Home | About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current issue | Archives | Submit article | Instructions | Subscribe | Contacts | Advertise | Login 
 
Search Article 
  
Advanced search 
  Users Online: 1295 Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size  

 
Table of Contents
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Year : 2014  |  Volume : 18  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 119-120

Hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcome (HAPO) study: Should it show the other side of the coin?


1 Department of Medicine, Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh, India
2 Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Bharti Hospital, Karnal, Haryana, India

Date of Web Publication6-Feb-2014

Correspondence Address:
Bharti Kalra
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Bharti Hospital, Kunjpura Road, Karnal, Haryana - 132 001
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/2230-8210.126594

Rights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Gupta Y, Kalra B. Hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcome (HAPO) study: Should it show the other side of the coin?. Indian J Endocr Metab 2014;18:119-20

How to cite this URL:
Gupta Y, Kalra B. Hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcome (HAPO) study: Should it show the other side of the coin?. Indian J Endocr Metab [serial online] 2014 [cited 2020 Feb 27];18:119-20. Available from: http://www.ijem.in/text.asp?2014/18/1/119/126594

Sir,

Carrington et al. first coined the term "Gestational diabetes" in 1957. [1] Since then, the subject of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) has remained of considerable controversies. In 1964, O'Sullivan and Mahan proposed criteria for diagnosis of GDM to indicate a higher chance of developing type 2 diabetes mellitus for the mother. [2] They did not at that time, imply a higher risk for perinatal complications.

Subsequently hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcomes (HAPO) study showed that there is an increase in adverse pregnancy outcomes even with hyperglycemia less severe than that diagnostic of overt diabetes mellitus. [3] Based on HAPO data, International Association of Diabetes Pregnancy Study Group (IADPSG) used the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) cut-offs that identified odds ratios of 1.75 (compared to median values) for the risk of fetal macrosomia, neonatal adiposity and fetal hyperinsulinemia (all defined as >90 th percentile). [3],[4] With new criteria the prevalence of GDM increased dramatically. The increase occurred more in women with a lesser degree of glucose intolerance. In the absence of clarity of treatment benefit in additional women diagnosed of IADPSG criteria, it generated new controversy. Furthermore, it took away attention completely from long-term maternal outcomes to short-term perinatal outcomes.

O'Sullivan and Mahan criteria and its subsequent modifications (the last being Carpenter and Coustan criteria) were validated for the outcome of future maternal diabetes, whereas IADPSG criteria is validated for perinatal outcomes. [2],[4] The two criteria shows the different side of the same coin, which may be the reason of un-satisfaction with either of the diagnostic criteria. Both short-term as well as long-term outcomes of GDM have its own importance and none can take a stepmother treatment. The validation of newer criteria as well as original 7 categories of glycemic levels in HAPO study in terms of future risk of maternal diabetes may solve the controversy. [3] Since, it is nearly 5 years since HAPO study has been published, follow-up of strong cohort of over 23,000 women across different countries to determine the conversion rates to diabetes or pre-diabetes will be valuable. [3] The cut-offs of OGTT during pregnancy, which determines a significant risk for these outcomes could be determined. The composite scenario taking perinatal outcomes as well as long-term future risk of diabetes for mother, may better determines the cut-off at which the interventions may be cost-effective.

 
   References Top

1.Carrington ER, Shuman CR, Reardon HS. Evaluation of the prediabetic state during pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 1957;9:664-9.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.O'Sullivan JB, Mahan CM. Criteria for the oral glucose tolerance test in pregnancy. Diabetes 1964;13:278-85.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.HAPO Study Cooperative Research Group, Metzger BE, Lowe LP, Dyer AR, Trimble ER, Chaovarindr U, et al. Hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcomes. N Engl J Med 2008;358:1991-2002.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups Consensus Panel, Metzger BE, Gabbe SG, Persson B, Buchanan TA, Catalano PA, et al. International association of diabetes and pregnancy study groups recommendations on the diagnosis and classification of hyperglycemia in pregnancy. Diabetes Care 2010;33:676-82.  Back to cited text no. 4
    




 

Top
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
    References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1321    
    Printed10    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded366    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal