International Association Of Diabetes And Pregnancy Study Groups Criteria Research Articles

Ethnic-specific oral glucose tolerance (OGTT) phenotypes in women with hyperglycemia in pregnancy

IntroductionEthnic differences associated with oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) phenotypes is less studied in Southeast Asian ethnicities, especially in women with hyperglycemia in pregnancy (HIP).Research design and methodsWe retrospectively examined...

Postpartum glycemic and cardiometabolic profile of women testing positive for gestational diabetes mellitus by International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) but negative by alternate criteria: Insights from CHIP–F study

ObjectiveTo evaluate burden of postpartum diabetes and other cardiometabolic risk factors among women who test positive for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) by International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria, but negative by alternate criteria. MethodsThis prospective cross-sectional study was conducted from 2019 to 2022 and is a sub-study of the CHIP–F cohort (Cohort Study of Indian Women with Hyperglycemia in Pregnancy and their Families). ResultsStudy participants (n = 826; 183 with normoglycemia and 643 with GDM using IADPSG criteria) were evaluated at a median (IQR) postpartum interval of 31 (21–45) months. Using the United Kingdom National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (UK NICE), Canadian Diabetes Association (CDA), and Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group India (DIPSI) criteria, 251 (39.0 %), 148 (23.0 %) and 384 (59.7 %) women who tested positive for GDM by IADPSG criteria, would have tested negative. The incidence of postpartum diabetes among such women was 30.4, 34.3, and 48.2 per 1000 women-years, respectively, which was significantly higher than those testing negative by both IADPSG and UK NICE (5.0 per 1000 women-years), IADPSG and CDA (9.2/1000 women-years) and IADPSG and DIPSI criteria (5.0/1000 women-years). The burden of obesity and metabolic syndrome was also significantly higher in such women. ConclusionsWe found a significant burden of postpartum diabetes and cardiometabolic risk factors among women who tested positive for GDM by IADPSG, but negative by alternate criteria. There are potential clinical implications of a “failed” diagnosis for future cardiometabolic diseases that need to be carefully examined.

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.

Patients with gestational diabetes mellitus may be treated in both early and late pregnancy, especially in patients with pre-pregnancy overweight: A cross-sectional study in Japan.

The significance of diagnosing gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) in early pregnancy is controversial. We used the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Group (IADPSG) criteria to investigate whether clinical background and neonatal outcomes differ depending on when GDM is diagnosed in early or late pregnancy. This was a single-center, observational study conducted between November 2012 and March 2020 at St. Marianna University Hospital (Kawasaki, Japan). We compared the background and perinatal outcomes of patients with GDM depending on the time of diagnosis (at < 24 gestational weeks or ≥ 24weeks). Insulin sensitivity index, homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance, and β-cell function were calculated from a 75-g oral glucose tolerance test. Stratified analysis was performed by pre-pregnancy BMI in patients with early GDM. As a result, in the 507 patients, 89.9% gave birth at our hospital. The pre-pregnancy BMI was significantly higher in patients with early GDM than in those with late GDM (the median [interquartile range], 22.7 [20.3, 26.3] and 21.5 [19.3, 23.8] kg/m2, respectively; p = 0.001). Perinatal outcomes were not different between the two groups. However, in the subgroup analysis of patients with early GDM, the prevalence of large-for-gestational-age infants was significantly higher in the group with overweight (15.4% vs 2.1%, respectively; p = 0.008). In conclusion, patients with GDM using the IADPSG criteria in early pregnancy may be treated, especially in patients with pre-pregnancy overweight.

Risk of fetal undergrowth in the management of gestational diabetes mellitus in Japan.

In Japan, the increasing frequency of underweight among women of reproductive age and the accompanying increase in the rate of low birth weight (LBW) are social issues. The study aimed to establish a prospective registry system for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) in Japan and to clarify the actual status of GDM according to the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria. Pregnant women with gestational diabetes mellitus and those in the normal glucose tolerance (NGT) group were enrolled in the Diabetes and Pregnancy Outcome for Mother and Baby study from October 2015. Pregnant women with positive glucose screening in early and mid-to-late pregnancy underwent a 75 g oral glucose tolerance test by gestational week 32. Gestational diabetes mellitus was diagnosed according to IADPSG criteria. Women with a positive glucose screening test at mid-to-late pregnancy but NGT were enrolled as references (NGT group). Treatment for gestational diabetes mellitus and maternal and neonatal pregnancy data were prospectively collected on outcomes. In total 1,795 singleton pregnancies (878 women with GDM and 824 NGT women) were analyzed. The risk of LBW and small-for-gestational age in the GDM group was significantly higher than in the NGT group. A similar relationship was found for LBW risk in the non-overweight/obese group but not in the overweight/obese group. We established a prospective GDM registry system in Japan. In the management of GDM in Japan, suppression of maternal weight gain may be associated with reduced fetal growth, especially in non-overweight/obese women with GDM; however, further investigation is required.

Fasting Plasma Glucose and Its Relationship to Anthropometric Phenotype in Women Diagnosed with Gestational Diabetes According to IADPSG Criteria.

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is characterized by new-onset hyperglycemia in pregnancy. According to the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) recommendations, GDM may be diagnosed based on repeatedly increased fasting glucose levels in the first trimester, or later, the detection of increased fasting glucose and/or increased glucose levels during a 75 g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). The study aimed to assess whether differences may be found between women diagnosed with GDM by fasting glucose or glucose challenge tests in early or late pregnancy. The retrospective observational study enrolled 418 women diagnosed with GDM in accordance with the IADPSG criteria: early pregnancy fasting plasma glucose (FPG) ≥ 5.1 mmol/L; late pregnancy FPG ≥ 5.1 mmol/L (0 min) and/or postprandial plasma glucose (PPG) ≥ 10.0 mmol/L (60 min), PPG ≥ 8.5 mmol/L (120 min) 75 g OGTT. The analyses included anthropometric parameters at the beginning and during pregnancy, laboratory values of glycated hemoglobin, fructosamine, birth weight measures and the presence of neonatal complications. There were significant differences in body weight (78.3 ± 19.1; 74.0 ± 16.7; 67.2 ± 15.7 kg) and body mass index (BMI) (27.9 ± 6.6; 26.4 ± 5.8; 24.4 ± 5.2 kg/m2) in early pregnancy. Differences were also found in gestational weight gain (9.3 ± 6.8 vs. 12.4 ± 6.9 vs. 11.1 ± 4.7 kg) and the need for insulin therapy (14.7%; 7.1%; 4.0%). The study revealed no difference in the presence of neonatal complications but differences in birth weight (3372.2 ± 552.2 vs. 3415.6 ± 529.0 vs. 3199.0 ± 560.5 g). Gestational diabetes, characterized by FPG ≥ 5.1 mmol/L in early pregnancy, is associated with higher body weight and BMI at the beginning of pregnancy as well as with a higher risk for insulin therapy and increased birth weight.

Review of the Screening Guidelines for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: How to Choose Wisely.

Currently, there is no international unanimity regarding the timings, the optimal cut-off points, and standardized methods of screening or diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). The screening guidelines and recommendations for GDM evolved over time; concise information has been presented here in the review. We searched electronic databases for various guidelines for screening of GDM in PubMed, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Embase, Cochrane, Google Scholar, Scopus, Guidelines International Network (GIN library), National Guidelines Clearinghouse (NGC); Web sites of relevant organizations; and trial registries. The mesh headings derived after reviewing the articles and were used to further search the articles are: ("Screening Guidelines GDM" or "Screening Criteria for GDM") and ("Glucose Intolerance in Pregnancy" or "Gestational Diabetes Mellitus"). The articles published from 1960 till December 2022 were included. Key outcomes included the prevalence of GDM is 14.6% according to the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria and 13.4% according to Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group India (DIPSI) criteria, making the DIPSI criterion a cost-effective method for low-resource settings. The IADPSG) criterion diagnoses and treats GDM earlier, thus reducing the complications associated with GDM in the mother and newborn. The IADPSG criteria at a cut-off of ≥140 mg/dL have a sensitivity of 81% and specificity of 93%, whereas the World Health Organization (2013) criteria at the same cut-off has a lower sensitivity of 59% and specificity of 81%. The risk factors of having GDM are family history, history during past pregnancy, medical history, multiple current pregnancies, and raised hemoglobin A1c. The screening guidelines have been developed by different organizations and institutions over the years. The guidelines with the threshold values for screening and their standardization for detecting GDM in Indian mothers are yet to be established.

