes). The positive predictive value was defined as the number of true positives divided by the total number of individuals who tested positive, whereas the negative predictive value referred to the proportion of subjects with a negative test result who were correctly diagnosed. The positive predictive value and negative predictive value were also reported for the optimal cutoff values.

Results and discussion

During the inclusion period, 257 women with GDM were identified; however, only 82 (31.9 %) patients met all inclusion criteria, had full laboratory data for analysis, and were included in the study. In fact, 21 mothers were discharged before 48 h (8.1 %), 49 patients did only the first OGTT (19 %), and 105 did not return to the second OGTT (40, 85 %). Perinatal features of this study cohort were as follows: the mean age was 32.2 (± 5.8) years, the mean body mass index (BMI) was = 27.7 (±5.3) kg/m2, 54.4 % were non-caucasian, 56.7 % had more than 8 years of education and 68.4 % had a relative with DM. Additionally, the mean parity of the women was 2.3 (±1.3), the mean gestational age at GDM diagnosis was 23.1 weeks (±7.4), 69.4 % had a caesarean delivery and 64.6 % required insulin treatment (Table 1).The mean FPG levels in the early period (48–72 h) after delivery were 76.7 mg/dl (4.26 mmol/L ± 0.66), whereas the mean FPG levels after 6 weeks were 92.6 mg/dl (5.1 mmol/L ± 15.7) (p < 0.0001). All patients were breastfeeding during routine postpartum OGTT. The 2 h post-load glucose was 123.6 mg/dl (6.8 mmol/L ± 2.0) and 110.0 mg/dl (6.1 mmol/L (±2.2) (p = 0.001) between 48–72 h and after 6 weeks, respectively. The prevalence of diabetes and prediabetes based on the 75 g OGTT performed at 48–72 h after birth was 3.7 and 32.9 %, respectively, whereas the prevalence based on the second OGTT was 8.5 and 20.7 %, respectively.

Table 1 Patient characteristics
Full size table

Women with diagnosis of diabetes on the second 75 g OGTT (n = 7) had mean age of 33.1 (±6.4) years and the mean BMI was 29.8 (±7.2) kg/m2 respectively. In addition, the mean parity was 2.4 (±1.6), and the mean gestational age at GDM diagnosis was 19.4 (±8.7). These patients had a mean weight gain until the GDM diagnosis of 5.1 (±3.8) kg and 8.2 (±2.9) kg until delivery. Eighty-five percent were on using insulin at an average of 27.3 (±2.9) weeks, and seventy-one percent had a family history of DM. The delivery was on average 37.5 (±5.2) weeks and the neonate’s weight was 3108.3 (±957.2) g. There was no statistically significant difference between mothers with and without a diagnosis of diabetes postpartum.

Using the 2-h value of 200 mg/dl (11.1 mmol/L) as the cutoff for identifying individuals with diabetes resulted in a sensitivity of 28.6 %, a specificity of 98.7 % and positive and negative predictive values of 66.7 and 93.7 %, respectively. The performance of the early 2-h OGTT was also evaluated using 140 mg/dl (7.7 mmol/L) as the cutoff for identifying individuals with prediabetes, which revealed a sensitivity of 64.7 %, a specificity of 75.4 % and positive and negative predictive values of 40.7 and 89.1 %, respectively.

