International Association Of Diabetes And Pregnancy Study Groups Criteria Research Articles

Impact of gestational diabetes mellitus diagnosed during the third trimester on pregnancy outcomes: a case-control study

BackgroundIn 2010, the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Group (IADPSG) proposed new criteria indicating that gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) can be diagnosed if the fasting threshold of ≤92 mg/dL, 1-h threshold of ≤180 mg/dL, or 2-h threshold of ≤153 mg/dL are exceeded during the 75-g 2-h oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) performed at 24–28 weeks of gestation. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends using the proposed diagnostic threshold values of the IADPSG to diagnose GDM; however, it does not limit the timing of the 75-g OGTT. Since 2010 in Japan, GDM has been diagnosed using the same criteria as that proposed by the WHO. However, neither the JSOG nor the WHO has provided any evidence that it is appropriate to use a threshold beyond the range recommended by the IADPSG.MethodsThis was a single-centre retrospective study based on the medical records and delivery registry database of our centre. We included women who underwent a 50-g glucose challenge test (GCT) with results < 140 mg/dL at 24–28 weeks of gestation and subsequently underwent a 75-g OGTT after 29 weeks of gestation with abnormal glucose tolerance suspected based on clinical findings. The reference values for the 75-g OGTT followed the IADPSG criteria. Subjects were classified into the normal glucose tolerance (NGT) group and the GDM group. The type of delivery and neonatal outcomes of the two groups were compared. A multivariable analysis was performed to match the backgrounds of both groups.ResultsIn total, the NGT and GDM group comprised 189 and 49 women, respectively. Emergency caesarean delivery rates were similar in the GDM and NGT groups (10.6 and 12.2%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43–3.64; p = 0.74); however, the elective caesarean delivery rate was higher in the GDM group than in the NGT group (16.3 and 5.3%, respectively, adjusted OR, 3.60; 95% CI, 1.27–10.19; p = 0.01). No significant differences were observed in other maternal and neonatal outcomes between both groups.ConclusionAlthough a diagnosis of GDM during the third trimester does not improve pregnancy outcomes, it increases the elective caesarean delivery rate.

Oral glucose tolerance outcomes among pregnant women receiving antenatal care in Calabar and environs – A pilot study

Objectives: Dysglycemia is a common metabolic alteration during pregnancy with adverse effects on both mother and fetus. This is related to the fact that pregnancy is associated with insulin resistance which is a harbinger for hyperglycemia. This study was carried out to find out the prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) among pregnant women in Calabar area using International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Group (IADPSG) diagnostic values. Material and Methods: This was a prospective, observational, cross-sectional study among pregnant women attending antenatal care in four health facilities in Calabar and adjoining areas conducted from September 2018 to August 2019. All consenting pregnant women were given 75 g glucose in 250–300 mL of water after 8–10 h overnight fast, without regard to the presence or absence of GDM risk factors. GDM diagnosis was made if any of the following glucose values were met or exceeded: (1) Fasting &gt;92 mg/dl, (2) 1 h post-glucose load &gt;180 mg/ dl, and (3) 2 h post-glucose load &gt;153 mg/dl. Data were analyzed using IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 20.0 and results were presented using tables and a Venn diagram. Results: There were 345 pregnant women aged 18–50 (28.7 ± 6.3) years at 24–41 (29.6 ± 4.1) completed weeks of gestation. GDM was diagnosed in 48 (13.9%) women. Fasting plasma glucose cutoff diagnosed 81% while 37.5% and 50.0% met the diagnostic cutoff for 1 h and 2 h, respectively, and 15 (31.3%) women were positive for all three diagnostic cutoffs. Diabetes mellitus in a first-degree relative was the most common risk factor identified while hypertension in a first-degree relative and history of GDM was the least. Some 36.5% of women had no identifiable risk factors. Those who had positive fasting plasma glucose only (6.1%) were more than twice those diagnosed by 1 and 2 h only (2.6%) combined. The number of women with glucose values in the diabetic range was 6 (1.72%) but was classified as GDM since they were not previously known diabetics. Conclusion: This study has shown that the prevalence of GDM is 13.9% among women in Calabar and environs using the IADPSG criteria. Fasting plasma glucose can identify more than twice GDM patients than 1 and 2 h values combined. GDM still remains a major health issue among pregnant women hence there should be a national policy on routine screening for GDM with more studies being encouraged to determine the preferred glucose cutoff among Nigerians.

