Glycemic Variability in Early Pregnancy May Predict a Subsequent Diagnosis of Gestational Diabetes

Phaik Ling Quah; Lay Kok Tan; Ngee Lek; Serene Thain; Kok Hian Tan

doi:10.2147/DMSO.S379616

Glycemic Variability in Early Pregnancy May Predict a Subsequent Diagnosis of Gestational Diabetes

Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes. 2022 Dec 28:15:4065-4074. doi: 10.2147/DMSO.S379616. eCollection 2022.

Authors

Phaik Ling Quah¹, Lay Kok Tan², Ngee Lek^{3

4}, Serene Thain², Kok Hian Tan^{1

4}

Affiliations

¹ Deparment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, KK Women's and Children's Hospital, Singapore.
² Department of Maternal Fetal Medicine, KK Women's and Children's Hospital, Singapore.
³ Department of Pediatrics, KK Women's and Children's Hospital, Singapore.
⁴ OBGYN ACP, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore.

Abstract

Purpose: This study examined the prospective association between CGM-derived glycemic variability (GV) and glycemic control (GC) parameters in the first and second trimester, with subsequent diagnosis of GDM in the early third trimester.

Methods: In a longitudinal observational study, 60 study participants in the first trimester (9-13 weeks' gestation), and 53 participants (18-23 weeks' gestation) in the second trimester of pregnancy had CGM data extracted after a minimum of 8 days' wear time (up to 14 days). At 24-31 weeks' gestation, participants underwent a 75 g, 2-hour oral glucose-tolerance test as per IADPSG criteria to diagnose GDM. GV parameters examined in both first and second trimesters were mean amplitude of glycemic excursion (MAGE), standard deviation (SD), mean glucose, and coefficient of variation (CV). GC parameters measured were J-Index and percentage of time spent in glucose target ranges.

Results: The first trimester SD and MAGE were significantly higher in participants subsequently diagnosed with GDM (SD adjusted median 1.31 [interquartile range 1.2-1.3] mmol/L; MAGE 3.26 [3.2-3.3] mmol/L) than those who were not (SD 1.01 [0.9-1.0] mmol/L, MAGE 2.59 [2.4-2.6] mmol/L; p<0.05). Similarly, second trimester SD and MAGE were also significantly higher in participants subsequently diagnosed with GDM (SD 1.35 [1.3-1.4] mmol/L; MAGE 3.32 (3.31-3.41) mmol/L) than those who were not (SD 0.99 [0.98-1.01] mmol/L, MAGE 2.42 [2.42-2.55] mmol/L; p<0.05). Associations between SD and MAGE with GDM outcomes were adjusted for prepregnancy BMI and ethnicity. There were nonsignificant trends of higher J-Index scores in the first and second trimester, higher CV in the first trimester only, and higher mean in the second trimester only in participants diagnosed with GDM. Other study parameters measured were not significantly different between groups (p>0.003).

Conclusion: Our study suggests the potential value of CGM-derived SD and MAGE in early pregnancy as potential predictors of subsequent GDM diagnosis.

Keywords: continuous glucose monitoring; diabetes in pregnancy; glycemic control; glycemic parameters.

Grants and funding

This research was supported by the Integrated Platform for Research in Advancing Metabolic Health Outcomes in Women and Children (IPRAMHO) — Singapore Ministry of Health National Medical Research Council Centre grant NMRC/CG/C008A/2017_KKH.