Diabetes Care
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Weijers, R. N.M.
Right arrow Articles by Smulders, Y. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Weijers, R. N.M.
Right arrow Articles by Smulders, Y. M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Diabetes Care 25:72-77, 2002
© 2002 by the American Diabetes Association, Inc.

Epidemiology/Health Services/Psychosocial Research
Original Article

Determinants of Mild Gestational Hyperglycemia and Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in a Large Dutch Multiethnic Cohort

Rob N.M. Weijers, PHD1, Dick J. Bekedam, MD2 and Yvo M. Smulders, MD3

1 Department of Clinical Chemistry and Haematology, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
2 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
3 Department of Internal Medicine, Academisch Ziekenhuis Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, the Netherlands


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 CONCLUSIONS
 References
 
OBJECTIVE—The purpose of this study was to identify independent determinants of mild gestational hyperglycemia (MGH) and gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and to assess the correlation between fasting glucose and C-peptide levels among control, MGH, and GDM women.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—A total of 1,022 consecutive women were evaluated with a 1-h 50-g glucose challenge test (GCT) at between 16 and 33 weeks of gestation. Women with a capillary whole-blood glucose >=7.8 mmol/l in the GCT underwent a 3-h 100-g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). On the basis of a positive GCT, the women with a positive OGTT were classified as GDM, whereas the women with a negative OGTT were classified as MGH. The following data were collected for all women: age, prepregnancy BMI, ethnicity, clinical and obstetric history, pregnancy outcome, and C-peptide level.

RESULTS—A total of 813 women (79.6%) were normal, 138 (13.5%) had MGH, and 71 (6.9%) had GDM. There was a stepwise significant increase in mean fasting glucose (3.6 ± 0.4, 3.9 ± 0.4, and 4.7 ± 0.7 mmol/l, respectively) and C-peptide level (0.60 [0.1–2.4], 0.86 [0.3–2.0], and 1.00 [0.5–1.6] nmol/l, respectively) among the three diagnostic groups. Maternal age, non-Caucasian ethnicity, and prepregnancy BMI were associated with GDM, whereas only maternal age and prepregnancy BMI were associated with MGH. A positive correlation between levels of fasting glucose and C-peptide was found in control women (r = 0.39 [95% CI 0.31–0.46]). A similar result was seen in MGH women (r = 0.38 [95% CI 0.23–0.52]), whereas the correlation between fasting glucose and C-peptide was nearly lost in GDM women (r = 0.14 [CI -0.09 to 0.36]). The fasting C-peptide–to–glucose ratio was reduced by 60% in GDM patients versus control subjects and MGH patients (0.41 ± 0.25 vs. 0.70 ± 0.20 and 0.73 ± 0.23, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS—Of the well-known independent determinants of GDM, only maternal age and prepregnancy BMI were associated with MGH. It appears that additional factors promoting loss of ß-cell function distinguish MGH from GDM. One of these factors appears to be ethnicity.

Abbreviations: GCT, glucose challenge test • GDM, gestational diabetes mellitus • MGH, mild gestational hyperglycemia • OGTT, oral glucose tolerance test


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 CONCLUSIONS
 References
 
The extra energy requirement of one pregnancy amounts to ~80,500 kcal (1). Throughout pregnancy, glucose is the primary metabolic substrate for the growing fetus, both for its energy needs as well as for carbon accretion (2). Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) occurs as a result of metabolic maladaptation to insulin resistance caused by the hormonal changes of pregnancy (3,4). Therefore, GDM represents a susceptibility model to study glucose abnormalities in the setting of insulin resistance, without interference from side effects of long-term hyperglycemia.

To describe in more detail gestational glucose abnormalities, we studied women with a positive 50-g oral glucose challenge test (GCT) followed by a positive 3-h 100-g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) and women with a positive GCT followed by a negative OGTT. We classified the latter group as mild gestational hyperglycemia (MGH).

The aim of the present study was to characterize gestational hyperglycemia by identifying, in a large Dutch hospital (out-patient) population, the women suffering from MGH and GDM. We identified independent determinants of MGH and GDM and studied the correlation between glucose and C-peptide in MGH, GDM, and control subjects.


   RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
RESULTS
 CONCLUSIONS
 References
 
Consecutive pregnant women (1,059, over a study period of 30 months [1998–2001]) were recruited from the outpatient clinic of obstetrics and gynecology of our hospital. The patients were referred due to a history of delivery by caesarean section (30.6%), high-risk pregnancy (10.5%), stillborn fetus (4.4%), or multiple pregnancy (6.5%), or they were referred for (preexistent) hypertension (6.4%), maternal age (5.6%), treatment of infertility (3.6%), suspicion of GDM (3.5%), or other obstetrical pathology (28.9%). Diabetic patients (n = 11) were excluded from the protocol. Informed consent was obtained, and the study was approved by the hospital’s ethics committee.

Obstetric history, family history of diabetes, and weight before pregnancy were obtained from all patients. As indicators of pregnancy outcome, we studied birth weight, expressed as a percentile specific for sex and duration of gestation (5), and Apgar scores at 1 and 5 min after birth.

Glucose tolerance tests and diagnostic criteria
All women had a 50-g GCT at 16–33 weeks of gestation, performed in the morning after a 12-h overnight fast (6). Fasting glucose was measured in venous whole blood, with a capillary whole blood glucose measurement 1 h later. If the latter yielded a value of >=7.8 mmol/l, a 3-h 100-g OGTT followed within the next 2 weeks. Fasting glucose was measured in venous whole blood, followed by a capillary whole-blood glucose measurement 1, 2, and 3 h after 100 g glucose. GDM was diagnosed when two or more glucose values equaled or exceded 4.6, 9.6, 8.2, and 7.3 mmol/l, respectively. We converted the 1997 American Diabetes Association criteria (7) according to the data published by Alberti and Skrabalo (8).

Analytical methods
A standard radioimmunoassay kit method was used to measure fasting serum C-peptide (Immulite C-Peptide; EURO/DPC, Llanberis, U.K.; overall coefficients of variation were 14 and 8% at 0.7 and 1.7 nmol/l, respectively) (9). Whole- blood glucose was determined by a hexokinase method using a glucose analyser (EBIO model 6666; Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany).

Definitions
Ethnicity was assigned on the basis of three criteria: country of birth of the individual, the mother, and the father. It was coded according to the definitions used by the O+S, the Amsterdam bureau of social research and statistics (10). Ethnicity was categorized as Caucasian (512 [48.4%]), sub-Saharan African (174 [16.5%]), Northern African (120 [11.3%]), Armenian (58 [5.4%]), Asian (55 [5.2%]), and others (140 [13.2%]).

BMI (kg/m2) before pregnancy was calculated by using the most recent self-reported weight before conception. Obesity was defined as a BMI >=27 kg/m2 (11). Pregnancy-induced hypertension was defined as an increase in diastolic blood pressure to >90 mmHg (measured using a Korotkoff 5; Speidel & Keller, Jungingen, Germany) in the second half of pregnancy (12). Macrosomia was defined as a birth weight exceeding the 90th percentile (13). We defined a neonate to be at risk when the Apgar score at 5 min was <=6 (14). We introduced the term MGH to describe women who had a positive GCT followed by a negative OGTT.

Statistical methods
In our analysis, the following variables were included: maternal and gestational age, prepregnancy BMI and obesity, ethnicity (Caucasian versus non-Caucasian), family history of diabetes, parity, history of spontaneous abortion and of fetal loss, prepregnancy/pregnancy-induced hypertension, birth weight (percentiles), Apgar score, C-peptide, and glucose. Variables with nonnormal distribution (e.g., C-peptide) were log-transformed before statistical analysis. To compare variables among control, MGH, and GDM women, data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance and the Kruskal-Wallis test where appropriate. The Bonferroni t method or the Mann-Whitney U test were used as post hoc tests. To compare variables such as C-peptide and glucose among the three diagnostic groups, which were matched by prepregnancy BMI, we used analysis of covariance, with prepregnancy BMI as covariate.

We used a multiple logistic regression model to identify independent determinants of MGH and GDM. The value for entry in the logistic regression model was P = 0.10. The following variables were considered as possible determinants: maternal age, ethnicity, parity, pregnancy-induced hypertension, and prepregnancy BMI.

Two-sided P values are reported, with P = 0.05 taken as the level of statistical significance. All statistical procedures were performed using SPSS version 9.0 for Windows (SPSS, Chicago, IL).

