Glucometric Guardianship

It is a well-known fact that the knowledge of their current glucose readings empowered people with diabetes to evaluate and monitor the trends in glucose fluctuations and take informed decisions on adjusting their medicines, food intake, and physical activity. Glucose monitoring technology has undergone a technological evolution and has improved diabetes care in patients living with type 2 diabetes. This has also made the need to efficiently and effectively utilize blood glucose monitoring tools. Given the above, the article has reviewed the significance of glucometric guardianship. Glucometric checklists offer a standardized approach to glucometric guardianship which is necessary to improve the process of drug choice and dose titration. The stepwise factors included in the glucometric guardianship checklist include procurement, distribution, pre-testing hygiene, testing, recording, action, disposal, quality control, and procedure safety

Comparison of the world health organization and the International association of diabetes and pregnancy study groups criteria in diagnosing gestational diabetes mellitus in South Indians

We aimed to compare the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) and the World Health Organization (WHO) criteria to diagnose gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) in Chennai, India. Materials and Methods: We reviewed the retrospective data of 1351 pregnant women who underwent screening for GDM at four selected diabetes centers at Chennai (three private and one government). All women underwent an oral glucose tolerance test using 75g glucose load and fasting, 1-h, and 2-h samples were collected. The IADPSG and WHO criteria were compared for diagnosis of GDM. Results: A total of 839 women had GDM by either the IADPSG or the WHO criteria, of whom the IADPSG criteria identifi ed 699 and the WHO criteria also identifi ed 699 women as having GDM. However, only 599/839 women (66.6%) were identifi ed by both criteria. Thus, 140/839 women (16.7%) were missed by both the IADPSG and the WHO criteria. 687/699 (98.2%) of the women with GDM were identifi ed by the WHO criteria. In contrast, each value of IADPSG criteria i.e., fasting, 1 h, and 2 h identifi ed only 12.5%, 14%, and 22%, respectively. Conclusions: A single WHO cut-point of 2 h140 mg/dl appears to be suitable for large-scale screening for GDM in India and other developing countries