Trying Modified Approaches to the Management of Pregnancy Induced Diabetes Mellitus (GDM) a Prospective Study

Background: To investigate maternal and foetal outcomes in patients with gestational diabetes mellitus diagnosed according to the criteria of the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG), but who were evaluated using a twenty-four hour seven-value sugar profile prior to the implementation of management. This study sought to examine maternal and fetal outcomes in patients with gestational diabetes mellitus. Place of Study: Sialkot Medical College Sialkot Duration of Study: JUNE 2021 TO JUNE2022 Methods: This prospective observational study was undertaken at the Sialkot Medical College Hospital over the course of one year. The hospital served as the study's location. Prior to starting any medication between 24 and 28 weeks of pregnancy, women diagnosed with GDM based on IADPSG criteria were needed to undertake a seven-value sugar profile within twenty-four hours. This criterion applied to women diagnosed with gestational diabetes between 24 and 28 weeks of pregnancy. The remaining patients were treated with medical nutrition therapy (MNT), which may or may not have been supplemented with medication depending on what was necessary to maintain their normal blood sugar levels. Documentation and analysis of maternal and fetal outcomes were conducted to assess whether or not the groups displayed differentiating characteristics. Results: GDM was diagnosed in 198 out of a total of 1867 pregnant women, representing a 9.1% prevalence rate. In 81 patients, or 40.90% of the total, the 7-point blood glucose profile (ITT) was normal, and these individuals required no medical intervention other than watchful observation. Other patients received treatment; 89 (44.9% of patients) required only MNT control, while 19 (9.59%) received supplementary medication in the form of metformin and 9 (4.5%) required insulin. It was determined that there were no statistically significant differences between the treated and untreated groups in terms of maternal–fetal outcomes. Upon comparing treated and untreated groups, this was the result that was reached. Conclusions: After an abnormal Oral Glucose Tolerance Test, the technique of evaluating patients with a seven-value, twenty-four-hour sugar profile limited the capacity of nearly one-third of women to get medication and treatment for GDM without compromising maternal–fetal outcomes. This was the case despite the absence of a link between an aberrant OGT and a diminished capacity to receive therapy and treatment for GDM. Keywords: GDM IADPSG Maternal fetal outcomes

The NDDG criteria versus the IADPSG or the ADA criteria for diagnosing early-onset gestational diabetes mellitus or abnormal glucose tolerance.

To analyze the effects of substituting the National Diabetes Data Group (NDDG) criteria with the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) or American Diabetes Association (ADA) criteria for the diagnosis of early-onset gestational diabetes mellitus (Early-GDM) or first trimester abnormal glucose tolerance (1t-AGT). A retrospective cohort study was conducted of 3200 women: 400 with Early-GDM, 800 with GDM, and 2000 with Non-GDM, according to the NDDG criteria. Rates of women with missed and new Early-GDM according to the IADPSG or ADA criteria were calculated. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to compare perinatal outcomes between groups. Using the IADPSG criteria, 61.6% of women with Early-GDM according to the NDDG were undiagnosed (Missed-Early-GDM group), and 25.9% of women with GDM and 15.7% of women with Non-GDM were diagnosed with Early-GDM (New-Early-GDM groups). Perinatal outcomes were worse in Missed-Early-GDM than in Non-GDM and better in New-Early-GDM groups than in the Early-GDM group. According to the ADA recommendations, only 11.8% of women with Early-GDM according to the NDDG criteria were diagnosed. Replacing the NDDG recommendations for the diagnosis of Early-GDM with the IADPSG or ADA criteria would mean depriving a large number of women with AGT and higher risk of adverse perinatal outcomes from early treatment and treating others with lower risk.

Do pregnancy outcomes of women with false-positive early gestational diabetes mellitus differ from those of women with normal glucose tolerance?