We used bivariate analysis to determine reference ranges of combined fasting glucose and C-peptide levels, i.e., the 95% isodensity ellipse of the distribution, and to calculate the absolute correlation coefficient between the mentioned variables (15). The calculation was according to Tatsuoka (16), using the software package EVAL-kit (CKCHL Twee Steden Ziekenhuis, Tilburg, the Netherlands).


   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
 RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
 References
 
A total of 1,059 eligible women gave informed consent to participate in the study. Four patients suffered from Graves disease. Twenty-two patients were unable or unwilling to follow the protocol, i.e., glucose concentration measured too late, one or several glucose measurements missed, or refusal to finish the tolerance test. Eleven women with newly detected type 2 diabetes could not enter the study, leaving 1,022 patients.

GDM was diagnosed in 71 women (6.9%) and MGH in 138 women (13.5%). From the remaining 813 women with a negative GCT, 490 were randomly selected to serve as control subjects. Therefore, the final study population consisted of 699 women (66%) who entered the study between 16 and 33 weeks of gestation.

Clinical and laboratory characteristics of control, MGH, and GDM subjects are outlined in Table 1. The five mentioned non-Caucasian subgroups were too small to permit any valid mutual comparisons. Therefore, these women were combined as non-Caucasians. The relatively large proportion of non-Caucasians in the study group reflects the population constitution in the area (17). Table 1 also shows the results of multiple-comparison procedures examining possible determinants of MGH and GDM. GDM women, compared with control subjects, had markedly higher (P < 0.05) maternal age, prepregnancy BMI, rate of non-Caucasian origin, parity, and pregnancy-induced hypertension, whereas only maternal age and prepregnancy BMI were increased (P < 0.05) in MGH versus control women. The prevalence of family history of diabetes was highest but not significantly different in GDM women compared with control and MGH women. In contrast to MGH women, GDM women were at significantly increased risk for delivery of a macrosomic infant (13/138 [9.4%] vs. 25/71 [35.2%]) and/or an infant with a low Apgar score at 5 min.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1— General characteristics of control, MGH, and GDM women

 
Determinants that were (close to) significant (P < 0.10) in the univariate analysis were entered into a multiple logistic regression analysis. Table 2 shows the results of multivariate analyses with MGH and GDM as the dependent variable. Maternal age, ethnicity, and prepregnancy BMI were significantly associated with GDM and explained 19% of its variance. Maternal age and prepregnancy BMI were significantly associated with MGH and explained 7% of its variance.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 2— Results of logistic regression analysis: determinants of MGH and GDH

 
Fasting glucose, glucose at 60 min during GCT, and fasting C-peptide were significantly increased (P < 0.001) in MGH women by 8, 39, and 43%, respectively, compared with control subjects (Table 1). In parallel, fasting glucose, glucose at 60 min during GCT, and fasting C-peptide were significantly increased (P < 0.001) in GDM women by 31, 61, and 67%, respectively, compared with control subjects. Similar results were obtained when the difference in prepregnancy BMI was adjusted for (data not shown). Figure 1 displays the course of fasting C-peptide level during gestational age among the three diagnostic groups. It seems that fasting C-peptide level of control subjects becomes markedly increased during gestation and that for all pregnant women who were at 20–33 weeks of gestation, MGH induced a significant (21%) upward displacement of the C-peptide curve as compared with control subjects. The highest level of fasting C-peptide (~1 nmol/l) with the lowest degree of increase during pregnancy was seen in GDM women.



View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 1— Course of fasting C-peptide level in relation to gestational age of control ({blacklozenge}), MGH ({square}), and GDM ({blacktriangleup}) women. Each symbol represents the mean (±SD) C-peptide of women who entered the study during the indicated interval of 2 weeks.

