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
Commentaries

Gestational Diabetes Mellitus and Glucose Sample Handling

  1. Sarah A.L. Price1 and
  2. Robert G. Moses2⇑
  1. 1Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
  2. 2Diabetes Services, University of Wollongong, West Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia
  1. Corresponding author: Robert G. Moses, robert.moses{at}health.nsw.gov.au
Diabetes Care 2020 Jul; 43(7): 1371-1372. https://doi.org/10.2337/dci20-0021
PreviousNext
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) continues to provide challenges in terms of both diagnosis and management. Recent scientific discussions around the preanalytical processing of glucose samples from the glucose tolerance test (GTT) have generated considerable interest and debate (1,2).

For most women, the diagnosis of GDM is based on the measurement of plasma glucose after the GTT. The observational Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes (HAPO) study (3) and the consensus agreement about diagnostic criteria by the International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) (4) provided glucose thresholds for the diagnosis of GDM.

The HAPO study was meticulous in the preanalytical and analytical processing of glucose samples (3). Given that our current diagnostic criteria are based on the findings of the HAPO study, if results are to be comparable, the same meticulous processing must also be applied to glucose samples processed in routine clinical care.

A major source of preanalytical error in measuring glucose is loss of glucose from blood samples through glycolysis in red and white blood cells (5). Glucose is lost from the whole blood sample at a rate of 5–7% per hour at room temperature (5). Although sodium fluoride is intended to inhibit glycolysis, it is inadequate for the first 2 or more hours after collection (5,6).

In this issue of Diabetes Care, Potter et al. (7) have demonstrated the importance of strict preanalytical processing of glucose samples obtained during a GTT and the consequences of differences in preanalytical processing on the prevalence of GDM. Their study looked at two consecutive cohorts of pregnant women from the same region who underwent a 75-g oral GTT for the diagnosis of GDM. In the first cohort, recruited over a period of 28 months, samples were collected in sodium fluoride tubes and were kept at room temperature until completion of the test (delayed centrifugation). In the second cohort, recruited over a subsequent period of 16 months, samples were collected in sodium fluoride tubes and were centrifuged within 10 min (early centrifugation).

Potter et al. report that the mean fasting, 1-h, and 2-h glucose concentrations were all significantly lower when the samples were processed after delayed rather than early centrifugation. This finding is not new, but the study quantifies the impact of delayed centrifugation on the measured glucose concentration in blood samples from the GTT.

The fasting glucose samples were more impacted by the preanalytical sample handling than the 1-h and 2-h samples. This finding is biologically plausible given that, using a protocol of delayed centifugation, the fasting sample has a longer lag time between venipuncture and centrifugation than the remaining samples. Using the early centifugation protocol, the time between venipuncture and centifugation is short and consistent.

The crucial aspect of this study is the impact of preanalytical processing on the diagnosis of GDM. Potter et al. reported an increase in the prevalence of GDM from 11.6% to 20.6% upon changing to a protocol of early centrifugation, as was conducted in the HAPO study and from which the diagnostic criteria were derived.

The increase in the GDM diagnosis rate was predominately due to an increase in fasting glucose concentration and to a lesser degree 1-h glucose concentration. The greatest impact of the early centifugation protocol on the rate of GDM diagnosis was the increase in the number of women with a fasting glucose just above the threshold required for GDM diagnosis, in the range of 5.1–5.2 mmol/L. This observation reinforces the need for meticulous preanalytical sample handling.

There were some minor limitations in the study as outlined by the authors, but nothing that would explain the dramatic increase in the prevalence of GDM. This increase is large and therefore is relevant to clinical service provision, both at the diagnostic level and the clinical care level.

The findings of this study (7) also have broad implications for the reporting of GDM data. Comparisons of prevalence data from different parts of the world, particularly from remote areas and places where the pathology services are not integrated, will need to take into account the methodology used, as this could have a major impact on the relevance of the findings and observations. Similarly, when large population-based databases of GDM prevalence are published, the preanalytical sample handling of GTT samples will be a crucial component of the methodology. Without attention to preanalytical processing and standardization, data quality will be compromised.

In their article, Potter et al. highlight an often overlooked aspect of the GTT. Without strict preanalytical oral GTT sample handling in routine clinical practice, our ability to accurately diagnose GDM and report GDM prevalence data will be flawed.

Article Information

Duality of Interest. No potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

Footnotes

  • See accompanying article, p. 1438.

  • © 2020 by the American Diabetes Association
https://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 https://www.diabetesjournals.org/content/license.

References

  1. ↵
    1. O’Malley EG,
    2. Reynolds CME,
    3. O’Kelly R,
    4. Killalea A,
    5. Sheehan SR,
    6. Turner MJ
    . A prospective evaluation of point-of-care measurements of maternal glucose for the diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus. Clin Chem 2020;66:316–323
    OpenUrl
  2. ↵
    1. Daly N,
    2. Flynn I,
    3. Carroll C,
    4. Farren M,
    5. McKeating A,
    6. Turner MJ
    . Impact of implementing preanalytical laboratory standards on the diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus: a prospective observational study. Clin Chem 2016;62:387–391
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  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;358:1991–2002
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. ↵
    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;33:676–682
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Sacks DB,
    2. Arnold M,
    3. Bakris GL, et al
    . Guidelines and recommendations for laboratory analysis in the diagnosis and management of diabetes mellitus. Clin Chem 2011;57:e1–e47
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Bruns DE,
    2. Knowler WC
    . Stabilization of glucose in blood samples: why it matters. Clin Chem 2009;55:850–852
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    1. Potter JM,
    2. Hickman PE,
    3. Oakman C,
    4. Woods C,
    5. Nolan CJ
    . Strict preanalytical oral glucose tolerance test blood sample handling is essential for diagnosing gestational diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care 2020;43:1438–1441
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top
Diabetes Care: 43 (7)

In this Issue

July 2020, 43(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 and Glucose Sample Handling
(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 and Glucose Sample Handling
Sarah A.L. Price, Robert G. Moses
Diabetes Care Jul 2020, 43 (7) 1371-1372; DOI: 10.2337/dci20-0021

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 and Glucose Sample Handling
Sarah A.L. Price, Robert G. Moses
Diabetes Care Jul 2020, 43 (7) 1371-1372; DOI: 10.2337/dci20-0021
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
    • Article Information
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Apps and the Woman With Gestational Diabetes Mellitus
  • The Prognostic Value of Time in Range in Type 2 Diabetes
  • Spontaneous or Deliberate: Effects of Acute Variations in Glycemia on Gastric Emptying in Type 1 Diabetes
Show more Commentaries

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Pregnancy-Clinical/Epidemiology

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.