10 / 42
RESEARCH ARTICLE
SA JOURNAL OF DIABETES & VASCULAR DISEASE
8
VOLUME 17 NUMBER 1 • JULY 2020
diagnostic criteria (8.8% in South Africa and 13.9% in Nigeria),
11,12
but comparable with what was expected by local obstetricians who
estimated prevalence between 2 and 3% among women attending
ANCs (B Makanani pers commun). GDM was rare, even among
those with traditional risk factors for GDM, suggesting there may
be a unique environmental or genetic influence on risk factors for
GDM in this population.
Using IADPSG criteria, the prevalence of GDM was 12 times
higher compared to WHO criteria and, interestingly, showed a
higher prevalence in government ANCs compared to private ANCs.
We anticipated finding a higher prevalence of GDM using
IADPSG criteria compared to WHO criteria, as has been described
in other studies. There are no other published studies from
African populations for comparison. Many studies have compared
prevalence using the two criteria, with some finding the two to
be comparable.
19
The decision to change the criteria depends on
performing careful cost analysis and weighing the risk–benefit
ratio, particularly in a population that is different from the HAPO
population; performance in a non-HAPO population is thought
to be lower.
16,17
In a low-income setting, priority should probably
be placed on treating those diagnosed with GDM based on WHO
criteria.
There was a large loss to follow up among the women diagnosed
with GDM, which precludes definitive conclusions on outcome. The
causes of the four miscarriages among the women diagnosed with
GDM were not explored further.
Limitations
The study had several limitations. The study population, being urban,
may have been unrepresentative as it excluded older women in rural
settings likely to have risk factors for GDM. Older and multiparous
women are less likely to attend formal ANCs. Family history of DM
was likely under-reported as most DM in Malawi is undiagnosed.
Loss to follow up precluded making meaningful conclusions on
outcomes on the already small population of women diagnosed
with GDM. Digital instruments used for measuring anthropometric
and biochemical data, including glucometers, BP machines and the
weight scale, although readily accessible for use in the practical
sense, are not always standardised and may be inappropriately
calibrated, which could affect quality and reproducibility of data
collected.
Being descriptive, definite causal relationships cannot be
established. A larger prospective study with OGTTs performed on all
women, exploring risk factors for GDM and comparing outcomes
between the WHO and IADPSG criteria would reflect better on the
usefulness of diagnosing GDM in this population.
Conclusion
Using the WHO criteria, GDM was relatively uncommon in women
in Blantyre presenting to ANCs, even among those with traditional
risk factors for GDM. This low prevalence has been demonstrated
in other sub-Saharan countries and we anticipated that the
prevalence would be similar in the Malawian population in general.
The implication of the higher prevalence found when the IADPSG
criteria were used remains to be explored.
Increasing age, parity and being at government hospitals were
associated with GDM in this population. Alternative risk factors
other than the traditional known risk factors need to be explored.
Maintaining optimal weight should be encouraged as this is the
single modifiable risk factor for GDM that was identified in this
study. Should screening for GDM be performed, the RBG test is not
a sensitive screening tool and risk factor-based screening may be
more feasible and cost effective.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the ANC patients, clinicians and nurses at Queen
Elizabeth Central Hospital, Chilomoni Health Centre, Limbe Health
Centre, Mwaiwathu and Blantyre Adventist hospitals, Mr Henry
Feluzi, Mr Mavuto Mukaka and Miss Elasma Milanzi.
This study was carried out with funding from the World Diabetes
Foundation, grant number WDF 09-451. The funder had no role in
the study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation or writing
the manuscript.
References
1. World Health Organization. Guidelines for the prevention, management and
care of diabetes mellitus. EMRO Technical Publications Series 32, 2006.
2. Setji TL, Brown AJ, Feinglos MN. Gestational diabetes.
Clin Diabetes
2005;
23
:
17–24.
3. Kuhl C. Etiology and pathogenesis of gestational diabetes.
Diabetes Care
1998;
21
(Suppl 2): B19–B26.
4. Ferrara A. Increasing prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus: a public health
perspective.
Diabetes Care
2007;
30
(Suppl 2): S141–S146.
5. Macaulay S, Dunger DB, Norris SA. Gestational diabetes mellitus in Africa: a
systematic review.
PLoS One
2014;
9
(6): e97871.
6. Ranchod HA, Vaughan JE, Jarvis P. Incidence of gestational diabetes at
Northdale Hospital, Pietermaritzburg.
S Afr Med J
1991;
80
: 14–16.
7. Swai AB, Kitange HM, McLarty DG, Kilima PM, Masuki G, Mtinangi BL,
et al
.
No deterioration of oral glucose tolerance during pregnancy in rural Tanzania.
Diabet Med
1991;
8
: 254–257.
8. Olarinoye JK, Ohwovoriole AE, Ajayi GO. Diagnosis of gestational diabetes
mellitus in Nigerian pregnant women – Comparison between 75-g and 100-g
oral glucose tolerance tests.
West Afr J Med
2004;
23
: 198–201.
9. Seyoum B, Kiros K, Haileselase T, Leole A. Prevalence of gestational diabetes
mellitus in rural pregnant mothers in northern Ethiopia.
Diabetes Res Clin Prac
1999;
46
: 247–251.
10. Ozumba BC, Obi SN, Oli JM. Diabetes mellitus in pregnancy in an African
population.
Int J Gynecol Obstet
2004;
84
(2): 114–119.
11. Mamabolo RL, Alberts M, Levitt NS, Delemarre-van de Waal HA, Steyn NP.
Prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus and the effect of weight on
measures of insulin secretion and insulin resistance in third-trimester pregnant
rural women residing in the Central Region of Limpopo Province, South Africa.
Diabet Med
2007;
24
; 233–239.
12. Kuti MA, Abbiyesuku FM, Akinlade KS, Akinosun OM, Adedapo KS, Adeleye
JO,
et al
. Oral glucose tolerance testing outcomes among women at high risk
for gestational diabetes mellitus.
J Clin Pathol
2011;
64
(8): 718–721.
13. Msyamboza KP, Mvula C, Kathyola D. Prevalence and correlates of diabetes
mellitus in Malawi: population-based national NCD STEPS survey.
BMC
Endocrine Disord
2014;
14
: 41.
14. HAPO Study Cooperative Research Group. Hyperglycemia and adverse
pregnancy outcomes.
N Engl J Med
2008;
358
: 1991–2002.
15. Metzger BE, Gabbe SG, Persson B, Buchanan TA, Catalano PA, Damm P,
et al
. International association of diabetes and pregnancy study groups
recommendations on the diagnosis and classification of hyperglycemia in
pregnancy.
Diabetes Care
2010;
33
: 676–682.
16. Cundy T, Ackermann E, Ryan EA. Gestational diabetes: new criteria may triple
the prevalence but effect on outcomes is unclear.
Br Med J
2014;
348
: 1567.
17. Reece EA, Thomas M. The diagnostic criteria for gestational diabetes: to change
or not to change?
Am J Obstet Gynecol
2013;
208
(4): 255–259.
18. Wendland EM, Torloni MR, Falavigna M, Trujillo J, Dode MA, Campos MA,
et al
. Gestational diabetes and pregnancy outcomes – a systematic review
of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Association
of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) diagnostic criteria.
BMC
Pregnancy Childbirth
2012;
12
: 23.
19. Tieu J, Middleton P, McPhee AJ, Crowther CA. Screening and subsequent
management for gestational diabetes for improving maternal and infant health.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev
2010;
7
: CD007222.