BackgroundTo investigate whether false-positive early gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) women can be managed similarly as normal glucose tolerance (NGT) women.MethodsThis retrospective study was conducted at a tertiary care center in Japan. Pregnancy and neonatal outcomes of 67 singleton pregnancies with false-positive early GDM and 1774 singleton pregnancies with NGT who delivered after 22 weeks of gestation were compared. GDM was diagnosed according to the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria (patients having one or more of the following: fasting plasma glucose ≥ 92 mg/dL and a 75 g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) value ≥ 180 mg/dL at 1 h, or ≥ 153 mg/dL at 2 h). Pregnant women diagnosed with GDM in early pregnancy who did not meet the diagnostic criteria on the second OGTT were defined as having false-positive early GDM. Women with false-positive early GDM did not receive any therapeutic intervention during gestation.ResultsMaternal age, pre-pregnancy body mass index, and gestational weight gain were significantly higher in the false-positive GDM group than in the NGT group. No significant differences were found in pregnancy outcomes, including gestational age, birth weight, large for gestational age rate, and cesarean delivery rate. Except for a higher neonatal hypoglycemia rate in the false-positive early GDM group, no significant differences were found in neonatal outcomes.ConclusionsThere were no clinically significant differences between early GDM false-positive women exhibiting GDM patterns only during early pregnancy and NGT women. False-positive early GDM women can be managed similarly as NGT women, suggesting that World Health Organization diagnostic guidelines, applying the IADPSG criteria during early pregnancy, need revision.

Continuous glucose monitoring system profile of women diagnosed as gestational diabetes mellitus by International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups criteria and labeled as normoglycemic by alternate criteria in early pregnancy.

Aims/IntroductionWe aimed to evaluate and compare continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS)‐based glycemic parameters in women in early pregnancy (<20 weeks of gestation) who were classified as: (i) gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) by the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG), but normoglycemia by alternate (UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Canadian Diabetes Association and Diabetes in Pregnancy Study group of India) criteria; and (ii) normoglycemia by both (IADPSG and alternate) criteria.Material and MethodsIn this cross‐sectional study, eligible women underwent standard 75‐g oral glucose tolerance test, followed by the placement of a CGMS. Glycemia‐related parameters were calculated using the standard approach for CGMS data in pregnancy.ResultsWe enrolled 96 women at 14.0 ± 3.2 weeks of gestation. Of the women diagnosed as GDM by IADPSG criteria, 34.2%, 26.3% and 44.7% were classified as normoglycemic by UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Canadian Diabetes Association and Diabetes in Pregnancy Study group of India criteria, respectively. Mean 1‐h postprandial glucose and time above range were significantly higher in women who were GDM by IADPSG, but normoglycemia by Canadian Diabetes Association criteria, compared with women with normoglycemia using both criteria. Similarly, mean 1‐h postprandial glucose, 2‐h postprandial glucose, peak postprandial glucose, 1‐h postprandial glucose excursion and time above range were significantly higher in women who were not identified as GDM by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence criteria. Finally, women missed by the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study group of India criteria had significantly higher mean 1‐h postprandial glucose, 2‐h postprandial glucose, peak postprandial glucose, postprandial glucose excursion, 24‐h glucose and time above range parameters.ConclusionsMore than one‐quarter of women diagnosed as GDM by IADPSG criteria are not identified by alternate criteria. Such women are significantly different from normoglycemic women in terms of several CGMS‐based glycemic parameters of clinical significance.

Abnormal glucose tolerance in women with prior gestational diabetes mellitus: a 4-year follow-up study.

Adoption of the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Group (IADPSG) criteria for diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) varies worldwide. Early detection of women at increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) following GDM enables initiation of measures to delay disease onset. To determine the 4-year cumulative incidence and risk factors for developing abnormal glucose tolerance (AGT) among women with previous GDM using modified IADPSG criteria. Additionally, to review post-natal attendance at diabetes screening and the impact of post-partum lifestyle modifications and breastfeeding on the risk of T2DM development. Four hundred twenty-six women with a prior history of GDM were invited to participate in the study, 4years after the index pregnancy. The following were completed: body measurements, oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), vitamin D, and other biochemistry measurements. Participants also completed a lifestyle questionnaire. Of the 74 women who participated, 15 (20%) had AGT. Predictive factors for AGT development were as follows: fasting glucose levels (p = 0.004), HbA1c (p = 0.008) at GDM diagnosis, and early pregnancy BMI (p = 0.001). Thirty-three (45%) women had not attended their postnatal screening. The odds ratio of the association between breastfeeding and AGT development was 0.16 (95% CI: 0.05 to 0.53). The proportion of women who develop AGT after a diagnosis of GDM remains high. The factors associated with progression to AGT are available at GDM diagnosis. Preventing AGT in this group is possible by supporting breastfeeding. Attendance at post-natal screening should also be encouraged.

Risk stratification of women with gestational diabetes mellitus using mutually exclusive categories based on the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups criteria for the development of postpartum dysglycaemia: a retrospective cohort study

ObjectivesWomen with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) are more predisposed to develop postpartum diabetes mellitus (DM). This study aimed to estimate the relative risk (RR) of postpartum dysglycaemia (prediabetes and DM)...

