# Use of the GTT@home Oral Glucose Tolerance Test Kit in Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: Performance Evaluation Study

## TL;DR

This study evaluated a home-use glucose test kit for gestational diabetes and found it to be mostly accurate compared to standard clinical testing.

## Contribution

The study provides empirical validation of a home-based OGTT device for gestational diabetes in a high-risk population.

## Key findings

- The GTT@home device showed an overall bias of +0.16 mmol/L compared to laboratory results.
- 79.8% of results fell in the lowest risk category on the error grid analysis, indicating strong agreement.
- The device correctly classified 54 out of 61 cases, with minimal moderate or higher risk discrepancies.

## Abstract

The 75-g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) remains the optimal diagnostic test for use in pregnancy but needs to be performed in the clinical setting. The GTT@home OGTT device offers the potential to enable patients to perform the test at home using capillary blood samples.

This study aimed to determine the accuracy of the GTT@home device compared to the routine National Health Service laboratory reference method using blood samples during an OGTT from pregnant women at high risk of developing gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM).

A total of 65 women (aged >18 y), at high risk for GDM (per the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines) were recruited for this performance evaluation. Following an overnight fast, participants went for a 75-g OGTT. Fasting and 2-hour capillary glucose levels were measured using the GTT@home device with corresponding venous samples measured in the laboratory.

The complete data for analysis was available for 61/65 devices. The overall bias for the GTT@home device was +0.16 mmol/L. Correlation analysis of the clinical performance of the two methods using a surveillance error grid showed 79.8% of results in the lowest, 16.9% in the “slight, lower” and 2.4% in the “slight, higher” risk categories. Only 0.8% were “moderate, lower” risk, and none were in any higher risk categories. There was agreement in the classification in 54/61 cases. The GTT@home device under-classified 2 cases and over-classified 5 cases.

The GTT@home device worked well in a controlled, antenatal clinical setting. Differences in classification observed were generally due to small differences in glucose values close to the diagnostic cut-offs. The GTT@home device shows promise for home testing of glucose tolerance in pregnant women.