 
The results of bivariate statistical analyses for the combination of fasting glucose and C-peptide are displayed in Table 3. Women with significantly outlying glucose or C-peptide values were excluded, resulting in omission of these data for three control and two MGH women. The data provided evidence of a positive correlation between fasting glucose and C-peptide for the control subjects (r = 0.39 [95% CI 0.31–0.46]), resulting in a slim reference ellipse (Fig. 2A). A similar result was seen for MGH women (r = 0.38 [0.23–0.52]) (Fig. 2B). The correlation was nearly lost in GDM women (0.14 [-0.09 to 0.36]), with the result that the shape of the reference ellipse approached a circle (Fig. 2C). In addition, the fasting C-peptide–to–glucose ratio, i.e., the slope of the major axis of the ellipse (the standard principal component), was significantly reduced (P < 0.001) in GDM women compared with control subjects (0.41 ± 0.25 and 0.70 ± 0.20, repectively), whereas the ratio was similar (P = 0.17) in both MGH and control women (0.73 ± 0.23 and 0.70 ± 0.20, respectively). After including the five outliers, similar results were seen for the bivariate statistical analyses (data not shown).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 3— Simultaneous interpretation of fasting glucose and C-peptide

 


View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 2— Plot of fasting glucose and C-peptide with the calculated 95% normal reference ellipse of control (A), MGH (B), and GDM (C) women. The indicated square is the reference area used in the conventional way.

 

   CONCLUSIONS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 CONCLUSIONS
References
 
This study was undertaken to characterize determinants of MGH and GDM and to assess the extent of correlation between glucose and C-peptide in control, MGH, and GDM women.

Considering the high fertility rate in all immigrant groups, the ethnic composition (Caucasian/non-Caucasian) in both the control and MGH women (52/48% and 49/51%, respectively) was quite similar to the female population of the four town boroughs in close proximity to the hospital (57/43%). The observed increase of the C-peptide level during pregnancy is well documented (18). To the best of our knowledge, there are no other published data specifically addressing the association between fasting glucose and C-peptide from a cohort of pregnant women.

Overall C-peptide and glucose concentrations were significantly elevated in MGH compared with control women. However, both levels were lower than those of the GDM women. Furthermore, our results suggested that C-peptide levels in MGH women, in contrast to GDM women, parallelled those in control subjects during pregnancy. Both the correlation coefficient between fasting glucose and C-peptide and the fasting C-peptide–to–glucose ratio were found to be similar in MGH and control women. These findings suggest a near-normal pattern of glucose-triggered insulin release in MGH. The present study identified two determinants of MGH: maternal age and BMI. However, there was no association between MGH and ethnicity.

GDM affects 3–4% of pregnant women (19,20). In this study, we found a prevalence of 6.9%, likely due to the high rate of immigrants in the Amsterdam-East region (17).

Epidemiological studies have shown that the risk of adverse birth outcomes is strongly related to GDM (20,21,22). The results of the present study, i.e., fetal macrosomia and low Apgar scores at 5 min, are in keeping with the results reported in those studies. Our study largely confirms the results of previous studies addressing determinants of GDM. Maternal age (23,24,25), ethnicity (23,24,25), and prepregnancy BMI (23,24) were positively associated with GDM but not pregnancy-induced or prepregnancy hypertension (26). This study showed significantly higher serum C-peptide levels in GDM women than in MGH women and control subjects. In GDM women, the correlation between fasting glucose and C-peptide was almost lost and, in addition, the fasting C-peptide–to–glucose ratio was two times less than in control subjects. These findings suggest a higher level of insulin resistance in GDM compared with MGH women and are compatible with the concept that glucose intolerance in GDM is (partly) due to an impaired ability of ß-cells to further increase insulin secretion in response to glucose (27,28). The fact that ethnicity is the only factor distinguishing MGH from GDM suggests that genetic or lifestyle factors are involved in this type of ß-cell dysfunction.

Finally, it is noteworthy that a population-based survey performed in one of the four above-mentioned town boroughs showed that all immigrant subjects had a significantly higher risk for type 2 diabetes than Caucasian subjects and that a significant association was found between non-Caucasian origin and the occurrence of GDM (17).

There are a number of caveats to the data presented here. Firstly, patient selection in the current study design was based on referral to an outpatient clinic of obstetrics and gynecology. Because of the selection bias that may have been introduced by this, we feel caution is required in extrapolating data of the control group to the general population. In control women, however, ethnicity was quite similar when compared with the female inhabitants of the four town boroughs in close proximity to the hospital. Also, in our study, the established ranges of BMI, fasting glucose, and C-peptide in control women support the data of previous reports that studied relatively small random samples of the general population (29,30). Therefore, the data presented here offer some evidence in favor of representativeness. Secondly, the causal relation between the significant determinants of MGH and GDM cannot be proven using cross-sectional data. The close association shown in our study suggests a causal relation that requires further study.