The correlation between the prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus and maternal age in Southern China

Abstract Objectives The present study aimed to survey the prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) in Southern China and further to analyze the correlation between the prevalence of GDM and maternal age. Methods A retrospective cross-sectional study was carried out at the Southern Medical University Affiliated Maternal &amp; Child Health Hospital of Foshan, Foshan, China between January and April 2020. Oral glucose tolerance tests (OGTT) was performed, using a 75 g glucose load and venous samples were drawn at 0 h, 1 h and 2 h at 24–28 weeks of gestation. GDM was diagnosed by International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria. Results The prevalence of GDM was 14.87% by IADPSG criteria. The incidence of GDM outcome increased and plasma glucose levels remained high among the age subgroups (&lt;20, 20–24, 25–29, 30–34, 35–39, ≥40 years old) in pregnant women. Moreover, the levels of plasma glucose levels after OGTT kept rising among the pregnant women with non-gestational diabetes mellitus (non-GDM). Furthermore, pregnant women were inclined to have abnormal plasma glucose values at 1 h and 2 h than initial fasting plasma glucose (FPG) after OGTT as the age increased. Conclusions Our findings demonstrate that the incidence of GDM outcome and plasma glucose levels increase as the maternal age increase.

Utility of oral glucose tolerance test in predicting type 2 diabetes following gestational diabetes: Towards personalized care.

BACKGROUNDWomen with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) are at a seven-fold higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes (T2D) within 7-10 years after childbirth, compared with those with normoglycemic pregnancy. Although raised fasting blood glucose (FBG) levels has been said to be the main significant predictor of postpartum progression to T2D, it is difficult to predict who among the women with GDM would develop T2D. Therefore, we conducted a cross-sectional retrospective study to examine the glycemic indices that can predict postnatal T2D in Emirati Arab women with a history of GDM.AIMTo assess how oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) can identify the distinct GDM pathophysiology and predict possible distinct postnatal T2D subtypes. METHODSThe glycemic status of a cohort of 4603 pregnant Emirati Arab women, who delivered in 2007 at both Latifa Women and Children Hospital and at Dubai Hospital, United Arab Emirates, was assessed retrospectively, using the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria. Of the total, 1231 women were followed up and assessed in 2016. The FBG and/or the 2-h blood glucose (2hrBG) levels after a 75-g glucose load were measured to assess the prevalence of GDM and T2D, according to the IADPSG and American Diabetes Association (ADA) criteria, respectively. The receiver operating characteristic curve for the OGTT was plotted and sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of FBG and 2hrBG for T2D were determined.RESULTSConsidering both FBG and 2hrBG levels, according to the IADPSG criteria, the prevalence of GDM in pregnant Emirati women in 2007 was 1057/4603 (23%), while the prevalence of pre-pregnancy T2D among them, based on ADA criteria, was 230/4603 (5%). In the subset of women (n = 1231) followed up in 2016, the prevalence of GDM in 2007 was 362/1231 (29.6%), while the prevalence of pre-pregnancy T2D was 36/1231 (2.9%). Of the 362 pregnant women with GDM in 2007, 96/362 (26.5%) developed T2D; 142/362 (39.2%) developed impaired fasting glucose; 29/362 (8.0%) developed impaired glucose tolerance, and the remaining 95/362 (26.2%) had normal glycemia in 2016. The prevalence of T2D, based on ADA criteria, stemmed from the prevalence of 36/1231 (2.9%) in 2007 to 141/1231 (11.5%), in 2016. The positive predictive value (PPV) for FBG suggests that if a woman tested positive for GDM in 2007, the probability of developing T2D in 2016 was approximately 24%. The opposite was observed when 2hrBG was used for diagnosis. The PPV value for 2hrBG suggests that if a woman was positive for GDM in 2007 then the probability of developing T2D in 2016 was only 3%.CONCLUSIONFBG and 2hrBG could predict postpartum T2D, following antenatal GDM. However, each test reflects different pathophysiology and possible T2D subtype and could be matched with a relevant T2D prevention program.

