Skip to main content
  • More from ADA
    • Diabetes
    • Clinical Diabetes
    • Diabetes Spectrum
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Scientific Sessions Abstracts
    • BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care
  • Subscribe
  • Log in
  • My Cart
  • Follow ada on Twitter
  • RSS
  • Visit ada on Facebook
Diabetes Care

Advanced Search

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current
    • Current Issue
    • Online Ahead of Print
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Browse
    • By Topic
    • Issue Archive
    • Saved Searches
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • About the Editors
    • ADA Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Guidance for Reviewers
  • Reprints/Reuse
  • Advertising
  • Subscriptions
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions and Site Licenses
    • Access Institutional Usage Reports
    • Purchase Single Issues
  • Alerts
    • E­mail Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Podcasts
    • Diabetes Core Update
    • Special Podcast Series: Therapeutic Inertia
    • Special Podcast Series: Influenza Podcasts
    • Special Podcast Series: SGLT2 Inhibitors
    • Special Podcast Series: COVID-19
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • ADA Peer Review
  • More from ADA
    • Diabetes
    • Clinical Diabetes
    • Diabetes Spectrum
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Scientific Sessions Abstracts
    • BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Diabetes Care
  • Home
  • Current
    • Current Issue
    • Online Ahead of Print
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Browse
    • By Topic
    • Issue Archive
    • Saved Searches
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • About the Editors
    • ADA Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Guidance for Reviewers
  • Reprints/Reuse
  • Advertising
  • Subscriptions
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions and Site Licenses
    • Access Institutional Usage Reports
    • Purchase Single Issues
  • Alerts
    • E­mail Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Podcasts
    • Diabetes Core Update
    • Special Podcast Series: Therapeutic Inertia
    • Special Podcast Series: Influenza Podcasts
    • Special Podcast Series: SGLT2 Inhibitors
    • Special Podcast Series: COVID-19
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • ADA Peer Review
Reconsidering Pregnancy With Diabetes

Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: Does One Size Fit All? A Challenge to Uniform Worldwide Diagnostic Thresholds

  1. H. David McIntyre1,2⇑,
  2. Dorte M. Jensen3,4,5,
  3. Richard C. Jensen3,6,7,
  4. Henriette B. Kyhl8,9,
  5. Tina K. Jensen6,9,10,
  6. Dorte Glintborg3,11 and
  7. Marianne Andersen3,11
  1. 1Mater Research and Mater Clinical Unit, The University of Queensland, South Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
  2. 2Danish Diabetes Academy, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
  3. 3Department of Endocrinology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
  4. 4Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
  5. 5Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
  6. 6Department of Environmental Medicine, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
  7. 7Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
  8. 8Odense Child Cohort, Hans Christian Andersen Children’s Hospital, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
  9. 9Odense Patient data Explorative Network, Odense, Denmark
  10. 10Hans Christian Andersen Children’s Hospital, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
  11. 11Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
  1. Corresponding author: H. David McIntyre, david.mcintyre{at}mater.org.au.
Diabetes Care 2018 Jul; 41(7): 1339-1342. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc17-2393
PreviousNext
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Suppl Material
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To define the prevalence and pregnancy outcomes related to elevated fasting venous plasma glucose (FVPG) in a Danish pregnancy cohort.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS This was an observational cohort study including 1,516 women without gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) by Danish criteria. FVPG measured at 28 weeks’ gestation was related to pregnancy outcomes.

RESULTS With use of the World Health Organization (WHO) 2013 threshold of FVPG ≥5.1 mmol/L, 40.1% of the cohort qualified as having GDM. There was no evidence of excess fetal growth, hypertension in pregnancy, or cesarean delivery in women with FVPG <5.6 mmol/L.

CONCLUSIONS The WHO 2013 FVPG threshold for GDM is unsuitable for Denmark. It inappropriately labels as having GDM an unmanageably large number of women who are at low absolute risk of pregnancy complications.

Introduction

Worldwide diagnostic criteria for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), including fasting venous plasma glucose (FVPG) ≥5.1 mmol/L, were proposed by the International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Groups in 2010 (1). The World Health Organization (WHO) endorsed these in 2013 (WHO2013) but noted that the quality of evidence was “very low” (2).

The Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (HAPO) study (3,4) demonstrated that the relative contribution of fasting versus postload glucose values to GDM varies substantially worldwide. Sacks et al. (4) reported, “Associations [between glucose and outcomes] did not differ among centers, indicating that HAPO study results are applicable to all centers.” This has been interpreted to imply worldwide validity of WHO2013 criteria for GDM, even in countries outside those studied in HAPO. The Danish Society for Obstetrics and Gynecology has endorsed but not yet implemented WHO2013 criteria (5). GDM diagnosis in Denmark generally follows the methodology of Jensen et al. (6), with risk factor–based screening followed by a one-step 75-g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). GDM is diagnosed with 2-h venous plasma glucose (VPG) ≥9.0 mmol/L. FVPG is measured in some centers but not routinely used diagnostically.

Egan et al. (7) reported that obese Danish women showed the highest WHO2013 GDM prevalence (54%) among nine European countries, due largely (78.5%) to early elevated FVPG. We wished to examine the frequency and impact of elevated FVPG in Denmark using a more representative cohort.

Research Design and Methods

The Odense Child Cohort (OCC) is a single-center longitudinal Danish birth cohort (8), including 2,874 pregnant women recruited before 16 weeks’ gestation in 2010–2012 (8). Participants received written and oral information about the study and provided written consent (8). The OCC was performed in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration II and was approved by the Regional Scientific Ethical Committee for Southern Denmark (S-20090130) and the Danish Data Protection Agency (13/15326).

Supplementary Fig. 1 outlines inclusion and exclusion of participants. Overnight FVPG was measured by the hexokinase method (ARCHITECT; Abbott Core Laboratory) at Odense University Hospital. Intra-assay coefficients of variation were between 5.2 and 5.4%, and interassay coefficients of variation were between 1.2 and 1.7% (9). Internal and external quality-control measurements were acceptable throughout the study period.

Maternal and birth data were obtained from hospital records. Maternal prepregnancy BMI was calculated as weight in kilograms divided by the square of height in meters. Ponderal index (PI) was calculated as birth weight (BW) in kilograms divided by length in meters cubed. BW Z score (BWZ) and large for gestational age (LGA) (BW >90th centile) were calculated using the Scandinavian formula of Marsal et al. (10), corrected for sex and gestation.

Data are expressed as mean (SD), median (interquartile range), or number (%) as appropriate. Differences in means were analyzed using unpaired t tests for normally distributed data, Mann-Whitney U tests for nonnormally distributed data, and χ2 tests for dichotomous variables. Trends across glucose categories were analyzed with the Cuzick test (11). Adjustments for maternal BMI, parity, and age were performed using multiple logistic and linear regression. Significance was accepted at the 5% level on two-tailed testing. Data were analyzed using STATA/IC, version 15.0 (StataCorp, College Station, TX).

Results

Of 1,540 women with FVPG results at 28 weeks’ gestation, 351 (23%) had known risk factors for GDM, as listed in Supplementary Table 1. With exclusion of 24 women with GDM by Danish criteria, the final sample included 1,516 women. Supplementary Table 1 shows baseline characteristics for OCC (included/not included) and the Danish background population. Statistical differences of small magnitude are as noted.

Pregnancy outcomes in OCC according to the WHO2013 FVPG threshold and divided into eight glucose categories are presented in Table 1 and Supplementary Table 2. Percentages are reported using the number of women in HAPO categories C1–7 (n = 1,446) as the denominator (3). C8 included women in the final OCC cohort (n = 70 [“extra” 4.8%]) with FVPG >5.8 mmol/L. Such women were unblinded and treated in HAPO but not in the OCC. Supplementary Fig. 2 graphically illustrates FVPG distribution in the HAPO and OCC cohorts limited to the seven HAPO quantiles (C1–7) (3).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1

Pregnancy outcomes according to third-trimester FVPG in OCC

In total, 620 women (40.1%) had WHO2013 GDM based on FVPG. Pregnancies with WHO2013 GDM demonstrated higher maternal age, BMI, BW, BWZ, and PI and higher frequencies of maternal overweight/obesity, multiparity, family history of diabetes, LGA, BW >4,000 g, and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP). After adjustment for maternal BMI, parity, and age, the differences remained significant only for BW (P = 0.002), BWZ (<0.001), and PI (0.006).