Increasing prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus when implementing the IADPSG criteria: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AimsQuantify the proportional increase in gestational diabetes (GDM) prevalence when implementing the new International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria compared to prior GDM criteria, and to assess risk factors that might affect the change in prevalence. MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was performed of cohort and cross-sectional studies between January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2018 among pregnant women with GDM using IADPSG criteria compared to, and stratified by, old GDM criteria. Web of science, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Open Grey and Grey literature reports were included. The relative risk for each study was calculated. Subgroup analyses were performed by maternal age, body mass index, study design, country of publication, screening method, sampling method and data stratified according to diagnostic criteria. ResultsThirty-one cohort and cross-sectional studies with 136 705 women were included. Implementing the IADPSG criteria was associated with a 75% (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.53–2.01) increase in number of women with GDM with evidence of heterogeneity. ConclusionsThe IADPSG criteria increase the prevalence of GDM, but allow movement towards more homogeneity. More studies are needed of the benefits, harms, psychological effects and health costs of implementing the IADPSG criteria.

Diagnostic accuracy of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of India criteria for the screening of gestational diabetes mellitus in primary care setting

Introduction: Although the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of India (DIPSI) criterion is recommended by the Government of India guidelines, there is lack of consensus on a universal criterion for diagnosis of gestational diabetes. This has led to a wide variation of pregnant women being diagnosed with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). The WHO 1999 and International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria are widely used globally and in India as well. The objective of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of DIPSI criteria in comparison to WHO 1999 and IADPSG criteria for diagnosis of GDM. Materials and Methods: A community-based study was conducted for a period of 1 year. Oral glucose tolerance test was done on 506 pregnant women identified through house-to-house survey. The proportion of GDM cases by WHO, IADPSG, and DIPSI criteria was calculated. The diagnostic accuracy of DIPSI criteria was assessed by calculating sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values taking WHO and IADSPG criteria as gold standard. Results: The prevalence of GDM was 14.2% by WHO criteria, 13% by DIPSI criteria, and 27.3% by IADPSG criteria; 10.3% were diagnosed by all the three criteria. The sensitivity and specificity of DIPSI criteria when the WHO criteria was taken as the gold standard was found to be 86.1% and 99.08%. The sensitivity and specificity of DIPSI criteria when the IADPSG criteria was taken as gold standard was found to be 44.93% and 98.91%, respectively. Conclusion: The prevalence of GDM is found to be much higher by IADPSG criteria as compared to the WHO and DIPSI criteria. The single-step approach DIPSI criteria have good diagnostic accuracy and can be used in epidemiological studies and are feasible for diagnosis of GDM in primary care settings.

Prevalence, risk factors and perinatal outcomes of gestational diabetes in Mexican adolescents when applying diagnostic criteria from three different international guidelines

To compare the prevalence, risk factors and perinatal outcomes of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) for Mexican adolescent population when applying different diagnostic criteria based on the 2-h 75-g oral glucose tolerance test, as established by three international guidelines. Comparative, observational, and retrospective study, which included pregnant women under 19 years, who underwent screening for GDM in our center. Data were obtained from the hospital’s electronic records and were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The X2 test was used to compare group proportions. Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. A total of 999 adolescents were screened for GDM. The observed prevalence was 3%, 14.4%, and 29.3% when using the Fifth International Workshop-Conference on Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (FIWC), National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE-2015), and International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria, respectively. Of our sample, 42.5% presented at least one risk factor. An association was observed regarding the need for cesarean section in patients with GDM diagnosed through IADPSG criteria (OR = 1.35, p = 0.04). On the other hand, the use of the FIWC and NICE standards showed an association between GDM and obstetric hemorrhage (OR = 17.8, p = 0.000, and OR = 4.8, p = 0.01, respectively) and preeclampsia with severity criteria (OR = 5.1, p = 0.001, and OR = 2.4, P = 0.025, respectively). The prevalence of GDM in adolescents is high, and we can conclude that the prevalence varies based on which international diagnostic guideline is applied. While there is an association with adverse pregnancy outcomes such as hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, obstetric hemorrhage, and the need for cesarean section, this requires further evaluation.