In summary, MGH is characterized both by insulin resistance and a near-normal pattern of glucose-triggered insulin release. Of the well-known independent determinants of GDM, only maternal age and prepregnancy BMI were associated with MGH. Thus, it appears that additional factors promoting loss of ß-cell function distinguish MGH from GDM. One of these factors appears to be ethnicity.


   Footnotes
 
Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Rob N.M. Weijers, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, 1e Oosterparkstraat 279, PO Box 95500, Amsterdam 1090 HM, the Netherlands. E-mail: rnm.weijers{at}wolmail.nl.

Received for publication 29 September 2001 and accepted in revised form 9 October 2001.

A table elsewhere in this issue shows conventional and Système International (SI) units and conversion factors for many substances.


   References
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 CONCLUSIONS
 References
 

  1. Hytten FE: Nutrition. In Clinical Physiology in Obstetrics. Hytten FE, Chamberlain G, Eds. Oxford, U.K., Blackwell Scientific, 1980, p. 163–192
  2. Morriss FH Jr, Makowski EL, Meschia G, Battaglia FC: The glucose/oxygen quotient of the term human fetus. Biol Neonate 25:44–52, 1975
  3. Catalano PM, Tyzbir ED, Roman NM, Amini SB, Sims EAH: Longitudinal changes in insulin resistance in non-obese pregnant women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 165:1667–1772, 1991[Medline]
  4. Sivan E, Chen X, Homko CJ, Reece EA, Boden G: Longitudinal study of carbohydrate metabolism in healthy obese pregnant women. Diabetes Care 20:1470–1475, 1997[Abstract]
  5. Kloosterman GJ: On intrauterine growth. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 8:895–912, 1964
  6. Cousins L, Baxi L, Chez R, Coustan D, Gabbe S, Harris J, Landon M, Sacks D, Singh S: Screening recommendations for gestational diabetes mellitus. Am J Obstet Gynecol 165:493–496, 1991[Medline]
  7. Metzger BE, Coustan DR: Summary and recommendations of the Fourth International Workshop-Conference on Gestational Diabetes Mellitus. Diabetes Care 21(Suppl. 2):B161–B167, 1998
  8. Alberti KGMM, Skrabalo Z: Standardization of biochemical methods in the diagnosis and management of diabetes. IDF Bulletin 27:17–24, 1982
  9. Waldhäusl W, Bratusch-Marrain P, Gasic S, Korn A, Nowotny P: Schätzung der Insulinproduktion während oraler Glucosebelastung mittels Lebervenenkathedertechnik und Bestimmung von C-Peptid. In Die Bedeutung der C-Peptidbestimmung für die Diagnostik. Grüneklee D, Herzog W, Eds. Konstanz, Germany, Schnetztor Verlag, 1979, p. 49–57
  10. Fonville TC, Janssen MFM, Klip RP: The breaking trend. In The Breaking Trend: Information on Ethnic Groups in Amsterdam. Amsterdam, 1994, p. 15–36
  11. National Diabetes Data Group: Classification and diagnosis of diabetes mellitus and other categories of glucose intolerance. Diabetes 28:1039–1057, 1979[Medline]
  12. Walker JM, Tan LB, Tunstall Pedoe D: Cardiovascular disease. In Textbook of Medicine. 2nd ed. Souhami RL, Moxham J, Eds. London, Churchill Livingstone, 1994, p. 320–443
  13. Girling JA, Dornhorst A: Pregnancy and diabetes mellitus. In Textbook of Diabetes. 2nd ed. Pickup JC, Williams G, Eds. Oxford, Blackwell Science, 1997, p. 72.1–72.34
  14. Doornbos JPR, Nordbeck HJ: Perinatal mortality: Obstetric risk factors in a Community of Mixed Ethnic Origin in Amsterdam (Thesis). Dordrecht, the Netherlands, ICG Printing, 1985, p. 149–199
  15. Wulkan RW: Expert Systems and Multivariate Analysis in Clinical Chemistry (Thesis). Rotterdam, the Netherlands, Erasmus University Rotterdam, 1992, p. 51–71
  16. Tatsuoka MM: Multivariate Analysis: Techniques for Educational and Psychological Research. New York, John Wiley & Sons, 1971, p. 62–93
  17. Weijers RNM, Bekedam DJ, Oosting H: The prevalence of type 2 diabetes and gestational diabetes mellitus in an inner city multi-ethnic population. Eur J Epidemiol 14:693–699, 1998[Medline]