Of the 639 women (347 with prespecified risk factors) who underwent an OGTT, 81 (13%) had GDM by 1-h glucose and 66 (10%) by 2-h glucose using WHO2013 criteria (2).

There was a significant increasing trend across C1–8 for maternal age, prepregnancy BMI, and overweight/obesity and for the pregnancy outcomes: BW, BWZ, LGA, BW >4,000 g, PI, neonatal abdominal circumference, and HDP.

Conclusions

GDM in Denmark currently affects 2.3% of singleton pregnancies (12). Clearly, the distribution of FVPG in OCC was substantially higher than reported in HAPO (3). Following WHO2013, using only FVPG ≥5.1 mmol/L, >40% of women in OCC would be classified as having GDM. WHO2013 GDM based on 1- or 2-h OGTT glucose values affected 10–13% of women. Our sample size of 1,540 is >5 of 15 HAPO centers (4). However, as in the HAPO study, we are unable to definitively affirm that our sample is representative of the underlying population. The selective nature of OGTT testing in the OCC is a limitation of this study, but clearly postload WHO2013 GDM was much less prevalent, despite the fact that more than half of those with available data had additional risk factors.

Further, our data demonstrate minimal adverse outcomes in OCC women with mildly elevated FVPG. Women with untreated WHO2013 GDM gave birth to slightly larger babies, but mean BWZ was −0.01, and only 10.4% were LGA. Excepting the very small number of women in C1 (n = 8), mean Z score was <0.0 and LGA <10% until C7 (5.6–5.8 mmol/L). There was no evidence of excessive fetal growth or excess HDP in OCC women with untreated WHO2013 GDM and FVPG <5.6 mmol/L. Cesarean section and stillbirths showed no association with FVPG.

Ehrlich et al. (13), studying a Californian cohort, reported a high frequency of LGA in women with FVPG ≥5.3 mmol/L, but these women were selected due to prior elevated postload glucose.

Sesmilo et al. (14) recently described the FVPG distribution and pregnancy outcomes using HAPO quantiles in 5,203 unblinded, untreated women from Catalonia. The FVPG distribution in this cohort resembled HAPO, with 53% of women falling in C1 and 2. In this report, LGA frequency first exceeded 10% in C4 (FVPG ≥4.8 mmol/L), and LGA, HDP, and preterm delivery appeared to increase substantially with FVPG ≥5.3 mmol/L (C6).

We are unable to determine the cause for the marked difference in fasting glucose distribution in the OCC compared with other cohorts. Agarwal et al. (15) have noted that laboratory variations, well within acceptable limits, may be associated with a halving or doubling of GDM prevalence. The Danish Inter99 population study (outside pregnancy) reported that lowering the threshold for impaired fasting glucose (IFG) from 6.0 mmol/L (recommended by WHO) to 5.5 mmol/L (recommended by the American Diabetes Association) would create a “pandemic” of prediabetes (16), increasing IFG from 12 to 38% in their cohort.

In summary, using FVPG ≥5.1 mmol/L for GDM diagnosis appears inappropriate for Denmark. It would classify an unmanageable number of women as having GDM who are at low absolute risk of pregnancy complications and divert finite health care resources from other areas. Although specific to Denmark, our data raise serious questions about uniform application of GDM diagnostic thresholds across the world. For GDM diagnosis, “one size does not fit all.” Where possible, diagnostic thresholds should be adapted using local data.

Article Information

Acknowledgments. The authors thank all the families for their commitment to the study and the technicians at Hans Christian Andersen Children’s Hospital and the Department of Environmental Medicine for their skilled assistance.