High probability of false-positive gestational diabetes mellitus diagnosis during early pregnancy.

IntroductionThis study aimed to assess the validity of applying the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Group (IADPSG) criteria for the diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) at any time during pregnancy.Research design and methodsThis multicenter cohort study was conducted at five Japanese facilities from January 2018 to April 2019. The study cohort included women at a high risk of GDM who met one or more of the following IADPSG criteria during early pregnancy: fasting plasma glucose (FPG) ≥92 mg/dL and 75 g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) value of ≥180 mg/dL at 1 hour, or ≥153 mg/dL at 2 hour (hereafter early-onset GDM). Women diagnosed with early-onset GDM were followed up without therapeutic intervention and underwent the 75 g OGTT again during 24–28 weeks of gestation. Those exhibiting the GDM patterns on the second 75 g OGTT were diagnosed with true GDM and treated, whereas those exhibiting the normal patterns were diagnosed with false positive early GDM and received no therapeutic intervention.ResultsOf the 146 women diagnosed with early-onset GDM, 69 (47%) had normal 75 g OGTT values at 24–28 weeks of gestation, indicating a false-positive result. FPG levels were significantly higher in the first 75 g-OGTT test than in the second 75 g-OGTT test (93 mg/dL and 87.5 mg/dL, respectively; p<0.001). FPG levels were high in 86 (59%) women with early-onset GDM during early pregnancy but in only 39 (27%) women during mid-pregnancy. Compared with false positive early GDM, true GDM was more frequently associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes.ConclusionsAlthough women with early-onset GDM were followed up without treatment, the results of repeated 75 g OGTT during mid-pregnancy were normal in about 50%. Our data did not support the adoption of IADPSG thresholds for the diagnosis of GDM prior to 20 weeks of gestation.

1349-P: Incidence of Diabetes in Women with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Diagnosed by the IADPSG vs. Two-Step Criteria

Background: In Canada, the 2-step approach for the diagnosis of gestational diabetes (GDM) continues to be used, due to uncertain treatment benefit at the lower diagnostic thresholds recommended by the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG). GDM diagnosed by 2 step criteria is associated with an elevated risk of subsequent diabetes; however, the impact of GDM based on IADPSG criteria on future diabetes risk is unknown. Aim: To evaluate the risk of future diabetes associated with a GDM diagnosis using the 2 step and IADPSG criteria. Methods: Using Ontario population-based databases, we evaluated the incidence of diabetes in women with a live birth recorded between April 2011 and March 2014 and available prenatal glucose tolerance test records. Women were categorized according to their prenatal glucose tolerance results as no GDM, GDM based on 2-step criteria, and GDM based on IADPSG criteria (positive by IADPSG, negative by 2 step criteria). They were followed until April 2018 for a diagnosis of diabetes. Risk of diabetes associated with GDM based on each definition was compared to no GDM using a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model. Results: Of the 104,942 women included in the study, 5,371 (5.1%) had GDM by 2 step criteria and 2,436 (2.3%) had GDM based on IADPSG criteria. There were 821 (0.78%) diabetes cases over 329 771 person-years of follow-up. After adjusting for age, body-mass index, history of GDM, gestational weight gain, birth weight, income, and ethnicity, diabetes risk was significantly higher for both GDM women by 2 step criteria (HR 14.1; 95% CI 11.7-16.9) and for GDM based on IADPSG criteria alone (HR 3.1; 95% CI:2.0-4.7) compared to no GDM. Conclusion: While the relative risk of diabetes compared to normal glucose tolerance is higher for women diagnosed with GDM using the conventional 2 step criteria, GDM based on IADPSG criteria also confers a significant 3-fold increase in diabetes risk. Disclosure B. Balaji: None. S. Read: None. H. Berger: None. D. Feig: Advisory Panel; Self; Novo Nordisk A/S. Speaker’s Bureau; Self; Medtronic. B.R. Shah: None. L. Lipscombe: None.

