SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Journal of the Turkish-German Gynecological Association / 2021 / Cilt: 22 - Sayı: 2

Comparison of glucose degradation product and receptor levels in diabetic and normal pregnancy

Yaprak Engin-ÜSTÜN
Mustafa KARA
Ethem Serdar YALVAÇ
Özlem Şimşek TANİN
Ayşe Yeşim GÖÇMEN
Pages
127–131
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Whereas fasting glucose levels and BMI in the three groups was significantly different, AGEs, CML, RAGE/AGER levels were found as significantly different between the groups (p

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic values of new biochemical markers that may be an alternative to the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) and determine the differences in these markers among three groups of women with varying degrees of glucose homeostasis dysregulation.
📊
Key Findings & Data:All women were screened with 50 gram (g) oral glucose and a 100 g OGTT for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Whereas fasting glucose levels and BMI in the three groups was significantly different, AGEs, CML, RAGE/AGER levels were found as significantly different between the groups (p
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic values of new biochemical markers that may be an alternative to the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) and determine the differences in these markers among three groups of women with varying degrees of glucose homeostasis dysregulation. Material and Methods: This was a prospective study. All women were screened with 50 gram (g) oral glucose and a 100 g OGTT for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). The patients were divided into three groups depending on the result of the tests: no evidence of glucose metabolism abnormality (controls); impaired glucose tolerance (IGT); and GDM. All three groups were evaluated for serum human advanced glycation endproducts (AGEs) concentrations, carboxymethyl lysine (CML) concentration and receptor for advanced glycation end-product concentrations (RAGE/AGER), body mass index (BMI), age, fasting glucose levels, obstetrical parameters and gestational age. Results: The study included 180 women divided into 59 (32.8%) GDM, 50 (27.8%) IGT and 71 (39.4%) controls. Age was similar among the three groups. Whereas fasting glucose levels and BMI in the three groups was significantly different, AGEs, CML, RAGE/AGER levels were found as significantly different between the groups (p

🔖

Cite This Article

Engin-ÜSTÜN, Y., KARA, M., YALVAÇ, E. S., TANİN, Ö. Ş., GÖÇMEN, A. Y. (2022). Comparison of glucose degradation product and receptor levels in diabetic and normal pregnancy. Journal of the Turkish-German Gynecological Association, Cilt: 22 - Sayı: 2, 127–131. https://ajindex.com/articles/567358

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Yalçin HR, Zorlu CG. Threshold value of glucose screening tests in pregnancy: could it be standardized for every population? Am J Perinatol 1996; 13: 317-20
  2. Gregory KD, Kjos SL, Peters RK. Cost of non-insulin-dependent diabetes in women with a history of gestational diabetes: implications for prevention. Obstet Gynecol 1993; 81: 782-6
  3. Khandelwal M, Homko C, Reece EA. Gestational diabetes mellitus: controversies and current opinions. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 1999; 11: 157-65
  4. Deerachanawong C, Putiyanun C, Wongswyat M, Serirat S, Jinayon P. Comparison of National Diabetes Data Group and World Health Organization criteria for detecting gestational diabetes mellitus. Diabetologia 1996; 39: 1070-3
  5. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: Diabetes and pregnancy. ACOG Technical Bulletin. Washington, DC 1994
  6. Singh VP, Bali A, Singh N, Singh Jaggi A. Advanced glycation end products and diabetic complications. Korean J Physiol Pharmacol 2014; 18: 1-14
  7. American Diabetes Association. Gestational Diabetes Mellitus. Diabetes Care 2003; 26: 103-5
  8. Carpenter MW, Couston DR. Criteria for screening tests for gestational diabetes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1982; 144: 768-73
  9. Coustan DR. Diagnosis of gestational diabetes: What are our objectives? Diabetes 1991;40(Suppl 2): 14-7
  10. Dornhorst A, Rossi M. Risk and prevention of type 2 diabetes in women with gestational diabetes. Diabetes Care 1998; 21(Suppl 2): B43-9
  11. From the American Diabetes Association, Alexandria, Virginia. Originally approved 1997. Modified in 1999 based on the Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop-Conference on Gestational Diabetes Mellitus. Diabetes Care 1998;21: 1-167
  12. Metzger BE, Couston DR. Proceedings of the Fourth İnternational Workshop- Conference on Gestational Diabetes Mellitus. Diabetes Care 1998; 21: 167
  13. Solomon CG, Willett WC, Carey VJ, Rich-Edwards J, Hunter DJ, Colditz GA, et al. A prospective study of pregravid determinants of gestational diabetes mellitus. JAMA 1997; 278: 1078-83
  14. Pallardo LF, Herranz L, Martin-Vaquero P, Garcia-Ingelmo T, Grande C, Jañez M. mpaired fasting glucose and impaired glucose tolerance in women with prior gestational diabetes are associated with a different cardiovascular profile. Diabetes Care 2003; 26: 2318-22
  15. Gaudier FL, Hauth JC, Poist M, Corbett D, Cliver SP. Recurrence of gestational diabetes mellitus. Obstet Gynecol 1992; 80: 755-8
  16. Dudhbhai M, Lim L, Bombard A, Juliard K, Meena