Funding. This work was supported by the Danish Foundation for Scientific Innovation and Technology (09-067180); Ronald McDonald Children Foundation; Engineer K.A. Rohde’s and Wife’s Legacy Foundation; Odense University Hospital; the Region of Southern Denmark; the Municipality of Odense; the Mental Health Service of the Region of Southern Denmark; the Danish Council for Strategic Research, Program Commission on Health, Food and Welfare (2101-08-0058); the Odense University Hospital Research Foundation; the Odense Patient data Exploratory Network (OPEN); the Danish Council for Independent Research; the Danish Research Council (4004-00352B_FSS); and the Foundation for Research Collaboration between Rigshospitalet and Odense University Hospital. The participation of H.D.M. in the study was supported by the Danish Diabetes Academy.

Duality of Interest. H.D.M. has served as a speaker for Sanofi, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and AstraZeneca. D.M.J. has served as a speaker and investigator for Novo Nordisk. M.A. has served as an investigator for Novo Nordisk, Novartis, and Sonics. No other potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

Author Contributions. H.D.M., D.M.J., R.C.J., and M.A. performed analysis of data. H.B.K., T.K.J., D.G., and M.A. developed the protocol. All authors contributed to writing and editing of the manuscript including the discussion and approved the final version of the paper. M.A. is the guarantor of this work and, as such, had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Footnotes

  • This article contains Supplementary Data online at http://care.diabetesjournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.2337/dc17-2393/-/DC1.

  • See accompanying commentary, p. 1337.

  • See accompanying articles, pp. 1343, 1346, 1362, 1370, 1378, 1385, 1391, and e111.

  • Received November 14, 2017.
  • Accepted February 28, 2018.
  • © 2018 by the American Diabetes Association.
http://www.diabetesjournals.org/content/license

Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered. More information is available at http://www.diabetesjournals.org/content/license.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Metzger BE,
    2. Gabbe SG,
    3. Persson B, et al.; International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups Consensus Panel
    . International association of diabetes and pregnancy study groups recommendations on the diagnosis and classification of hyperglycemia in pregnancy. Diabetes Care 2010;33:676–682pmid:20190296
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. World Health Organization
    . Diagnostic Criteria and Classification of Hyperglycaemia First Detected in Pregnancy. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2013
  3. ↵
    1. Metzger BE,
    2. Lowe LP,
    3. Dyer AR, et al.; HAPO Study Cooperative Research Group
    . Hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcomes. N Engl J Med 2008;358:1991–2002pmid:18463375
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. ↵
    1. Sacks DA,
    2. Hadden DR,
    3. Maresh M, et al.; HAPO Study Cooperative Research Group
    . Frequency of gestational diabetes mellitus at collaborating centers based on IADPSG consensus panel-recommended criteria: the Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (HAPO) study. Diabetes Care 2012;35:526–528pmid:22355019
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Benhalima K,
    2. Mathieu C,
    3. Van Assche A, et al
    . Survey by the European Board and College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology on screening for gestational diabetes in Europe. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2016;201:197–202pmid:27129745
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Jensen DM,
    2. Damm P,
    3. Sørensen B, et al
    . Proposed diagnostic thresholds for gestational diabetes mellitus according to a 75-g oral glucose tolerance test. Maternal and perinatal outcomes in 3260 Danish women. Diabet Med 2003;20:51–57pmid:12519320
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Egan AM,
    2. Vellinga A,
    3. Harreiter J, et al.; DALI Core Investigator Group
    . Epidemiology of gestational diabetes mellitus according to IADPSG/WHO 2013 criteria among obese pregnant women in Europe. Diabetologia 2017;60:1913–1921pmid:28702810
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Kyhl HB,
    2. Jensen TK,
    3. Barington T, et al
    . The Odense Child Cohort: aims, design, and cohort profile. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2015;29:250–258pmid:25756293
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Finnbogadóttir SK,
    2. Glintborg D,
    3. Jensen TK,
    4. Kyhl HB,
    5. Nohr EA,
    6. Andersen M
    . Insulin resistance in pregnant women with and without polycystic ovary syndrome, and measures of body composition in offspring at birth and three years of age. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2017;96:1307–1314pmid:28804876
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Marsal K,
    2. Persson PH,
    3. Larsen T,
    4. Lilja H,
    5. Selbing A,
    6. Sultan B
    . Intrauterine growth curves based on ultrasonically estimated foetal weights. Acta Paediatr 1996;85:843–848
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  11. ↵
    1. Cuzick J
    . A Wilcoxon-type test for trend. Stat Med 1985;4:87–90pmid:3992076
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  12. ↵
    1. Ovesen PG,
    2. Jensen DM,
    3. Damm P,
    4. Rasmussen S,
    5. Kesmodel US
    . Maternal and neonatal outcomes in pregnancies complicated by gestational diabetes. a nation-wide study. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2015;28:1720–1724
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Ehrlich SF,
    2. Crites YM,
    3. Hedderson MM,
    4. Darbinian JA,
    5. Ferrara A
    . The risk of large for gestational age across increasing categories of pregnancy glycemia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011;204:240.e1–240.e6pmid:21247550
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Sesmilo G,
    2. Meler E,
    3. Perea V, et al
    . Maternal fasting glycemia and adverse pregnancy outcomes in a Mediterranean population. Acta Diabetol 2017;54:293–299pmid:28044196
    OpenUrlPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Agarwal MM,
    2. Dhatt GS,
    3. Othman Y
    . Gestational diabetes mellitus prevalence: effect of the laboratory analytical variation. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2015;109:493–499pmid:26164090
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Borch-Johnsen K,
    2. Colagiuri S,
    3. Balkau B, et al
    . Creating a pandemic of prediabetes: the proposed new diagnostic criteria for impaired fasting glycaemia. Diabetologia 2004;47:1396–1402pmid:15278279
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
PreviousNext
Back to top
Diabetes Care: 41 (7)