Maternal Gestational Diabetes Mellitus and Offspring Body Mass Index from 1 to 4 Years

Objective: Using the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria to diagnose gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), the association between GDM and offspring body mass index (BMI) gains in early childhood in China remains unclear. We aimed to assess the association between GDM diagnosed by the IADPSG criteria and BMI gain and the risk for overweight/obesity in offspring from 1 to 4 years. Methods: This prospective cohort study was based on the healthcare records data from the Medical Birth Registry in Xiamen, China. We included 10,412 mother-child pairs tested for GDM using IADPSG criteria. Results: A total of 1,786 (17.2%) offspring were exposed to GDM. The offspring exposed to GDM had higher mean BMI Z-score (difference, 0.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.02 to 0.12) and risk for overweight/obesity (odds ratio [OR], 1.22; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.40) compared to those unexposed to GDM from 1 to 4 years of age. However, after adjustment for maternal pre-pregnancy BMI (Model 2), these associations attenuated towards the null (difference in BMI Z-score, 0.02; 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.07; OR for overweight/obesity, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.25). Conclusion: The associations between GDM diagnosed using IADPSG criteria and BMI Z-score and the risk for overweight/obesity in offspring at the age of 1 to 4 years were largely explained by maternal pre-pregnancy BMI. Reducing the prevalence of childhood overweight and obesity in China should focus on maternal weight status before pregnancy, in addition to glycemia during pregnancy. Abbreviations: BMI = body mass index; CI = confidence interval; GDM = gestational diabetes mellitus; IADPSG = International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups; LGA = large for gestational age; MBRX = Medical Birth Registry in Xiamen; OGTT = oral glucose tolerance test; OR = odds ratio.

Comparison of criteria of International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) for diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus.

Different screening procedures and diagnostic criteria are being followed in the same as well as in different countries with no single standard criteria established for diagnosis of GDM. So far, there are no studies in the Indian population comparing IADPSG with NICE criteria. To compare International Association of Pregnancy and Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) for diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus and its influence on maternal and perinatal outcomes. This prospective observational study was conducted in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of a tertiary care institute in South India from March 2017 to October 2018. Six-hundred and eighty women with or without risk factors for GDM were recruited in the study and screened for GDM based on IADPSG and NICE criteria. Women with preexisting diabetes mellitus or with fasting plasma glucose ≥ 126mg/dl were excluded. The overall prevalence of GDM in our study was 27.2% by either IADPSG/NICE criteria. In this study, 25.1% women and 11.6% women were diagnosed as GDM using IADPSG and NICE criteria, respectively. The level of agreement between the two diagnostic criteria was found to be poor in our study and was statistically significant (kappa = 0.429, p < 0.001). Women testing IADPSG-positive NICE-negative had a higher risk of GHTN, abortions, PROM, preterm delivery, caesarean section and congenital anomalies, meconium-stained liquor, and low Apgar scores at 1min when compared to non GDM group. In addition, except for preterm delivery, women diagnosed as GDM by both IADPSG and NICE criteria had adverse outcomes such as preeclampsia, urinary tract infection, and polyhydramnios. Women diagnosed as GDM in IADPSG-negative NICE-positive had no significant adverse maternal or perinatal outcomes. IADPSG criteria appear to be more robust than NICE criteria for diagnosis of GDM. Women with substantial risk of maternal and perinatal outcomes are better identified by IADPSG criteria who would have been missed if NICE criteria was used.

Early-Pregnancy Metabolic Syndrome and Subsequent Incidence in Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in Arab Women.

