Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden.
Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
J Diabetes Res. 2020 Mar 20;2020:7937403. doi: 10.1155/2020/7937403. eCollection 2020.
In Sweden, both glucose analyzers in accredited laboratories and point-of-care glucose devices are used for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) diagnosis. The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of the HemoCue Glucose 201+ (HC201+) and RT (HC201RT) systems with that of the hospital central laboratory hexokinase method (CL) based on lyophilized citrate tubes, using the isotope dilution gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (ID GC-MS) as reference.
A 75 g oral glucose tolerance test was performed on 135 women screened positive for GDM. Diagnosis was based on the World Health Organization 2013 diagnostic thresholds for fasting ( = 135), 1 h ( = 135), 1 h ( = 135), 1 h (.
Significantly more women were diagnosed with GDM by HC201+ (80%) and CL (80%) than with the reference (65%, < 0.001) based on fasting and/or 2 h thresholds, whereas the percentage diagnosed by HC201RT (60%) did not differ significantly from the reference. In Bland-Altman analysis, a positive bias was observed for HC201+ (4.2%) and CL (6.1%) and a negative bias for HC201RT (-1.8%). In the surveillance error grid, 95.9% of the HC201+ values were in the no-risk zone as compared to 98.1% for HC201RT and 97.5% for CL.
A substantial positive bias was found for CL measurements resulting in overdiagnosis of GDM. Our findings suggest better performance of HC201RT than HC201+ in GDM diagnosis. The results may have possible implications for GDM diagnosis in Sweden and require further elucidation.
在瑞典,经认证实验室中的葡萄糖分析仪和即时检验血糖仪都用于诊断妊娠糖尿病(GDM)。本研究旨在比较 HemoCue Glucose 201+(HC201+)和 RT(HC201RT)系统与基于冻干柠檬酸盐管的医院中心实验室己糖激酶法(CL)的诊断性能,以同位素质谱稀释气相色谱法(ID GC-MS)为参考。
对 135 例 GDM 筛查阳性的妇女进行 75g 口服葡萄糖耐量试验。根据世界卫生组织 2013 年的空腹(=135)、1 小时(=135)、2 小时(=135)和 1 小时(=135)的诊断标准进行诊断。
基于空腹和/或 2 小时的阈值,HC201+(80%)和 CL(80%)诊断为 GDM 的女性明显多于参考值(65%,<0.001),而 HC201RT(60%)的诊断率与参考值无显著差异。Bland-Altman 分析显示,HC201+(4.2%)和 CL(6.1%)存在正偏差,而 HC201RT(-1.8%)存在负偏差。在监测误差网格中,与 HC201RT(97.5%)和 CL(98.1%)相比,95.9%的 HC201+值位于无风险区。
CL 测量存在明显的正偏差,导致 GDM 的过度诊断。我们的研究结果表明,HC201RT 比 HC201+在 GDM 诊断中具有更好的性能。这些结果可能对瑞典的 GDM 诊断有一定的影响,需要进一步阐明。