Diagnostic Criteria For Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Research Articles

Serum copeptin in women with gestational diabetes mellitus: A meta-analysis

To address inconsistencies in prior research, this meta-analysis examines the potential link between serum copeptin levels and the risk of developing gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). Previous studies have reported mixed results regarding the relationship between serum copeptin levels and GDM risk. Our objective was to comprehensively evaluate this association. We systematically reviewed observational studies from Medline, Web of Science, Embase, Wanfang, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases up to October 15, 2023, employing a random-effects model to integrate the data while considering heterogeneity. This analysis incorporated 10 studies comprising 625 women with GDM and 1212 healthy pregnant controls. Our findings showed no significant difference in serum copeptin levels between women with GDM and those without (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.22 to 0.24, P = 0.92, I2 = 75%). Univariate meta-analysis indicated a positive correlation between the body mass index (BMI) of the participants and the outcomes (coefficient = 0.11, P = 0.002). Further subgroup analysis demonstrated that women with a mean BMI ≥ 26 kg/m2 and GDM had significantly higher serum copeptin levels compared to their non-GDM counterparts (SMD 0.31, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.57, P = 0.02, I2 = 46%). Conversely, no difference was observed in women with a BMI < 26 kg/m2 (SMD -0.23, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.09, P = 0.002, I2 = 0%, P for subgroup difference = 0.003). Variables such as the country of study, maternal age, timing of blood sampling, copeptin measurement methods, or GDM diagnostic criteria did not significantly affect the results. In summary, the association between serum copeptin levels and GDM risk is influenced by the BMI of pregnant women, indicating that elevated serum copeptin might be linked to GDM in individuals with a BMI ≥ 26 kg/m2.

Serum copeptin in women with gestational diabetes mellitus: A meta-analysis.

To address inconsistencies in prior research, this meta-analysis examines the potential link between serum copeptin levels and the risk of developing gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). Previous studies have reported mixed results regarding the relationship between serum copeptin levels and GDM risk. Our objective was to comprehensively evaluate this association. We systematically reviewed observational studies from Medline, Web of Science, Embase, Wanfang, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases up to October 15, 2023, employing a random-effects model to integrate the data while considering heterogeneity. This analysis incorporated 10 studies comprising 625 women with GDM and 1212 healthy pregnant controls. Our findings showed no significant difference in serum copeptin levels between women with GDM and those without (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.22 to 0.24, P = 0.92, I2 = 75%). Univariate meta-analysis indicated a positive correlation between the body mass index (BMI) of the participants and the outcomes (coefficient = 0.11, P = 0.002). Further subgroup analysis demonstrated that women with a mean BMI ≥ 26 kg/m2 and GDM had significantly higher serum copeptin levels compared to their non-GDM counterparts (SMD 0.31, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.57, P = 0.02, I2 = 46%). Conversely, no difference was observed in women with a BMI < 26 kg/m2 (SMD -0.23, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.09, P = 0.002, I2 = 0%, P for subgroup difference = 0.003). Variables such as the country of study, maternal age, timing of blood sampling, copeptin measurement methods, or GDM diagnostic criteria did not significantly affect the results. In summary, the association between serum copeptin levels and GDM risk is influenced by the BMI of pregnant women, indicating that elevated serum copeptin might be linked to GDM in individuals with a BMI ≥ 26 kg/m2.

Mapping Lifestyle Interventions for Gestational Diabetes Prevention: A Scoping Review.

The purpose of this study was to conduct a scoping review to map intervention, sample, and physiologic measurement characteristics of lifestyle interventions for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) prevention. A total of 19 studies met selection criteria from 405 articles screened (PubMed, Web of Science). No studies were US-based (47% multi-site), and all were delivered in clinical settings. The most targeted nutrition components were low carbohydrate intake (sugar rich foods/added sugars, low glycemic index), low fat intake (mainly low-fat meat, dairy, and saturated fat), and increased fruits and vegetables. Many studies promoted 150min/week moderate-intensity physical activity. Only two studies provided supervised physical activity sessions. Dietitians and nurses were the most common implementers. Samples were characterized as adults with obesity (mean age 31yr, BMI 31kg/m2). Asian populations were predominantly studied. Four studies used theoretical frameworks (75% of which used Social Cognitive Theory). GDM diagnostic criteria set forth by the American Diabetes Association were the most widely used. Insulin sensitivity was commonly assessed via fasting indices. There was a lack of multi-disciplinary, multi-level, and theory-based lifestyle interventions for reducing GDM risk. Addressing these gaps and prioritizing high-risk populations in the US with measurement of traditional and novel biomarkers will advance the field.

Ultrasonographic abdominal adipose tissue thickness for the prediction of gestational diabetes mellitus: A meta-analysis.

Obesity has been linked to the risk of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). The meta-analysis aimed to assess the predictive role of ultrasonographic measurements of the abdominal adipose tissue thickness for GDM in pregnant women. Cohort studies evaluating the association between abdominal subcutaneous and/or visceral adipose thickness (SAT and/or VAT) and subsequent risk of GDM were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases. Only studies with SAT/VAT measured before the diagnosis of GDM were included. Random-effects models incorporating the influence of potential heterogeneity were used to pool the results. A total of 13 studies involving 5616 pregnant women were included. Pooled results showed that both a high abdominal SAT (odds ratio [OR] for per 1-cm increment: 1.23, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.07 to 1.41, P = 0.003, I2 = 13%; OR for high versus low category: 3.42, 95% CI: 2.31 to 5.07, P < 0.001, I2 = 0%) and VAT (OR for per 1-cm increment: 1.54, 95% CI: 1.16 to 2.06, P = 0.003, I2 = 63%; OR for high versus low category: 5.73, 95% CI: 3.39 to 9.77, P < 0.001, I2 = 31%) at early stages of pregnancy were associated with a higher subsequent risk of GDM. Subgroup analysis based on study design, timing of ultrasound examination, GDM diagnostic criteria, and study quality score showed consistent results. In conclusion, ultrasound-measured abdominal adipose tissue thickness may be useful for predicting the subsequent risk of GDM in pregnant women.

Prevalence, risk factors and outcomes associated with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus according to the IADPSG and NICE criteria in Mexico

In Mexico, there is still no consensus of a criteria for the diagnosis of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM). The objective was to compare characteristics among GDM diagnostic criteria by the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) and the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in Mexico. A prospective and descriptive study was conducted in the Northeast region of Mexico. Prevalence, risk factors, maternal-fetal outcomes were evaluated. GDM prevalence was ​​44.5% by IADPSG and 37.5% by NICE. The analysis of risk factors and outcomes tended to be equal between criteria; nonetheless, the use of only IADPSG or NICE criteria limited the number of patients diagnosed with GDM, leading to a percentage of misclassified cases. IADPSG criteria seem to have fewer limitations to identify GDM patients than NICE due to the characteristics of the cohort. Although, determining in parallel NICE criteria, could be complementary for GDM diagnosis in Mexico. As conclusions, we propose the assessment of both criteria (IADPSG and NICE) to identify the largest number of women at risk of GDM. The lack of significant differences in outcomes between criteria reflects the importance of opportune treatment for GDM patients, which is not administered in a percentage of GDM missed cases when only one criterion is used.&#x0D;