Introduction: This study aimed to investigate the association between components of metabolic syndrome (MetS) at first trimester and development of Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) in 498 Saudi pregnant women.Materials and Methods: Biochemical and anthropometric parameters were determined at the first trimester and MetS components were defined. Participants were screened for GDM at follow up according to International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Group (IADPSG) criteria. The main outcome measures were development of GDM and GDM risk vs. MetS components at first trimester.Results: One hundred twenty three (24.7%) were diagnosed with GDM according to IADPSG criteria. GDM risk was significantly higher for participants with hypertriglyceridemia at 1st trimester even after adjusting for age, BMI and parity (OR: 1.82; CI: 1.1–3.7, p = 0.04). Furthermore, the odds of hyperglycemia at 1st trimester was significantly higher in GDM than in non-GDM participants even after adjustments (OR: 2.13, 95% CI: 1.1 to 4.3, p = 0.038). The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) for predicting GDM revealed an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.69 (95% CI: 0.64 to 0.74, p < 0.001) and 0.71 (95% CI: 0.65 to 0.77, p < 0.001) for first-trimester hyperglycemia and hypertriglyceridemia respectively.Conclusions: The incidence of GDM in Saudi pregnant women was strongly associated with hyperglycemia and hypertriglyceridemia at first trimester. These findings are of clinical importance, as an assessment of MetS in early pregnancy can identify women at higher risk of developing GDM.

Evaluation of the gestational diabetes mellitus diagnostic criteria recommended by the international association of diabetes and pregnancy study group for long-term maternal postpartum outcomes in mainland China.

The gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) diagnostic criteria recommended by the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Group (IADPSG) were established based on the Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (HAPO) study and have been the most commonly used criteria for determining GDM worldwide. Although individuals from mainland China were not included in the HAPO study, the IADPSG criteria have been used in China since 2011. However, the appropriateness of the criteria for evaluating maternal postpartum outcomes in mainland China are unknown. We conducted this study to determine whether the IADPSG criteria are appropriate for Chinese patients for evaluating long-term maternal postpartum outcomes.Eighty-four patients who were diagnosed with hyperglycemia during pregnancy and had delivery in Peking University First Hospital from February 2007 to December 2009 were enrolled in the study. For patients in Group A, GDM was diagnosed using both the National Diabetes Data Group (NDDG) and the IADPSG criteria, while patients in Group B, gestational impaired glucose tolerance (GIGT) was diagnosed using the NDDG criteria while GDM was diagnosed based on the IADPSG criteria. Anthropometric data, glucose metabolism, lipid profiles, β cell function, and insulin resistance index were evaluated and compared to baseline after 5- to 6-year postpartum period.Patients in group A had significantly higher oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) fasting, 2-hour and 3-hour plasma glucose levels compared to patients in group B at 24 to 28 weeks of gestation (P < .05). No significant differences were observed between the groups for anthropometric data, postpartum abnormal glucose metabolism (50.91% vs 44.83%, P = .596), type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) (16.36% vs 3.45%, P = .167), lipid profiles, β cell function (homeostasis model assessment β-cell function index (HOMA-β) 1.04 vs 0.99, P = .935) and insulin resistance (homeostasis model assessment insulin resistance index (HOMA-IR) 2.01 vs 1.69, P = .583).Patients diagnosed with GDM using either the NDDG or IADPSG criteria had abnormal glucose levels and lipid metabolism after delivery. Patients with mild hyperglycemia had similar postpartum β-cell functional impairment and insulin resistance to those with moderate hyperglycemia during pregnancy. Hence, with respect to maternal long-term postpartum outcomes, the IADPSG diagnostic criteria for GDM could be appropriate for patients in mainland China.

Changes in perinatal outcomes after implementation of IADPSG criteria for screening and diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus: A national survey.

To compare perinatal outcomes before and after implementation of the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria for testing of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). A national, perinatal, registry-based cohort study of prospectively collected data was conducted. Patients with diabetes type 1 or 2 were excluded. Outcomes of 135 786 pregnancies before (January 1, 2004 to May 31, 2010) and 140 524 after (June 1, 2011 to December 31, 2017) the introduction of IADPSG criteria were compared using Student t test and χ2 test (P<0.05 was significant). Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare outcomes controlling for potential confounders. Prevalence of GDM increased from 2.6% to 9.7% (adjusted odds ratio 3.92; 95% confidence interval 3.78-4.08). Incidence of large-for-gestational age (LGA), macrosomia (birth weight >4500g), Erb's palsy, and hypertensive disorders in pregnancy decreased despite increasing maternal age and pre-pregnancy obesity. Rates of cesarean delivery increased in both GDM and non-GDM groups, with a less pronounced increase in GDM mothers. Incidence of small-for-gestational age (SGA) increased in GDM but not in non-GDM group. Implementation of IADPSG criteria in a country with a relatively low prevalence of GDM did not result in higher rates of cesarean delivery and was associated with reductions in LGA and hypertensive disorders in pregnancy.