The AUC based on the FPG in the early period for the group with diabetes was 0.77 (95 % CI 0.61–0.92; p = 0.020) and 0.82 (95 % CI 0.66–0.97; p = 0.006) based on the 2-h OGTT (Fig. 1). The AUC based on the FPG in the early period for the group with prediabetes was 0.73 (95 % CI 0.59–0.86 p = 0.004) and 0.74 (95 %CI 0.61–0.87; p = 0.002) based on the 2-h OGTT (Fig. 1). The greatest accuracy for prediabetes was found with the cutoff values of 78 mg/dl (4.3 mmol/L) for FPG and 130 mg/dl (7.2 mmol/L) for the 2-h OGTT (specificity was 63.1 and 64.6 %, sensitivity was 70.6 and 76.5 %, the positive predictive value was 33.3 and 36.1 % and the negative predictive value was 89.1 and 91.3 %, respectively). The greatest accuracy for diabetes was found with the cutoff values of 80 mg/dl (4.4 mmol/L) for the FPG and 150 mg/dl (8.33 mmol/L) for the 2-h OGTT (the specificity was 66.7 and 80 %, the sensitivity was 71.4 % for both, the positive predictive value was 16.7 and 25 % and the negative predictive value was 96.2 and 96.8 %, respectively) (Table 2).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Receiver operating characteristics curve for the FPG and 2 h OGTT used for the detection of diabetes by glucose criteria. a Early FPG for DM. b Early 2-h OGTT for DM. c Early FPG for Pre DM. d Early 2-h OGTT for Pre DM

Full size image
Table 2 Optimal early fasting glucose and 2-h OGTT for the determination of dysglycaemia
Full size table

The mean age of women not included in the study (n = 175) were 30.5 (±5.8) years and the mean age of pregnancy at GDM diagnosis were 23.9 (±7.4) weeks, with an average BMI of 28.4 (±5.1) kg/m2. In addition, 57.5 % were on insulin and 65.4 % had a family history of diabetes. Comparing both groups (women included and not included in the study), there was no statistically difference in continuous sociodemographic variables. Concerning the categorical variables, the history of previous GDM in the mothers included in the study was significantly higher than in the group of mothers not included (23.4 × 7.9 %, p = 0.008). There was no significant difference in other categorical variables between the two groups (Tables 3, 4).

Table 3 Comparison of sociodemographic categorical variables of pregnancy and the newborn among the women included and not included in the study
Full size table
Table 4 Comparison of sociodemographic continuous variables of pregnancy and the newborn among women included (n = 82) and not included (n = 175) in the study
Full size table

We compared the influence of the type of delivery (Vaginal vs Cesarean section) on serum levels of fasting glucose and post-load 75 g, both in collecting 48–72 h as in collecting six weeks, and no statistically significant difference was found.

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first study that evaluate the accuracy and cut off values of OGTT during the early postpartum period in women still hospitalised with previous GDM for determine DM risk. Recently, a study was published and evaluated 58 women with previous GDM who agreed to perform the 75 g OGTT on the second day postpartum. These results were compared with the standard 75 g OGTT 4–12 weeks postpartum. Only 49 of the 98 women presented for routine postpartum OGTT. This study concludes that performing OGTT on the second day is feasible and should be further investigated as an alternative postpartum testing regimen in GDM [36]. In this present study, a 48–72 h OGTT was proven to be a useful tool for identifying women who must perform an OGTT at 6 weeks after delivery. We determined that a FPG of 78 mg/dl (4.3 mmol/L) or a 2-h OGTT of 130 mg/dl (7.2 mmol/L) were the optimal screening cutoff levels for prediabetes, whereas 80 mg/dl (4.4 mmol/L) or 150 mg/dl (8.3 mmol/L), respectively, were the optimal screening cutoff levels for diabetes. Thus, a FPG of 78 mg/dl (4.3 mmol/L) and a 2-h OGTT of 130 mg/dl (7.2 mmol/L) provide the optimal cutoffs to screen for dysglycemia after GDM complicated pregnancies. Additionally, we determined that the 2 h OGTT was more accurate than the FPG.