1191-P: GDM in Twin Pregnancies—Maternal Characteristics and Pregnancy Outcomes

The incidence of both gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and twin pregnancies have increased over the past two decades. While the same GDM diagnostic criteria and treatment targets are used for singleton and twin pregnancies, data on outcomes for twin pregnancies with GDM are limited. The aim of this retrospective cohort study is to present comprehensive data on maternal characteristics and pregnancy outcomes for individuals with a twin pregnancy who were diagnosed with GDM and attended our center for prenatal care from 2002-22. In total 185 individuals were identified with a mean age of 32 (± 5) years and a mean prepregnancy body mass index of 31.3 (± 7) kg/m2. The majority were dichorionic diamniotic (n=146, 79%), 32 (17%) had a prior diagnosis of GDM and 63 (34%) had prepregnancy fertility treatment. Women underwent universal screening with a 50g glucose challenge test (normal &amp;lt;140mg/dL) and Carpenter and Coustan Criteria were used to diagnose GDM. Pharmacological therapy was required to treat GDM in 68 (37%) cases. Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy were common (n=55, 30%), as was Cesarean delivery (n= 133, 72%). Assessment of pregnancy outcomes (n=370) revealed 360 (97%) livebirths, 8 (2%) stillbirths and 2 (0.6%) neonatal deaths. Among livebirths and neonatal deaths, premature delivery &amp;lt; 37 weeks was recorded in 225 (62.2%) and &amp;lt;34 weeks in 57 (15.7%). Neonatal macrosomia (birthweight &amp;gt;4.0kg) was rare (n=4, 1%), but low birthweight (&amp;lt;2.5kg) occurred in 168 (46%). Neonatal hypoglycemia was documented in 89 (25%) infants. Maternal attendance at the postpartum glucose tolerance test was low (n=47, 25.5%) individuals, and 38 had a subsequent pregnancy with GDM diagnosed in 18 (47%). In summary, the standard GDM diagnostic criteria applied to twin pregnancies identify a maternal cohort at high risk of pregnancy complications and future GDM. Future work should address the optimal nutritional and glycemic goals for this population, particularly considering the high risk of low birthweight and premature neonates. Disclosure D.M.Das: None. A.Vella: Advisory Panel; Rezolute, Inc., Consultant; Crinetics Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Hanmi Pharm. Co., Ltd., Zealand Pharma A/S, Other Relationship; Novo Nordisk. A.M.Egan: None. Funding National Institutes of Health (DK092721, HD065987)

Exploring the Optimal Diagnostic Thresholds of Hyperglycemia During Pregnancy

Exploring the Optimal Diagnostic Thresholds of Hyperglycemia During Pregnancy

Incidence of gestational diabetes mellitus in the United Arab Emirates; comparison of six diagnostic criteria: The Mutaba'ah Study.

For more than half a century, there has been much research and controversies on how to accurately screen for and diagnose gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). There is a paucity of updated research among the Emirati population in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The lack of a uniform GDM diagnostic criteria results in the inability to accurately combine or compare the disease burden worldwide and locally. This study aimed to compare the incidence of GDM in the Emirati population using six diagnostic criteria for GDM. The Mutaba'ah study is the largest multi-center mother and child cohort study in the UAE with an 18-year follow-up. We included singleton pregnancies from the Mutaba'ah cohort screened with the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) at 24-32 weeks from May 2017 to March 2021. We excluded patients with known diabetes and with newly diagnosed diabetes. GDM cumulative incidence was determined using the six specified criteria. GDM risk factors were compared using chi-square and t-tests. Agreements among the six criteria were assessed using kappa statistics. A total of 2,546 women were included with a mean age of 30.5 ± 6.0 years. Mean gravidity was 3.5 ± 2.1, and mean body mass index (BMI) at booking was 27.7 ± 5.6 kg/m2. GDM incidence as diagnosed by any of the six criteria collectively was 27.1%. It ranged from 8.4% according to the EASD 1996 criteria to 21.5% according to the NICE 2015 criteria. The two most inclusive criteria were the NICE 2015 and the IADPSG criteria with GDM incidence rates of 21.5% (95% CI: 19.9, 23.1) and 21.3% (95% CI: 19.8, 23.0), respectively. Agreement between the two criteria was moderate (k = 0.66; p < 0.001). The least inclusive was the EASD 1996 criteria [8.4% (95% CI: 7.3, 9.6)]. The locally recommended IADPSG/WHO 2013 criteria had weak to moderate agreement with the other criteria, with Cohen's kappa coefficient ranging from (k = 0.51; p < 0.001) to (k = 0.71; p < 0.001). Most of the GDM risk factors assessed were significantly higher among those with GDM (p < 0.005) identified by all criteria. The findings indicate discrepancies among the diagnostic criteria in identifying GDM cases. This emphasizes the need to unify GDM diagnostic criteria in this population to provide accurate and reliable incidence estimates for healthcare planning, especially because the agreement with the recommended criteria was not optimal.