Impact of introducing the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria on pregnancy outcomes in Japan.

To estimate pregnancy complications in women newly diagnosed with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) according to the new International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria and verify the validity of introducing the IADPSG criteria in Japan. This retrospective study included data from women with singleton delivery at 22 weeks or later at a tertiary hospital during 2000-2009. We compared pregnancy outcomes between women who would now be diagnosed with GDM according to the IADPSG criteria but not by the old JSOG criteria (IGT group, n = 503) and women with normal glucose tolerance according to both the criteria (NGT group, n = 2,789). Multivariate analysis was performed and adjusted for background factors. Maternal age at delivery and pre-pregnancy BMI were significantly higher in the IGT group than in the NGT group, while gestational weeks at delivery did not differ between the groups. No difference was observed in the rates of GDM-related composite complications (defined as cases with at least one of the following: macrosomia, shoulder dystocia, neonatal hypoglycemia, neonatal hyperbilirubinemia, or neonatal respiratory distress syndrome) at 11.9% and 8.8% (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90-1.87, p = 0.16). Pregnancy outcomes did not differ significantly between the IGT and NGT groups, except for frequencies of total neonatal admissions at 10.5% and 7.1%, respectively (adjusted OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.12-2.13, p < 0.01).

Treatment of gestational diabetes diagnosed by the IADPSG criteria decreases excessive fetal growth

ObjectiveWe evaluated the effect on treatment using the new International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Group (IADPSG) criteria for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) diagnosis.MethodsSingleton pregnant women whose plasma glucose levels were ≥140 mg/dL on the 50 g glucose challenge test (GCT) underwent 75 g oral glucose tolerance for GDM diagnosis. During the first half of the study period, GDM was diagnosed using 2 abnormal values by Carpenter-Coustan (C-C) criteria. In the second half of the study period, 1 or more abnormal values by IADPSG criteria were used for GDM diagnosis. Pregnant women were classified into 5 groups: normal 50 g GCT, positive 50 g GCT but non-GDM, GDM by IADPSG criteria and non-treated, GDM by IADPSG criteria and treated, GDM by C-C criteria and treated. The odds ratios (ORs) for large for gestational age (LGA) and macrosomia were analyzed.ResultsOf the 2,678 patients, the frequency of GDM diagnosed by C-C and IADPSG criteria was 2.6% and 7.5%. ORs (95% confidence intervals [CIs]) for LGA and macrosomia in the group with GDM by IADPSG criteria and non-treated were 2.81 (95% CI, 1.47–5.38) and 2.84 (95% CI, 1.08–7.47). The risk of LGA and macrosomia did not increase in the group with GDM by IADPSG criteria and treated.ConclusionThe risk of LGA and macrosomia for mild GDM diagnosed solely by IADPSG criteria depends on whether they are treated or not. Treatment of GDM based on IADPSG criteria reduces the risk of excessive fetal growth.Trial RegistrationClinical Research Information Service Identifier: KCT0000776

Perinatal Outcomes in Mexican Women with Untreated Mild Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Diagnosed by the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups Criteria.