It is important for screening tests to miss fewer individuals with the target disease, and therefore, screening cutoffs are typically lower compared with diagnostic cutoffs. Differences may also result from interference related to the hormonal changes that occur during this postpartum period [37–39]. A special hormonal milieu is observed between 48–72 h after birth. During pregnancy, the levels of oestrogen and progesterone increase greatly primarily because of placental production [40–43]. Following the removal of the placenta, these hormones fall sharply and reach pre-pregnancy levels on the fifth day postpartum [44]. Levels of cortisol, beta- endorphin, and β-HCG also decline during this period [45]. In women who do not breastfeed, prolactin returns to pre-pregnancy levels by 3 weeks after delivery [46]. These hormones, which are counter-regulatory to insulin, contribute to increased insulin resistance in the early postpartum period. Although the OGTT at 48–72 h did not appear to define the diagnosis of diabetes in this study, it was notable that the OGTT at 48–72 h had a high negative predictive value, with a cutoff FPG <78 mg/dl (4.3 mmol/L) and 2-h OGTT <130 mg/dl (7.2 mmol/L), thereby excluding nearly all individuals with diabetes (but not prediabetes). Moreover, diabetes-screening cutoffs that included an early FPG of 78 mg/dl (4.3 mmol/L) and a 2 h OGTT of 130 mg/dl (7.2 mmol/L) effectively identified higher-risk individuals who required a referral for additional evaluation and management. Using these cutoff points, it was found that only 37 % of women should be advised to have their glucose tolerance assessed 6 weeks after delivery. Thus, more than half of women (63 %) should be reevaluated only after 1–3 years per the ADA guidelines on the frequency of testing [18]. Furthermore, identifying women that should return at 6 weeks eases the overall burden to health-care practitioners and reduces the effort required to contact patients and, if necessary, provide a home visit by a health-care worker, which many studies have recommended [47].

The possibility of performing the screening while women are still in the hospital will most likely enhance the efficacy of detecting women at a higher risk for developing DM and will reinforce the need to return for individuals with a greater risk. Hospital sampling could overcome the barriers that currently prevent women from returning to health-care providers for investigation after 6 weeks. The characteristics of patients associated with higher rates of postpartum screening included older age, nulliparity, and higher income or education [15, 31]. Women who received prenatal care, were treated with insulin during pregnancy, or completed a postpartum visit were also more likely to receive a postpartum diabetes screening [15]. In the present study, 31.9 % of the women attended the postpartum follow-up examination, although all patients received reminders upon completion of the first OGTT. This response rate is similar to the lowest follow-up frequency [15, 31]. The most likely explanation for this result is that women in the studied population predominately belonged to low socioeconomic levels and thus, had lower levels of income and education. Sixty-four percent of patients that were included required insulin treatment, and 56 % of patients had more than 8 years of education. The problem of identifying DM after GDM, which may be of greater concern than the choice of test itself, is the poor postpartum screening rate. Although counselling for the management of chronic disease may be challenging in the postpartum period, individuals sometimes express greater interest in their health during times of illness, and opportunities for early diagnosis should not be lost. During a brief discussion, patients with elevated FPG and/or 2 h OGTT could be encouraged to partner with a provider and maintain long-term care, as well as to attempt lifestyle modifications. The concept of a “teachable moment” has been demonstrated for the case of smoking cessation, in which patients are more likely to quit smoking after health events, such as pregnancy, hospitalisation, and the diagnosis of cancer [39]. Thus, health events represent opportunities for health care providers to educate patients and encourage behaviour modifications [48–50].

The prevalence of diabetes in women after GDM in our study (8.5 %) is consistent with those previously described (5–14 %) [14, 15, 51–53]. The first OGTT identified more prediabetes than diabetes cases compared with the second OGTT (prediabetes 32.9 vs 20.7 %; DM 3.7 vs 8.5 %). This result was most likely the result of the number of patients included. Larger cohorts are necessary to recommend the OGTT at 48–72 h as a test for the early screening of postpartum women with GDM. Differences may also result from interference related to the hormonal changes that occur during this postpartum period [37–39]. A special hormonal milieu is observed between 48–72 h after birth. During pregnancy, the levels of oestrogen and progesterone increase greatly primarily because of placental production [40–43]. Following the removal of the placenta, these hormones fall sharply and reach pre-pregnancy levels on the fifty day postpartum [44]. Levels of cortisol, beta-endorphin, and β-HCG also decline during this period [45]. In women who do not breastfeed, prolactin returns to pre-pregnancy levels by 3 weeks after delivery [46]. These hormones, which are counter-regulatory to insulin, contribute to increased insulin resistance in the early postpartum period.

This study had some limitations. Firstly, patients were included since 2008 and were classified according to two different criteria for GDM diagnosis (Carpenter and Coustan and the IADPSG). Ikenoue et al. suggested that the IADPSG-defined GDM of one abnormal OGTT value indicates a less severe glucose intolerance, but may still signal a risk of requiring insulin when a first-degree family history of diabetes exists [54]. Our participants had a high prevalence of a relative with diabetes (68.4 %). Moreover, women who were discharged prior to 48 h were not included in this study. These patients most likely had a milder case of GDM and lowest prevalence of postpartum DM. Additionally, the sample size is small, therefore the 95 % CIs around the AUROC curves are quite wide.

Indeed, curtailing the rapidly increasing prevalence of early-onset diabetes is a formidable task for health-care practitioners. Additional efforts are necessary to identify these young women as early as possible because they are one of the best groups for which the implementation of a primary prevention strategy is most effective, not only for themselves but also for their offspring and family. Early postpartum screening for DM effectively identifies higher-risk women with previous GDM who require a referral for additional evaluation and management.

Conclusions

OGTT performed early in postpartum is a useful tool for identifying women with previous GDM who must perform an OGTT 6 weeks after delivery. A diabetes-screening cutoff of FPG of 78 mg/dl (4.3 mmol/L) and a 2-h OGTT of 130 mg/dl (7.2 mmol/L) effectively identified higher-risk individuals who require a referral for additional evaluation and should be further assessed in larger prospective studies.

Abbreviations

ADA:

American Diabetes Association

AUC:

area under the curve

BMI:

body mass index

DM:

diabetes mellitus

FPG:

fasting plasma glucose

GDM:

gestational diabetes mellitus

IFG:

impaired fasting glucose

IGT:

impaired glucose tolerance

IADPSG:

International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups

OGTT:

oral glucose tolerance test

ROC:

receiver operating characteristic

NICE:

United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence

WHO:

World Health Organisation

References

  1. International Diabetes Federation. IDF Diabetes Atlas, 7th edn. Brussels, Belgium: International Diabetes Federation; 2015. http://www.diabetesatlas.org.

  2. Caprio S. Development of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the obese adolescent: a growing challenge. Endocr Pract. 2012;18:791–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ferrara A. Increasing prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus: a public health perspective. Diabetes Care. 2007;30(Suppl 2):S141–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Reichelt AJ, Spichler ER, Branchtein L. Fasting plasma glucose is a useful test for the gestational diabetes. Diabetes Care. 1998;21:1246–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bowes SB, Hennessy TR, Umpleby AM. Measurement of glucose metabolism and insulin secretion during normal pregnancy and pregnancy complicated by gestational diabetes. Diabetologia. 1996;39:976–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. O’Sullivan JB, Mahan CM, Charles D, Dandrow RV. Screening criteria for high-risk gestational diabetic patients. Am J Obstetr Gynecol. 1973;116:895–900.

    Google Scholar 

  7. American Diabetes Association. clinical practice recommendations 1996. Diabetes Care. 1996;19(Suppl 1):S1–118.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Philipson EH, Super DM. Gestational diabetes mellitus: does it recur in subsequent pregnancy? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1989;160:1324–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gaudier FL, Hauth JC, Poist M, Corbett DL, Cliver SP. Recurrence of gestational diabetes mellitus. Obstet Gynecol. 1992;80:755–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Coelingh Bennink HJT. Recurrence of gestational diabetes. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1977;7:359–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Grant PT, Oats JN, Beischer NA. The long-term follow-up of women with gestational diabetes. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 1986;26:17–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Moses RG. The recurrence rate of gestational diabetes in subsequent pregnancies. Diabetes Care. 1996;19:1348–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Damm P. Gestational diabetes mellitus and subsequent development of overt diabetes mellitus. Dan Med Bull. 1998;45:495–509.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National diabetes fact sheet: national estimates and general information on diabetes and prediabetes in the United States, 2011. Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2011. http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pubs/pdf/ndfs2011.pdf.