Does depression increase the risk of gestational diabetes mellitus? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data on the relationship between depression and gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is scarce and conflicting. We, hereby, aimed to review evidence if prior depression increases the risk of GDM. PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, and Google Scholar databases were searched from inception to 11th September 2021 for English language studies reporting the relationship between depression and subsequent risk of GDM. Ten studies were included. Meta-analysis of data from nine studies including 127,195 patients indicated that prior depression was associated with a significantly increased risk of GDM (OR: 1.29 95% CI: 1.10, 1.52). There was no change in the significance of the results on sensitivity analysis. On subgroup analysis based on study location, we noted that the association between depression and GDM was seen only in USA-based studies with the pooled analysis of non-USA studies indicating no such relationship. Similar conflicting results were noted on subgroup analysis based on diagnostic criteria for GDM and depression. Our study indicates that prior depression can lead to a 29% increased risk of GDM in pregnant females. Current evidence is derived from a limited number of studies with significant heterogeneity in the timing and diagnostic criteria for depression.

Diet-Treated Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Is an Underestimated Risk Factor for Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes: A Swedish Population-Based Cohort Study.

In Sweden, diet-treated gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) pregnancies have been managed as low risk. The aim was to evaluate the risk of adverse perinatal outcomes among women with diet-treated GDM compared with the background population and with insulin-treated GDM. This is a population-based cohort study using national register data between 1998 and 2012, before new GDM management guidelines and diagnostic criteria in Sweden were introduced. Singleton pregnancies (n = 1,455,580) without pregestational diabetes were included. Among 14,242 (1.0%) women diagnosed with GDM, 8851 (62.1%) were treated with diet and 5391 (37.9%) with insulin. In logistic regression analysis, the risk was significantly increased in both diet- and insulin-treated groups (vs. background) for large-for-gestational-age newborns, preeclampsia, cesarean section, birth trauma and preterm delivery. The risk was higher in the insulin-treated group (vs. diet) for most outcomes, but perinatal mortality rates neither differed between treatment groups nor compared to the background population. Diet as a treatment for GDM did not normalize pregnancy outcomes. Pregnancies with diet-treated GDM should therefore not be considered as low risk. Whether changes in surveillance and treatment improve outcomes needs to be evaluated.

IDF21-0025 Impact of different GDM diagnostic criteria on GDM incidence, therapy and postpartum dysglycemia in Malaysian women