PurposeTo compare the risk of adverse perinatal outcomes (APO) between pregnant women with mild gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) diagnosed by the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria, on no specific treatment, versus pregnant women without GDM.Patients and MethodsA retrospective cohort study of pregnant women referred to the Instituto Nacional de Perinatología, in Mexico City, for prenatal care and delivery. Eligibility criteria were singleton pregnancy, age >18 years, gestational age 20–28 weeks, and no history of pre-gestational diabetes. The study population was divided into two groups: Group 1, comprising women with mild GDM defined by one abnormal glucose value at the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) according to IADPSG criteria [fasting: 5.1–5.2 mmol/L (92–94 mg/dL) or 2h 8.5–8.56 mmol/L (153–154 mg/dL)], who did not receive specific treatment for GDM, and Group 2, comprising women without GDM, matched for maternal age and pre-gestational body mass index (BMI). Women with two or more abnormal OGTT values, pre-gestational diabetes, any chronic disease, or multiple pregnancies were excluded.ResultsAs many as 282 women were included in each group. There were no significant differences in basal characteristics between groups. APO analysis showed that newborn weight was significantly higher in Group 1 (3042.4±499g) vs Group 2 (2910±565g) p=0.003; conversely, the incidence of large for gestational age (LGA) and macrosomic neonates was similar in both groups (6 vs 5.7% and 2.1 vs 2.2%, respectively). There were no differences in rates of preeclampsia and gestational hypertension, cesarean and preterm delivery, or premature rupture of membranes. A sub-analysis by maternal pre-gestational BMI showed that LGA incidence was significantly higher among babies born to women with pre-gestational BMI ≥30 kg/m2 in both groups.ConclusionThe risk of APO was similar among Mexican women with mild untreated GDM diagnosed by IADPSG criteria, compared to pregnant women without GDM. Pre-gestational BMI was an independent risk factor for LGA.

Perinatal outcomes for untreated women with gestational diabetes by IADPSG criteria: a population-based study.

To estimate the risk for adverse perinatal outcomes for women who met the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria but not the two-step criteria for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). Population-level cross-sectional study. Ontario, Canada. A total of 90140 women who underwent a 75-g oral glucose tolerance test. Women were divided into those who met the diagnostic thresholds for GDM by two-step criteria and were therefore treated, those who met only the IADPSG criteria for GDM and so were not treated, and those who did not have GDM by either criteria. Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, preterm delivery, primary caesarean section, large-for-gestational-age, shoulder dystocia and neonatal intensive care unit admission. Women who met the IADPSG criteria had an increased risk for all adverse perinatal outcomes compared with women who did not have GDM. Women with GDM by two-step criteria also had an increased risk of most outcomes. However, their risk for large-for-gestational-age neonates and for shoulder dystocia was actually lower than that of women who met IADPSG criteria. Women who met IADPSG criteria but who were not diagnosed with GDM based on the current two-step diagnostic strategy, and were therefore not treated, had an increased risk for adverse perinatal outcomes compared with women who do not have GDM. The current strategy for diagnosing GDM may be leaving women who are at risk for adverse events without the dietary and pharmacological treatments that could improve their pregnancy outcomes. Women who meet IADPSG criteria for GDM have an increased risk for adverse perinatal outcomes compared with women without GDM.

Evaluation of the prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus in Kayseri city hospital: A cross-sectional study

Aim: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is an important disease worldwide and its incidence is rising with increasing maternal age and obesity. The aim of this study is to investigate the prevalence of GDM in accordance with International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria by obtaining data from a single center in Kayseri. Methods: All pregnant women between the ages of 18 and 45 who were referred to the clinic for routine pregnancy follow-up visits between January 2018-2019 at Kayseri City Hospital’s Gynecology and Obstetrics Department were included in this study. Their records were obtained from the hospital registry and retrospectively examined. A single stage 75g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) was performed to all patients and IADPSG criteria were used for diagnosis. Results: 2652 pregnant women were included in this study and screened for GDM with a single-step 75-g OGTT. The mean age of all pregnant women was 26.42 (22-31) years. The mean gravid, parity and gestational weeks at the time of testing were 3 (range 1-5), 3 (range 1-4), 26 (range 24-28), respectively. The prevalence of GDM, detected in 424 of 2652 patients, was 16% (424/2652). Conclusion: The prevalence of GDM among pregnant women who were referred to our clinic for routine pregnancy follow-up was 16% according to the IADPSG criteria, as determined with a single-step 75-g OGTT.

Comparing Different Diagnostic Guidelines for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in Relation to Birthweight in Sri Lankan Women.