  15. Tovar A, Chasan-Taber L, Eggleston E, Oken E. Postpartum screening for diabetes among women with a history of gestational diabetes mellitus. Prev Chronic Dis. 2011;8:A124.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Knowler WC, Barrett-Connor E, Fowler SE, Hamman RF, Lachin JM, Walker EA, et al. Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin. N Engl J Med. 2002;14:393–403.

    Google Scholar 

  17. American Diabetes Association. Diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care. 2007;30(Suppl 1):S42–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Metzger BE, Buchanan TA, Coustan DR, de Leia A, Dunger DB. Summary and recommendations of the Fifth International Workshop Conference on gestational diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care. 2007;2(30 Suppl 2):S251–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes. Interventions and Complications Research Group. Retinopathy and nephropathy in patients with type 1 diabetes four years after a trial of intensive therapy. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:381–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ratner R. Prevention of type 2 diabetes in women with previous gestational diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2007;30:S242–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Chalmers J, Cooper M. UKPDS and the legacy effect. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:1618–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group. Intensive blood-glucose control with suphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complication in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS33). Lancet. 1998;352:837–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications Research Group. Intensive diabetes treatment and cardiovascular disease in patients with type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:2643–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. American Diabetes Association. Gestational diabetes mellitus (position statement). Diabetes Care. 2004;21(Suppl 1):S88–90.

    Google Scholar 

  25. The Expert Committee on the Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus. Report of the Expert Committee on the Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus. Diabetes Care. 1997;20:1183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. World Health Organisation. Definition, diagnosis and classification of diabetes and its complications. Report of a WHO consultation. Part 1: diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus. Geneva: WHO; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Nice guideline. 2015. http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng3.

  28. Meltzer S, Leiter L, Daneman D, Gerstein HC, Lau D, Ludwig S, et al. 1998 clinical practice guidelines for the management of diabetes in Canada. Can Med Assoc J. 1998;159(Suppl):S1–29.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Flack JR, Payne TJ, Ross GP. Post-partum glucose tolerance assessment in women diagnosed with gestational diabetes: evidence supporting the need to undertake an oral glucose tolerance test. Diabetes Med. 2010;27(2):243–4. doi:10.1111/j.1464-5491.2009.02892.x.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Hunt KJ, Conway DL. Who returns for postpartum glucose screening following gestational diabetes mellitus? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;198:404–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Clark HD, Graham ID, Karovitch A, Keely EJ. Do postal reminders increase postpartum screening of Diabetes mellitus in women with gestational diabetes mellitus? (a randomized controlled trial). Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;200:634 (e1–7).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Carpenter MW, Coustan DR. Criteria for screening tests for gestational diabetes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1982;144:768–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Metzger BE, Gabbe SG, Persson B, et al. International Association of diabetes and pregnancy study groups recommendations on the diagnosis and classification of hyperglycemia in pregnancy. Diabetes Care. 2010;33:676–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. World Health Organisation Expert Committee on Diabetes Mellitus. Diabetes mellitus. Geneva: World Health Organisation; 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  35. World Health Organisation. Definition and diagnosis of diabetes mellitus and intermediate hyperglycaemia. Geneva: WHO; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Werner EF, Has P, Tarabulsi G, Lee J, Satin A. Early postpartum glucose testing in women with gestational diabetes mellitus. Am J Perinatol. 2016;33(10):966–71. doi:10.1055/s-0036-1583193

