In reply: Callaway and McElduff are dismissive of the concerns I raised in my recent article,1 asserting incorrectly that they are old arguments. The potential reduction of the risk of macrosomia (birthweight > 90th centile; large for gestational age babies) when one or more blood glucose levels (BGLs) on an oral glucose tolerance test are normal was only suggested recently, in February 2014.2 In response, new data3 confirmed the statistical flaw in the new diagnostic criteria for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). These data showed that (i) nearly 50% of women having only one elevated BGL test result do not reach the diagnostic risk threshold, and (ii) women having two or more BGL results just below the new diagnostic levels may be at greater risk, yet will not be identified.1
The full article is accessible to AMA members and paid subscribers. Login to read more or purchase a subscription now.
Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.
- 1. d'Emden MC. Reassessment of the new diagnostic thresholds for gestational diabetes mellitus: an opportunity for improvement. Med J Aust 2014; 201: 209-211. <MJA full text>
- 2. d'Emden M. Do the new threshold levels for the diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus correctly identify women at risk? Diabetes Care 2014; 37: e30. doi: 10.2337/dc13-2234.
- 3. Metzger BE, Dyer AR. Comment on d'Emden. Do the new threshold levels for the diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus correctly identify women at risk? Diabetes Care 2014; 37: e30. Diabetes Care 2014; 37: e43-e44. doi: 10.2337/dc13-2526.
- 4. Nankervis A, McIntyre HD, Moses R; Australasian Diabetes in Pregnancy Society. ADIPS Consensus Guidelines for the Testing and Diagnosis of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in Australia. http://adips.org/downloads/ADIPSConsensusGuidelinesGDM-03.05.13VersionACCEPTEDFINAL.pdf (accessed Jan 2014).
- 5. Kim C, Newton KM, Knopp RH. Gestational diabetes and the incidence of type 2 diabetes. A systematic review. Diabetes Care 2002; 25: 1862-1868.
No relevant disclosures.