Background: Gestational-diabetes-mellitus (GDM) mothers are at increased risk of developing future prediabetes/T2DM. Risk of post-partum dysglycemia is proportionate to degree of antenatal hyperglycemia. Therefore, GDM diagnostic-criteria can impact post-partum dysglycemia incidence. Malaysia employs GDM diagnostic-criteria similar to the United-Kingdom which unlike the 2013 WHO (World Health Organization)-criteria, has a lower 2-hour threshold (7.8mmol/L). The UK 2015 NICE (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence)-criteria however utilize a higher fasting threshold 5.6 mmol/L compared with Malaysian and WHO criteria. Aim: To assess the impact of adopting 2013 WHO-criteria and 2015 NICE-criteria on GDM incidence, therapy and postpartum dysglycemia. Method: In this prospective observational study conducted in an urban centre in Malaysia, a multi-ethnic population of 1011 mothers underwent universal GDM screening with 75g OGTT (blood glucose evaluated at 0 and 2-hour, without 1-hour sample). Mothers were categorized into 4 groups: GDM by 2015 Malaysian-criteria (0-hour ≥ 5.1mmol/L and/or 2hr ≥ 7.8mmol/L), GDM by modified 2013 WHO-criteria(0-hour ≥ 5.1mmol/L and/or 2hr ≥ 8.5mmol/L), GDM reclassified as non-GDM by modified 2013 WHO-criteria(0-hour < 5.1mmol/L and 2hr 7.8-8.4mmol/L) and GDM reclassified as non-GDM by 2015 NICE-criteria (0-hour 5.1-5.5mmol/L and 2hr <7.8mmol/L). Glucose tolerance was re-evaluated within 1-year in those with GDM. Only mothers diagnosed by 2015 Malaysian-criteria were treated for GDM. Results: 65.8%, 23.3% and 9.5% of mothers were of Malay, Chinese and Indian ethnicity respectively. Use of the modified 2013 WHO-criteria reduced the overall GDM rate from 28.4% (n = 276) to 18.2% (n = 177) (p<0.05), with greatest reduction observed amongst Chinese women (35.2% to 19.8%) (p<0.05). 46.3% of Chinese women had mild post-challenge hyperglycemia (7.8-8.4mmol/L) and were thus missed using 2013-WHO cut-offs. Use of the NICE-criteria also reduced GDM incidence rate (28.4% to 23.3%) (p<0.05) with greatest decline in Indian mothers (33.7% to 20.7%) (p<0.05). Of the 88 women reclassified as non-GDM by modified 2013 WHO-criteria, 39.8% required pharmacological therapy for GDM. Despite receiving treatment, week-36 A1c was higher compared with normal-glucose-tolerance (NGT) mothers. 49 women (17.8%) would have been reclassified as non-GDM with NICE-criteria, 22.4% of whom required pharmacological therapy. 24.3% of GDM mothers diagnosed with Malaysian criteria (n = 67) had verifiable postpartum glycemic assessment within 1-year of delivery, 21 of whom had postpartum dysglycemia. Of those women with postpartum dysglycemia, 23.8% would have been reclassified as non-GDM by modified WHO-criteria and another 23.8% would have been reclassified as non-GDM by NICE-criteria. Discussion: Adoption of 2015 NICE-criteria, will reduce GDM incidence in Malaysian women, failing to identify women 1) requiring pharmacological intervention antenatally 2) at increased risk of postpartum-dysglycemia. Adoption of 2013 WHO-criteria without 1-hour glycemic assessment runs a similar risk. There may be ethnic variation in glycaemic risk-thresholds antenatally. Further larger studies with a 3-point OGTT are required to confirm these preliminary findings.

Effect of Different Types of Diagnostic Criteria for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus on Adverse Neonatal Outcomes: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Meta-Regression.

BackgroundEvidence supporting various diagnostic criteria for diagnose gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) are consensus-based, needs for additional evidence related to outcomes. Therefore, the aim of this systematic-review and meta-analysis was to assess the impact of different GDM diagnostic-criteria on the risk of adverse-neonatal-outcomes.MethodsElectronic databases including Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Sciences were searched to retrieve English original, population-based studies with the universal GDM screening approach, up to January-2020. GDM diagnostic criteria were classified in seven groups and International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) was considered as reference one. We used the Mantel–Haenszel method to calculate the pooled odds of events. The possibility of publication bias was examined by Begg’s test.ResultsA total of 55 population-based studies consisting of 1,604,391 pregnant women with GDM and 7,770,855 non-GDM counterparts were included. Results showed that in all diagnostic-criteria subgroups, the risk of adverse neonatal outcomes including macrosomia, hyperbilirubinemia, respiratory distress syndrome, neonatal hypoglycemia, neonatal intensive care unit admission, preterm birth, and birth-trauma were significantly higher than the non-GDM counterparts were significantly higher than non-GDM counterparts. Meta-regression analysis revealed that the magnitude of neonatal risks in all diagnostic-criteria subgroups are similar.ConclusionOur results showed that the risk of adverse-neonatal-outcome increased among women with GDM, but the magnitude of risk was not different among those women who were diagnosed through more or less intensive strategies. These findings may help health-care-providers and policy-makers to select the most cost-effective approach for the screening of GDM among pregnant women.