In this Issue

July 2018, 41(7)
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by Author
  • Masthead (PDF)
Sign up to receive current issue alerts
View Selected Citations (0)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about Diabetes Care.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: Does One Size Fit All? A Challenge to Uniform Worldwide Diagnostic Thresholds
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Diabetes Care
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the Diabetes Care web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: Does One Size Fit All? A Challenge to Uniform Worldwide Diagnostic Thresholds
H. David McIntyre, Dorte M. Jensen, Richard C. Jensen, Henriette B. Kyhl, Tina K. Jensen, Dorte Glintborg, Marianne Andersen
Diabetes Care Jul 2018, 41 (7) 1339-1342; DOI: 10.2337/dc17-2393

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Add to Selected Citations
Share

Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: Does One Size Fit All? A Challenge to Uniform Worldwide Diagnostic Thresholds
H. David McIntyre, Dorte M. Jensen, Richard C. Jensen, Henriette B. Kyhl, Tina K. Jensen, Dorte Glintborg, Marianne Andersen
Diabetes Care Jul 2018, 41 (7) 1339-1342; DOI: 10.2337/dc17-2393
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Research Design and Methods
    • Results
    • Conclusions
    • Article Information
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Tables
  • Suppl Material
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • The Sensitivity and Specificity of the Glucose Challenge Test in a Universal Two-Step Screening Strategy for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Using the 2013 World Health Organization Criteria
  • Day-and-Night Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery in a Broad Population of Pregnant Women With Type 1 Diabetes: A Randomized Controlled Crossover Trial
Show more Reconsidering Pregnancy With Diabetes

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Current Issue
  • Standards of Care Guidelines
  • Online Ahead of Print
  • Archives
  • Submit
  • Subscribe
  • Email Alerts
  • RSS Feeds

More Information

  • About the Journal
  • Instructions for Authors
  • Journal Policies
  • Reprints and Permissions
  • Advertising
  • Privacy Policy: ADA Journals
  • Copyright Notice/Public Access Policy
  • Contact Us

Other ADA Resources

  • Diabetes
  • Clinical Diabetes
  • Diabetes Spectrum
  • Scientific Sessions Abstracts
  • Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes
  • BMJ Open - Diabetes Research & Care
  • Professional Books
  • Diabetes Forecast

 

  • DiabetesJournals.org
  • Diabetes Core Update
  • ADA's DiabetesPro
  • ADA Member Directory
  • Diabetes.org

© 2021 by the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care Print ISSN: 0149-5992, Online ISSN: 1935-5548.