High-Normal Glucose Levels in a Routine Oral 1-Hour 50 g Glucose Challenge Test Are Associated with a Poorer Glycemic Status Later in Life
08 June 2017
08 June 2017
13 July 2017 (eFirst)
Objective A 1-hour 50 g glucose challenge test (GCT) is generally used as a screening test for a 3-hour 100 g test. The future glycemic status of a pregnant woman with abnormal (high) GCT is widely discussed in the literature. On the other hand, future glycemic status of women with various glucose levels within the normal range on GCT has not yet been studied. To examine the hypothesis that lower glucose levels in GCT may result in a better glycemic status later in life, we compared the glucose levels in GCT with the glycemic status 9 years later in a large cohort in Israel.
Study Design The study was performed at the Central District of Clalit Health Services, the largest health maintenance organization in Israel. From the computerized database, we gathered data on women who underwent GCT between August 2005 and August 2006.We evaluated the association between GCT results at entry and fasting glucose levels 9 years later. The study was approved by the institutional review board (IRB). We used analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by pairwise comparisons using Tukey's method (p = 0.05) and ordinal logistic regression tests for statistical analysis.
Results A total of 6,929 women performed GCT at entry. Fasting glucose levels were available 9 years later for 4,247 women. GCT results at entry level were grouped and divided into the following groups: very low GCT (<100 mg%), low-normal (100–125 mg%), high-normal (126–140 mg%), and abnormal GCT (>140 mg%). Fasting glucose results, as well as impaired fasting glucose 9 years following normal GCT had a direct correlation with GCT results. Ten percent of women who performed GCT had a high-normal result of 126 to 140 mg%. This high-normal group had a significantly higher fasting glucose and impaired fasting glucose (>100 mg%) 9 years after performing the GCT as compared with the very low or normal GCT groups. Moreover, diabetes risk of this group was significantly higher than the lower groups.
Conclusion Although GCT is only a screening test, it may serve as a practical predictor for further fasting glucose levels, impaired fasting glucose, and diabetes in a relatively short time (9 years). In this study, women with GCT levels up to 125 mg%, when tested 9 years later, had significantly lower fasting glucose and lower percentage of impaired fasting glucose and diabetes than those with GCT above 126 mg%. Women with “normal” GCT levels between 126 and 140 mg% should be closely monitored for their further glycemic status.
The study was presented as a poster (No. 512) at the 37th Annual Meeting of the Society for Maternal Fetal Medicine, Las Vegas, NV, January 25–27, 2017.
- 1 Nathan DM, Davidson MB, DeFronzo RA. , et al; American Diabetes Association. Impaired fasting glucose and impaired glucose tolerance: implications for care. Diabetes Care 2007; 30 (03) 753-759
- 2 Tabák AG, Herder C, Rathmann W, Brunner EJ, Kivimäki M. Prediabetes: a high-risk state for diabetes development. Lancet 2012; 379 (9833): 2279-2290
- 3 Meigs JB. Multiple biomarker prediction of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2009; 32 (07) 1346-1348
- 4 Tankova T, Chakarova N, Atanassova I, Dakovska L. Evaluation of the Finnish Diabetes Risk Score as a screening tool for impaired fasting glucose, impaired glucose tolerance and undetected diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2011; 92 (01) 46-52
- 5 Nguyen QM, Srinivasan SR, Xu JH, Chen W, Berenson GS. Fasting plasma glucose levels within the normoglycemic range in childhood as a predictor of prediabetes and type 2 diabetes in adulthood: the Bogalusa Heart Study. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2010; 164 (02) 124-128
- 6 Tirosh A, Shai I, Tekes-Manova D. , et al; Israeli Diabetes Research Group. Normal fasting plasma glucose levels and type 2 diabetes in young men. N Engl J Med 2005; 353 (14) 1454-1462
- 7 Kramer CK, Swaminathan B, Hanley AJ. , et al. Each degree of glucose intolerance in pregnancy predicts distinct trajectories of β-cell function, insulin sensitivity, and glycemia in the first 3 years postpartum. Diabetes Care 2014; 37 (12) 3262-3269
- 8 Committee on Practice Bulletins--Obstetrics. Practice bulletin no. 137: gestational diabetes mellitus. Obstet Gynecol 2013; 122 (2, Pt 1): 406-416
- 9 Retnakaran R. Glucose tolerance status in pregnancy: a window to the future risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease in young women. Curr Diabetes Rev 2009; 5 (04) 239-244
- 10 Retnakaran R, Qi Y, Sermer M, Connelly PW, Hanley AJ, Zinman B. An abnormal screening glucose challenge test in pregnancy predicts postpartum metabolic dysfunction, even when the antepartum oral glucose tolerance test is normal. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 2009; 71 (02) 208-214
- 11 Stuebe AM, Mantzoros C, Kleinman K. , et al. Gestational glucose tolerance and maternal metabolic profile at 3 years postpartum. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 118 (05) 1065-1073
- 12 Corrado F, D'Anna R, Laganà AS, Di Benedetto A. Abnormal glucose tolerance later in life in women affected by glucose intolerance during pregnancy. J Obstet Gynaecol 2014; 34 (02) 123-126
- 13 Han S, Crowther CA, Middleton P. Interventions for pregnant women with hyperglycaemia not meeting gestational diabetes and type 2 diabetes diagnostic criteria. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 1: CD009037
- 14 Roeckner JT, Sanchez-Ramos L, Jijon-Knupp R, Kaunitz AM. Single abnormal value on 3-hour oral glucose tolerance test during pregnancy is associated with adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016; 215 (03) 287-297
- 15 Figueroa D, Landon MB, Mele L. , et al; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units (MFMU) Network. Relationship between 1-hour glucose challenge test results and perinatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2013; 121 (06) 1241-1247
- 16 Farrar D, Simmonds M, Bryant M. , et al. Hyperglycaemia and risk of adverse perinatal outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2016; 354: i4694