  18. Lind T, Billewicz WZ, Brown G: A serial study of changes occurring in the oral glucose tolerance test during pregnancy. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw 80:1033–1039, 1973[Medline]
  19. Schwartz ML, Ray WN, Lubarsky SL: The diagnosis and classification of gestational diabetes. Is it time to change our tune? Am J Obstet Gynecol 180:1560–1571, 1999[Medline]
  20. Sermer M, Naylor CD, Farine D, Kenshole AB, Ritchie JW, Gare DJ, Cohen HR, McArthur K, Holzapfel S, Biringer A: The Toronto Tri-Hospital Gestational Diabetes Project: a preliminary review. Diabetes Care 21(Suppl. 2):B33–B42, 1998
  21. Hardy S: A multiethnic study of the predictors of macrosomia. Diabetes Educ 25:925–933, 1999[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. Weeks JW, Major CA, de Veciana M, Morgan MA: Gestational diabetes: does the presence of risk factors influence perinatal outcome? Am J Obstet Gynecol 171:1003–1007, 1994[Medline]
  23. Dornhorst A, Rossi M: Risk and prevention of type 2 diabetes in women with gestational diabetes. Diabetes Care 21(Suppl. 2):B43–B49, 1998
  24. Naylor CD, Sermer M, Chen E, Farine D: Selective screening for gestational diabetes mellitus: Toronto Trihospital Gestational Diabetes Project investigators. N Engl J Med 337:1591–1596, 1997[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. Meyer WJ, Carbone J, Gauthier DW, Gottmann DA: Early gestational glucose screening and gestational diabetes. J Reprod Med 41:675–679, 1996[Medline]
  26. Clark CM Jr, Qui C, Amerman B, Porter B, Fineberg N, Aldasouqi S, Golichowski A: Gestational diabetes: should it be added to the syndrome of insulin resistance? Diabetes Care 20:867–871, 1997[Abstract]
  27. Bowes SB, Hennessy TR, Umpleby AM, Benn JJ, Jackson NC, Boroujerdi MA, Sönksen PH, Lowy C: Measurement of glucose metabolism and insulin secretion during normal pregnancy and pregnancy complicated by gestational diabetes. Diabetologia 39:976–983, 1996[Medline]
  28. Homko C, Sivan E, Chen X, Reece A, Boden G: Insulin secretion during and after pregnancy in papients with gestational diabetes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 86:568–573, 2001[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Grigorakis SI, Alevizaki M, Rapti E, Anastasiou E, Alevizaki CC, Souvatzoglou A: Islet amyloid polypeptide (amylin) does not seem to be directly involved in the development of gestational diabetes mellitus. Gynecol Obstet Invest 44:6–10, 1997[Medline]
  30. Kautzky-Willer A, Thomaseth K, Ludvik B, Nowotny P, Rabensteiner D, Waldhäusl W, Pacini G, Prager R: Elevated islet amyloid pancreatic polypeptide and proinsulin in lean gestational diabetes. Diabetes 46:607–614, 1997[Abstract]

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Biol Res NursHome page
C. A. Snapp and S. K. Donaldson
Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: Physical Exercise and Health Outcomes
Biol Res Nurs, October 1, 2008; 10(2): 145 - 155.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Chem.Home page
R. N.M. Weijers and D. J. Bekedam
Relationship between Gestational Diabetes Mellitus and Type 2 Diabetes: Evidence of Mitochondrial Dysfunction
Clin. Chem., March 1, 2007; 53(3): 377 - 383.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Diabetes CareHome page
M. Wolf, J. Sauk, A. Shah, K. Vossen Smirnakis, R. Jimenez-Kimble, J. L. Ecker, and R. Thadhani
Inflammation and Glucose Intolerance: A prospective study of gestational diabetes mellitus
Diabetes Care, January 1, 2004; 27(1): 21 - 27.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Weijers, R. N.M.
Right arrow Articles by Smulders, Y. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Weijers, R. N.M.
Right arrow Articles by Smulders, Y. M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Diabetes Diabetes Care Clinical Diabetes Diabetes Spectrum