Introduction: While the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria is widely adopted in many countries, clinicians have questioned the applicability of these diagnostic thresholds for different races/ethnicities. We first compared the prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) diagnosed with different criteria including IADPSG, World Health Organization (WHO) 1999 and Sri Lankan national guidelines, and subsequently related individual guidelines-specific GDM prevalence to offspring birthweight in Sri Lanka.Materials and Methods: We retrospectively collected data on singleton pregnancies (n = 795) from two tertiary hospitals in Sri Lanka. We applied three diagnostic guidelines to define GDM, namely IADPSG criteria, the Sri Lankan national and WHO 1999 guidelines. We calculated the age- and first booking BMI-adjusted prevalence rates of GDM and assessed the association of GDM (using each guideline) with birthweight.Results: The age- and first booking BMI-adjusted GDM prevalence rates were 31.2, 28.0, and 13.1% for IADPSG criteria, Sri Lankan national and WHO 1999 guidelines, respectively. The IADPSG criteria identified 90 distinctive GDM cases at a lower cut-off of fasting glucose (from 5.1 to 5.5 mmol/L) while Sri Lankan national guideline identified 15 distinctive GDM cases at a lower cut-off for 2-h glucose (from 7.8 to 8.4 mmol/L). After adjusting for age, GDM diagnosed by IADPSG criteria was associated with higher birthweight [90.8 g, 95% CI: 10.8, 170.9], while the associations for GDM diagnosed either by Sri Lankan national or WHO 1999 guidelines were not significant.Conclusion: Adopting the IADPSG criteria for diagnosing GDM may be important in Sri Lankan pregnant population.

The Sensitivity and Specificity of the Glucose Challenge Test in a Universal Two-Step Screening Strategy for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Using the 2013 World Health Organization Criteria.

The International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) recommends a universal one-step screening strategy with the 75-g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) (1). Since the adoption of the IADPSG recommendation by the World Health Organization (WHO), the IADPSG criteria are commonly referred to as the 2013 WHO criteria (2). The IADPSG recommendation remains controversial due to the significant increase in GDM prevalence, increased workload, the need for a fasting test, and the risk for increased medicalization of care (3). Several professional associations therefore still recommend a universal two-step screening strategy, using a nonfasting 50-g glucose challenge test (GCT) to determine whether an OGTT should be performed (3). The GCT is easier to perform and is generally better tolerated than an OGTT. In addition, a two-step screening strategy with a GCT could limit the number of OGTTs. The GCT has been used in combination with the 100-g OGTT or the 75-g OGTT with various diagnostic criteria, but data are lacking on the sensitivity and specificity of the GCT in conjunction with the 2013 WHO criteria for GDM. We performed a multicentric prospective cohort study, the Belgian Diabetes in Pregnancy Study (BEDIP-N), between 2014 and 2017, enrolling 2,006 women between 6 and 14 weeks of pregnancy (4). Participants without prediabetes or diabetes in early pregnancy (defined by …

Should the IADPSG criteria be applied when diagnosing early-onset gestational diabetes?

AimsTo investigate whether the broad interpretation of the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria with application to the early pregnancy, which is adopted as the standard in Japan, is appropriate. MethodsWe conducted this investigation by comparing diabetes-related adverse pregnancy outcomes among women treated for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) following an early-pregnancy diagnosis (early-onset GDM, n = 528) and those treated for GDM following a mid-pregnancy diagnosis, which is the international standard (Mid-term-onset GDM, n = 147). ResultsGestational weight gain was significantly lower in the early-onset GDM group (7.5 kg) than in the mid-term-onset GDM group (8.4 kg). The frequency of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy tended to be lower in the early-onset GDM group (5.6% vs. 8.8%, p = 0.085), but infant birth weight did not differ significantly between the groups. No between-group difference was observed in macrosomia, large-for-gestational-age (LGA), small-for-gestational age (SGA), low Apgar score, shoulder dystocia, cesarean delivery, NICU admission, hyperbilirubinemia, neonatal hypoglycemia, or respiratory distress syndrome. The frequency of LGA showed a significant association with pre-pregnancy body mass index, but did not differ according to the timing of therapy initiation. ConclusionsWe could not find the effectiveness of therapeutic interventions initiated after GDM diagnosis in the early pregnancy based on the IADPSG criteria, compared with therapeutic interventions after a mid-pregnancy GDM diagnosis. It was suggested that the IADPSG criteria for diagnosing GDM at 24–28 weeks’ gestation should not be applied to Japanese women in the early pregnancy by a broader interpretation.