Glycaemic Variability and Risk Factors of Pregnant Women with and without Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Measured by Continuous Glucose Monitoring.

Background: The aim of the study was to compare the continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-determined glycaemic variability (GV) of pregnant women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and without GDM (CG; control group). The secondary aim was to evaluate the association between risk factors of diabetes in pregnancy and parameters of glyceamic control. Methods: Demographic, biometric and biochemical parameters were obtained for pregnant women (20-38 years old) who after an oral glucose tolerance test were examined by 7-day continuous glucose monitoring using a iPro®2 Professional CGM. Results: The differences in GV between women with GDM and CG compared by total area under glucose curve (total AUC, (mmol·day/L) was statistically significant (p = 0.006). Other parameters of glycaemic control such as mean glucose, standard deviation, coefficient of variation, J-index, % time-above target range 7.8 mmol/L (%TAR), % time-in range 3.5-7.8 mmol/L (%TIR), time-below target range 3.5 mmol/L (%TBR), glycated haemoglobin were not significantly different in the study groups. Risk factors (a family history of diabetes, pre-pregnancy BMI, higher weight gain and age) correlated with parameters of glycaemic control. Conclusions: We found a significant difference in GV of women with and without GDM by total AUC determined from CGM. TIR metrics were close to significance. Our work points at an increased GV in relation to the risk factors of GDM. Pregnant women with risk factors have higher probability of severe GV with its consequences on maternal and fetal health state.

EU questionnaire to screen for obstructive sleep apnoea validated in Slovakia.

OBJECTIVE: Obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome (OSAS) associated with daytime sleepiness (DS) contributes to a higher incidence of motor vehicle accidents. Validation of fitness to drive in driving license applicants, with special concern regarding OSAS accompanied by excessive DS, became mandatory under new EU legislation in January 2016. The aim of the study was to translate and validate the recommended questionnaire to screen for OSAS (Q-OSAS) in the Slovak population. No data on any Q-OSAS validation has previously been published. METHODS: The translated Q-OSAS was administered to 311 Slovak patients prior to a planned overnight polysomnography. The diagnostic accuracy of the Q-OSAS in OSAS with an apnoea-hypopnoea index of 15 or more/h of sleep was evaluated by calculating the area under the ROC curve. RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity of the cut-off at 10 points for the Q-OSAS was 57% and 67%, respectively, with an increase of sensitivity and a decrease of specificity with a lowering of the cut-off values. Excluding the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) score from the final statistics yielded the best sensitivity (77%), specificity (50%), and an area under the ROC curve (0.637) for the cut-off value of 8 points (an equivalent of 10 points with the full version of the Q-OSAS). CONCLUSION: The Q-OSAS is an appropriate screening tool to facilitate the screening of subjects potentially at risk from moderate and severe OSAS. A modified two-step interpretation of the Q-OSAS in Slovakia yielded the best sensitivity, and in the future could promote evaluation of sleepiness in sleep and wake disorders other than OSAS for fitness to drive.