Comparative epidemiology of gestational diabetes in ethnic Chinese from Shanghai birth cohort and growing up in Singapore towards healthy outcomes cohort

BackgroundGestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) has been associated with adverse health outcomes for mothers and offspring. Prevalence of GDM differs by country/region due to ethnicity, lifestyle and diagnostic criteria. We compared GDM rates and risk factors in two Asian cohorts using the 1999 WHO and the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria.MethodsThe Shanghai Birth Cohort (SBC) and the Growing Up in Singapore Towards healthy Outcomes (GUSTO) cohort are prospective birth cohorts. Information on sociodemographic characteristics and medical history were collected from interviewer-administered questionnaires. Participants underwent a 2-h 75-g oral glucose tolerance test at 24–28 weeks gestation. Logistic regressions were performed.ResultsUsing the 1999 WHO criteria, the prevalence of GDM was higher in GUSTO (20.8%) compared to SBC (16.6%) (p = 0.046). Family history of hypertension and alcohol consumption were associated with higher odds of GDM in SBC than in GUSTO cohort while obesity was associated with higher odds of GDM in GUSTO. Using the IADPSG criteria, the prevalence of GDM was 14.3% in SBC versus 12.0% in GUSTO. A history of GDM was associated with higher odds of GDM in GUSTO than in SBC, while being overweight, alcohol consumption and family history of diabetes were associated with higher odds of GDM in SBC.ConclusionsWe observed several differential risk factors of GDM among ethnic Chinese women living in Shanghai and Singapore. These findings might be due to heterogeneity of GDM reflected in diagnostic criteria as well as in unmeasured genetic, lifestyle and environmental factors.

A Prospective Study to Determine if Management of Cases of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM) can be Modified.

To study maternal-fetal outcomes in patients of GDM diagnosed by International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria but subsequently using a twenty-four-hour seven-value sugar profile to evaluate patients before instituting management. This prospective observational study was conducted at a tertiary hospital in New Delhi, India, over a period of one year. During this period, women diagnosed as GDM between 24 and 28weeks of gestation using IADPSG criteria underwent seven-value sugar profile in twenty-four hours before initiating any therapy. Those with normal profile were kept on observation only, whereas others were managed by Medical Nutrition Therapy (MNT) with or without pharmacotherapy as required to maintain euglycemia. Maternal and fetal outcomes were documented and analysed to detect differences between the groups. Out of 2279 pregnant women, 201 (8.8%) were diagnosed as GDM. The twenty-four-hour seven-value sugar profile was normal in 78 (38.8%) patients, who were managed only by close observation. Treatment was given to other patients; 93 (46.2%) patients were managed with MNT only, whereas pharmacotherapy by way of metformin was added to 22 (10.9%) patients and 8 (3.9%) patients required insulin. Differences in maternal-fetal outcomes between the treated and untreated groups were not found to be statistically significant. The policy of evaluating patients with twenty-four-hour seven-value sugar profile after an abnormal Oral Glucose Tolerance Test eliminated over one-third women from receiving treatment and interventions for GDM without compromising maternal-fetal outcomes.

Perinatal Outcomes of Two Screening Strategies for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

To evaluate differences in short-term perinatal outcomes between the two prominent screening strategies for gestational diabetes mellitus, the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) and Carpenter-Coustan. In this single-site, blinded, randomized, comparative effectiveness trial, participants received a nonfasting 50-g oral glucose tolerance test and, if less than 200 mg/dL (less than 11.1 mmol/L), were randomized to further screening with either IADPSG or Carpenter-Coustan criteria. Gestational diabetes treatment occurred per routine clinical care. The primary outcome was incidence of large-for-gestational-age (LGA) neonates. Prespecified secondary outcomes included small-for-gestational-age (SGA) neonates, cesarean birth, and neonatal and maternal composites of adverse perinatal outcomes. Assuming a 15% incidence of LGA neonates in the Carpenter-Coustan group, 782 participants provided more than 80% power to detect a 7% absolute risk reduction with the use of IADPSG; planned recruitment was 920 for anticipated attrition. From June 2015 to February 2019, 1,016 participants were enrolled and 921 were randomized to IADPSG (n=461) or Carpenter-Coustan (n=460) groups. Gestational diabetes incidence (14.4% vs 4.5%, P<.001) and diabetes medication use (9.3% vs 2.4%; P<.001) were more common in the IADPSG group; there were no differences in LGA neonates, either overall (risk reduction 0.90, 97.5% CI 0.53-1.52) or among women without gestational diabetes (risk reduction 0.85, 97.5% CI 0.49-1.48). Those screened with IADPSG had higher rates of neonatal morbidity but fewer study-related adverse events. Rates of SGA neonates, cesarean birth, and maternal morbidity composite did not differ significantly between study groups. The IADPSG screening criteria resulted in more women diagnosed and treated for gestational diabetes than Carpenter-Coustan without reducing the incidence of LGA birth weight or maternal or neonatal morbidity. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02309138.

