Prediction of alterations in glucose metabolism by glucose and insulin measurements in early pregnancy
Abstract
Background and aims Abnormal dysglycemia during pregnancy increases morbimortality in women and newborns. This study evaluated early markers for that event. We undertook this study to estimate the incidence of dysglycemic events during pregnancy and to evaluate fasting glycemia, insulin and HOMA-IR index in early pregnancy as their predictors in order to compare their predictive capability for gestational diabetes (GD). Methods This was a prospective cohort that included 450 women seeking prenatal care at the Mexican Social Security Institute (IMSS). Subjects were ≥19 years old, in early pregnancy, without previous dysglycemia or hypertension, and with fasting glycemia <126 mg/dL. Insulin and HOMA-IR were measured. At 24-36 weeks of gestation, a 3-h 100 g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) was performed, applying the modified Carpenter-Coustan criteria. Multiple logistic regression models including an offset term as indicator of time in risk allowed us to estimate the risk of developing glucose intolerance (GI), GD, or hyperglycemia 1-h after the glucose load (HG-1). Areas under the ROC curve allowed comparison of the models' predictive capability. Results Incidence of dysglycemic events was 20.7%. The risk of GD was higher for the highest glycemia (RR = 4.1, 95% CI 1.6-10.6), insulin (RR = 4.1, 95% CI 1.2-14.2), and HOMA-IR (RR = 6.4, 95% CI 1.9-21.9). A higher risk of GI was found for the highest values of glycemia (RR = 2.6, 95% CI 1.3-5.3). Higher glycemia (RR = 3.9, 95% CI 1.6-9.2), insulin (RR = 2.8, 95% CI 1.0-7.5) and HOMA-IR (RR = 3.8, 95% CI 1.4-10.2) were associated with HG-1. Areas under the ROC curve for adjusted models with glycemia, insulin, or HOMA-IR were 0.749, 0.715, and 0.747, respectively (p = 0.4). Conclusions Fasting glycemia was the best adjusted predictor of GD in early pregnancy, having equal predictive capability compared to insulin and HOMA-IR.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
A growing trend of gestational diabetes mellitus prevalence has been observed in Mexico.
“A growing trend of GDM prevalence has been observed [56,57,58,59,60,61].”
From Evolution of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus across Continents in 21st Century (2022) · cites this paper as [59]
Cites
Matthews, D. R., Hosker, J. P., Rudenski, A. S., Naylor, B. A., Treacher, D. F., & Turner, R. C. (1985) · Diabetologia · doi:10.1007/bf00280883 · Cited by 31,502 · see citing works
Cellular Mechanisms for Insulin Resistance in Normal Pregnancy and Gestational Diabetes
Barbour, L. A., McCurdy, C. E., Hernandez, T. L., Kirwan, J. P., Catalano, P. M., & Friedman, J. E. (2007) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc07-s202 · Cited by 811 · see citing works
Mills, J. L., Jovanovic, L., Knopp, R., Aarons, J., Conley, M., Park, E., Lee, Y. J., Holmes, L., Simpson, J. L., & Metzger, B. (1998) · Metabolism · doi:10.1016/s0026-0495(98)90290-6 · Cited by 199 · see citing works
Maternal and Fetal Outcomes if Gestational Impaired Glucose Tolerance Is Not Treated
Östlund, I., Hanson, U., Björklund, A., Hjertberg, R., Eva, N., Nordlander, E., Marja-Liisa, S., & Wager, J. (2003) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/diacare.26.7.2107 · Cited by 151 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Evolution of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus across Continents in 21st Century
Dłuski, D. F., Ruszała, M., Rudziński, G., Pożarowska, K., Brzuszkiewicz, K., & Leszczyńska-Gorzelak, B. (2022) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph192315804 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
- Authors
- López Caudana, A. E., López Ridaura, R., González Villalpando, C., Lazcano Ponce, E. C., Casanueva y López, E. M., Hernández Ávila, M., & Téllez-Rojo Solís, M. M.
- Venue
- Archives of Medical Research
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2011-01
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 70-76
- ISSN
- 0066-6769 (ISSN-L)
- 0188-4409
- OpenAlex
- W2142185837
- Cited by
- 9
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2022: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 0.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Archives of Medical Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Health Research Coordination at the IMSS (2005/1/I/090)
- National Institute of Public Health, and the National Institute of Perinatology in Mexico
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Gestational Diabetes Research and Management
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Pregnancy and preeclampsia studies
- Keywords
- gestational diabetes mellitus, early pregnancy, fasting blood glucose, insulin, HOMA-IR, insulin resistance, impaired glucose tolerance, hyperglycemia, dysglycemia, risk prediction, oral glucose tolerance test, Carpenter and Coustan criteria, prenatal care, women of reproductive age, Mexico City, maternal and neonatal morbidity
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Blood Glucose, Female, Glucose, Glucose Tolerance Test, Humans, Infant, Newborn, Insulin, Predictive Value of Tests, Pregnancy, Prospective Studies, ROC Curve, Cohort Studies, Diabetes, Gestational, Young Adult
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review