Prevalence and Risk Factors of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in Bangladesh: Findings from Demographic Health Survey 2017-2018.

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) has serious consequences for both maternal and neonatal health. The growing number of noncommunicable diseases and related risk factors as well as the introduction of new World Health Organization (WHO) diagnostic criteria for GDM are likely to impact the GDM prevalence in Bangladesh. Our study aimed to assess the national prevalence and identify the risk factors using the most recent WHO criteria. We used the secondary data of 272 pregnant women (weighted for sampling strategy) from the Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey 2017–2018. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to determine the risk factors of GDM. The overall prevalence of GDM in Bangladesh was 35% (95/272). Increased odds of GDM were observed among women living in the urban areas (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.43–5.27) compared to rural areas and those aged ≥25 years (aOR 2.03, 95% CI 1.13–3.65). GDM rates were less prevalent in the later weeks of pregnancy compared to early weeks. Our study demonstrates that the national prevalence of GDM in Bangladesh is very high, which warrants immediate attention of policy makers, health practitioners, public health researchers, and the community. Context-specific and properly tailored interventions are needed for the prevention and early diagnosis of GDM.

Clinical Outcomes Following a Change in Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Diagnostic Criteria Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Case-Control Study.

Background: Due to COVID-19, many centres adopted a change to the diagnosis of GDM. Methods: A case-control study of antenatal patients between 1 April and 30 June in 2019 and 2020 looking at detection rates of GDM, use of medication, obstetric, and fetal outcomes. Results: During COVID-19, the rate of positive GDM tests approximately halved (20% (42/210) in 2020 vs. 42.2% (92/218) in 2019, (p < 0.01)) with higher rates of requirement for insulin at diagnosis (21.4% (2020) vs. 2.2% (2019); p < 0.01), and at term (31% (2020) vs. 5.4% (2019); p < 0.01). and metformin at diagnosis (4.8% (2020) vs. 1.1% (2019); p < 0.01), and at term (14.3% (2020) vs. 7.6% (2019) p < 0.01), with no differences in birth outcomes. Conclusions: There was likely an underdiagnosis of GDM while women at a higher risk of hyperglycaemia were correctly identified. The GTT should be maintained as the gold-standard test where possible, with provisions made for social distancing during testing if required.

Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: Diagnostic Approaches and Maternal-Offspring Complications.

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is the most common complication during pregnancy and is defined as any degree of glucose intolerance with onset or first recognition during pregnancy. GDM is associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes and long-term offspring and maternal complications. For GDM screening and diagnosis, a two-step approach (1-hour 50 g glucose challenge test followed by 3-hour 100 g oral glucose tolerance test) has been widely used. After the Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome study implemented a 75 g oral glucose tolerance test in all pregnant women, a one-step approach was recommended as an option for the diagnosis of GDM after 2010. The one-step approach has more than doubled the incidence of GDM, but its clinical benefit in reducing adverse pregnancy outcomes remains controversial. Long-term complications of mothers with GDM include type 2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease, and complications of their offspring include childhood obesity and glucose intolerance. The diagnostic criteria of GDM should properly classify women at risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes and long-term complications. The present review summarizes the strengths and weaknesses of the one-step and two-step approaches for the diagnosis of GDM based on recent randomized controlled trials and observational studies. We also describe the long-term maternal and offspring complications of GDM.

Obstetric and neonatal outcomes of gestational diabetes mellitus in twin pregnancies according to changes in its diagnostic criteria from National Diabetes Data Group criteria to Carpenter and Coustan criteria: a retrospective cohort study

BackgroundTo compare obstetric and neonatal outcomes in twin pregnancies with or without gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) before and after changes in GDM diagnostic criteria.MethodsThis was a retrospective cohort study of 1,764 twin pregnancies including 130 women with GDM (GDM group) and 1,634 women without GDM (non-GDM group). Patients with pregestational diabetes, unknown GDM status, and fetal death at < 24 gestational weeks were excluded. Obstetric and neonatal outcomes were compared between the two groups by two periods: period 1 (1995–2005) and period 2 (2005–2018) when National Diabetes Data Group criteria and Carpenter and Coustan criteria were used for diagnosis of GDM, respectively.ResultsThe incidence of GDM in twin pregnancies increased from 4.0% in period 1 to 9.3% in period 2. Composite obstetric complications rate was significantly higher in the GDM group than that in the non-GDM group during period 1 (72.0% vs. 45.5%, P = 0.009). However, it became comparable during period 2 (60.0% vs. 57.4%, P = 0.601). Interaction between GDM and period indicated a significant differential effect of GDM by period on the rate of composite obstetric complications. The rate of composite neonatal complications was similar between the two groups during both periods. The interaction between GDM and period was not significant.ConclusionAfter changes of GDM diagnostic criteria, the incidence of GDM increased more than twice, and the rate of composite obstetric complications decreased, but the rate of composite neonatal complications did not change significantly.

Impact of the Gestational Diabetes Diagnostic Criteria during the Pandemic: An Observational Study.

Objective: To analyze the effect of applying alternative diagnostic criteria for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) during the COVID-19 pandemic on GDM prevalence and obstetrical and perinatal outcomes, in comparison to usual diagnostic approaches. Methods: Data from women referred to GDM diagnosis from 1 September to 30 November 2019 were retrospectively collected (2019-group). The same data from the same period in 2020 were prospectively collected (2020-group). In both cases, a two-step diagnostic approach was used, the first step being a screening test (1 h 50 goral glucose tolerance test, OGTT). In 2019 it was followed by a 100 gr OGTT for diagnosis. In 2020, this was replaced by a blood test for the measurement of plasma glucose and HbA1c, according to alternative GDM diagnostic criteria during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: From 237 women in the 2019 group, 40 (16.9%) were diagnosed with GDM, while from 255 women in the 2020 group, 37 (14.5%) had GDM (p = 0.470). More women in the 2020 group, in comparison to the 2019 group, were nulligravid (41.9% vs. 47.2%, p = 0.013), had a personal history of GDM (11.4% vs. 4.6%, p = 0.013) and had macrosomia in previous pregnancies (10.2% vs. 2.1%, p = 0.001). Obstetrical and perinatal outcomes were similar when comparing women with GDM to non-GDM women in the 2019 and 2020 groups and between GDM women and non-GDM women. Conclusion: In a Spanish population, GDM prevalence during the COVID-19 pandemic using the alternative diagnostic criteria was similar to that found in 2019 using the usual diagnostic criteria. Despite women referred for GDM diagnosis during the pandemic having more GDM risk factors, obstetrical and perinatal outcomes were comparable to those observed before the pandemic.

Improving nutrition for the prevention of gestational diabetes: Current status and perspectives

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a common complication of pregnancy and a serious public health problem. It carries significant risks of short-term and long-term adverse health effects for both mothers and their children. Risk factors, especially modifiable risk factors, must be considered to prevent GDM and its consequences. Observational studies have identified several nutritional and lifestyle factors associated with the risk of GDM. The results of intervention studies examining the effects of diet and lifestyle on the prevention of GDM are contradictory. Differences in the study populations, types and intensity of intervention, time frame of the intervention, and diagnostic criteria for GDM may explain the heterogeneity in the results of intervention studies. This review provides an overview of new diets and other factors that may help prevent GDM. The main results of epidemiological studies assessing the risk factors for GDM, as well as the results and methodological problems of intervention studies on the prevention of GDM and their meta-analyses, are discussed. In addition, the evidence that gene and lifestyle interactions influence the development of GDM, as well as prospects for increasing the effectiveness of interventions designed to prevent GDM, including new data on the possible uses of personalized diet therapy, are highlighted.

An Update on Screening Strategies for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Narrative Review.

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a frequent medical complication during pregnancy. Screening and diagnostic practices for GDM are inconsistent across the world. This narrative review includes data from 87 observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and aims to give an overview of the current evidence on screening strategies and diagnostic criteria for GDM. Screening in early pregnancy remains controversial and studies show conflicting results on the benefit of screening and treatment of GDM in early pregnancy. Implementing the one-step “International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups” (IADPSG) screening strategy at 24–28 weeks often leads to a substantial increase in the prevalence of GDM, without conclusive evidence regarding the benefits on pregnancy outcomes compared to a two-step screening strategy with a glucose challenge test (GCT). In addition, RCTs are needed to investigate the impact of treatment of GDM diagnosed with IADPSG criteria on long-term maternal and childhood outcomes. Selective screening using a risk-factor-based approach could be helpful in simplifying the screening algorithm but carries the risk of missing significant proportions of GDM cases. A two-step screening method with a 50g GCT and subsequently a 75g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) with IADPSG could be an alternative to reduce the need for an OGTT. However, to have an acceptable sensitivity to screen for GDM with the IADPSG criteria, the threshold of the GCT should be lowered from 7.8 to 7.2 mmol/L. A pragmatic approach to screen for GDM can be implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic, using fasting plasma glucose (FPG), HbA1c or even random plasma glucose (RPG) to reduce the number of OGTTs needed. However, usual guidelines and care should be resumed as soon as the COVID pandemic is controlled.

Oral Glucose Tolerance Test Results in Pregnancy Can Be Used to Individualize the Risk of Future Maternal Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Women With Gestational Diabetes Mellitus.

We aimed to quantify the risk of future maternal type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) based on the type and number of abnormal 75-g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) values and the diagnostic criteria used for the diagnosis of GDM. We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study of all nulliparous women with a live singleton birth who underwent testing for GDM using a 75-g OGTT in Ontario, Canada (2007-2017). We estimated the incidence rate (per 1,000 person-years), overall risk (expressed as adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]), and risk at 5 years after the index pregnancy of future maternal T2DM. Estimates were stratified by the type and number of abnormal OGTT values, as well as by the diagnostic criteria for GDM (Diabetes Canada [DC] vs. International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups [IADPSG] criteria). A total of 55,361 women met the study criteria. The median duration of follow-up was 4.4 (interquartile range 2.8-6.3; maximum 10.3) years. Using women without GDM as reference (incidence rate 2.18 per 1,000 person-years), women with GDM were at an increased risk of future T2DM; this risk was greater when using the DC compared with the IADPSG criteria (incidence rate 18.74 [95% CI 17.58-19.90] vs. 14.07 [95% CI 13.24-14.91] per 1,000 person-years, respectively). The risk of future maternal T2DM increased with the number of abnormal OGTT values and was highest for women with three abnormal values (incidence rate 49.93 per 1,000 person-years; aHR 24.57 [95% CI 21.26-28.39]). The risk of future T2DM was also affected by the type of OGTT abnormality: women with an abnormal fasting value had the greatest risk, whereas women with an abnormal 2-h value had the lowest risk (aHR 14.09 [95% CI 12.46-15.93] vs. 9.22 [95% CI 8.19-10.37], respectively). Similar findings to those described above were observed when the risk of T2DM at a fixed time point of 5 years after the index pregnancy was considered as the outcome of interest. In women with GDM, individualized information regarding the future risk of T2DM can be provided based on the type and number of abnormal OGTT values, as well as the diagnostic criteria used for the diagnosis of GDM.