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Xiang A, Kjos S, Takayanagi M, Trigo E, Buchanan T. Detailed physiological characterization of the development of type 2 diabetes in Hispanic women with prior gestational diabetes mellitus. Diabetes. 2010;59:2625–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Handwerger S, Freemark M. The roles of placental growth hormone and placental lactogen in the regulation of human fetal growth and development. J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab. 2000;13:343–56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. McIntyre H, Chang A, Callway L, Cowley D, Dyer A, Radaelli T, et al. Hormonal and metabolic factors associated with variations in insulin sensitivity in normal pregnancy. Diabetes Care. 2010;33:356–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Barbour LA. New concepts in insulin resistance of pregnancy and gestational diabetes: long-term implications for mother and offspring. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2003;23:545–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Carr DB, Gabbe S. Gestational diabetes: detection, management and implications. Clin Diabetes. 1998;16:4–11.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Jovanovic-Peterson L, Peterson CM. Review of gestational diabetes and low-calorie diet and physical exercise as therapy. Diabetes Metab Rev. 1996;122:287–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Metsman JH. Insulin resistance syndrome and gestational diabetes. Endocr Pract. 2003;9(Suppl 2):90–2.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Godo G, Morvay J, Sas M. Hormonal situation on parturition, early puerperium, and lactation (author’s transl). Zentralbl Gynakol. 1979;101(24):1553–61.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Mastorakos G, Ilias I. Maternal and fetal hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axes during pregnancy and postpartum. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2003;997:136–49.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Ramos-Román MA. Prolactin and lactation as modifiers of diabetes risk in gestational diabetes. Horm Metab Res. 2011;43(9):593–600. doi:10.1055/s-0031-1284353 Epub 2011 Aug 5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Gupta Y, Gupta A. Post-partum screening after gestational diabetes. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2013;1:90–1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. McBride CM, Emmons KM, Lipikus IM. Understanding the potential of teachable moments: the case of smoke cessation. Health Educ Res. 2003;18:156–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Silverman RA, Thakker U, Ellman T, Wong I, Smith K, Ito K, Graff K. Hemoglobin A1c as a screen for previously undiagnosed prediabetes and diabetes in acute-care setting. Diabetes Care. 2011;34:1908–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Gorin AA, Phelan S, Hill JO, Wing RR. Medical triggers are associated with better short- and long- term weight loss outcomes. Prev Med. 2004;39:612–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Kim C, Newton KM, Knopp RH. Gestational diabetes and the incidence of type 2 diabetes: a systematic review. Diabetes Care. 2002;25(10):1862–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Romero Gutiérrez G, Macias Rocha AL, Puente Alvarez EI. Prevalence of postpartum impaired glucose tolerance after gestational diabetes. Ginecol Obstet Mex. 2012;80(10):631–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Anderberg E, Landin-Olsson M, Kalén J, Frid A, Ursing D, Berntorp K. Prevalence of impaired glucose tolerance and diabetes after gestational diabetes mellitus comparing different cut-off criteria for abnormal glucose tolerance during pregnancy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2011;90(11):1252–8. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0412.2011.01214.x (Epub Aug 29 2011).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Ikenoue S, Miyakoshi K, Saisho Y, et al. Clinical impact of women with gestational diabetes mellitus by the new consensus criteria: two-year experience in a single institution in Japan. Endocr J. 2014;61:353–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors’ contributions

AN contributed in the, study implementation, analysis and interpretation of data and major contribution to writing drafted the manuscript. MR drafted the manuscript. CAC, DF and MO contributed in the study implementation. LZ contributed in the study design, study implementation, analysis and interpretation of data and writing drafted the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Tatiana Barcelos for helping with the collection of laboratory tests.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Funding

This study was funded by Maternidade Escola, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Nutrology and Diabetes Section/Maternidade Escola, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, CEP 21941-913, Brazil

    Aline Nabuco, Samara Pimentel, Carolina A. Cabizuca, Melanie Rodacki, Marcus M. Oliveira & Lenita Zajdenverg

  2. Maternidade Escola, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

    Denise Finamore

  3. Serviço de Nutrologia e Diabetes, Hospital Universitário Clementino Fraga Filho, Rua Professor Rodolpho Paulo Rocco 255, sala 9E14, University City, CEP 21941-913, Brazil

    Aline Nabuco

Authors
  1. Aline Nabuco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Samara Pimentel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Carolina A. Cabizuca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Melanie Rodacki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Denise Finamore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Marcus M. Oliveira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Lenita Zajdenverg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aline Nabuco.

Rights and permissions

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. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nabuco, A., Pimentel, S., Cabizuca, C.A. et al. Early diabetes screening in women with previous gestational diabetes: a new insight. Diabetol Metab Syndr 8, 61 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13098-016-0172-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13098-016-0172-2

Keywords

Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome

ISSN: 1758-5996

Contact us