Effect of the IADPSG screening strategy for gestational diabetes on perinatal outcomes in Switzerland

AimsTo evaluate the impact adoption of the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria on prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and risks of perinatal outcomes. MethodsRetrospectively, 155,103 women screened with selective two step criteria in Switzerland in period 1 (2005–2010) were compared to 170,427 women screened with IADPSG criteria in period 2 (2012–2017). GDM prevalence over time was established and multivariable regression used to assess variation in risks for GDM related events and perinatal outcomes. ResultsGDM prevalence increased steadily over both study periods from 1.8% to 9.0%. A risk reduction of GDM-related events was shown only for women with one or two risk factors for GDM present (relative risk (95% confidence interval)): (0.93 (0.90,0.97), 0.90 (0.83,0.96)). The comparison of perinatal outcomes between the two study periods revealed a significant lower risk for newborns large for gestational age (LGA) (0.93 (0.91–0.95)), pre-term delivery (0.94 (0.92–0.97)) and neonatal hypoglycemia (0.83 (0.77–0.90)) in period 2. ConclusionThe introduction of the IADPSG criteria for the screening of GDM increased prevalence by threefold with no substantial improvements in GDM related events for women without risk factors but reduced the risks for LGA, neonatal hypoglycemia and preterm birth.

Prevalencia de diabetes gestacional e identificación de factores y resultados materno-perinatales asociados en Colombia, tras la implementación de los criterios de la IADPSG

Introducción. El diagnóstico y manejo oportuno de la diabetes gestacional (DG) y el adecuado control de factores de riesgo asociados permiten disminuir su impacto negativo en la salud materna y perinatal. Objetivos. Determinar la prevalencia de DG en un hospital de tercer nivel de Colombia e identificar los factores asociados a esta condición, así como los resultados materno-perinatales en esta población, tras la implementación de los criterios de la Asociación Internacional de Grupos de Estudio de Diabetes y Embarazo (IADPSG). Materiales y métodos. Estudio transversal en el que se realizó un análisis de datos secundarios. Mediante muestreo consecutivo se incluyeron 533 gestantes con reporte de prueba diagnóstica de DG y que dieron a luz en el Hospital Universitario San José de Popayán, Colombia, entre julio de 2017 y marzo de 2018. Se analizaron variables sociales, biológicas y psicológicas. Para la identificación de los factores y resultados materno- perinatales asociados se utilizó el Odds Ratio como medida de asociación (IC: 95%). Además, se realizó un análisis multivariado para controlar las variables de confusión. Resultados. La prevalencia de DG fue del 16.32% (IC95%:13.28-19.73). Se identificaron los siguientes factores asociados a DG: edad &gt;35 (OR=2.26; IC95%: 1.23-4.14), raza indígena (OR=6.60; IC95%: 1.17-37.15), IMC preconcepcional &gt;25 (OR=2.26; IC95%: 1.23-4.14), antecedente de feto macrosómico (OR=10.07; IC95%: 1.50-67.34) y antecedente familiar de diabetes mellitus (OR=3.17; IC95%: 1.39-7.22). Respecto a los resultados materno-perinatales, se encontró una asociación significativa con inducción del trabajo de parto (OR=4.41; IC95%: 1.71-11.39), cesárea de urgencia (OR=2.22; IC95%: 1.33-3.73) y electiva (OR=2.79; IC95%: 1.51-5.18), macrosomia por percentil &gt;90 (OR=2.78; IC95%: 1.29-5.98) y hospitalización neonatal (OR=8.1; IC95%: 4.48-18.62). Conclusiones. La prevalencia de DG en el presente estudio es mayor a la reportada en investigaciones realizadas en Colombia, pero similar a la descrita en la mayoría de estudios que han seguido los criterios de la IADPSG. Los factores y los resultados maternos-perinatales en los que se observó una asociación estadísticamente significativa con la DG son similares a los reportados en la mayoría de la literatura consultada.