Dataset Information

Gestational diabetes and pregnancy outcomes--a systematic review of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) diagnostic criteria.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Two criteria based on a 2 h 75 g OGTT are being used for the diagnosis of gestational diabetes (GDM), those recommended over the years by the World Health Organization (WHO), and those recently recommended by the International Association for Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group (IADPSG), the latter generated in the HAPO study and based on pregnancy outcomes. Our aim is to systematically review the evidence for the associations between GDM (according to these criteria) and adverse outcomes.

Methods

We searched relevant studies in MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, the Cochrane Library, CINHAL, WHO-Afro library, IMSEAR, EMCAT, IMEMR and WPRIM. We included cohort studies permitting the evaluation of GDM diagnosed by WHO and or IADPSG criteria against adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes in untreated women. Only studies with universal application of a 75 g OGTT were included. Relative risks (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were obtained for each study. We combined study results using a random-effects model. Inconsistency across studies was defined by an inconsistency index (I2) > 50%.

Results

Data were extracted from eight studies, totaling 44,829 women. Greater risk of adverse outcomes was observed for both diagnostic criteria. When using the WHO criteria, consistent associations were seen for macrosomia (RR = 1.81; 95%CI 1.47-2.22; p < 0.001); large for gestational age (RR = 1.53; 95%CI 1.39-1.69; p < 0.001); perinatal mortality (RR = 1.55; 95% CI 0.88-2.73; p = 0.13); preeclampsia (RR = 1.69; 95%CI 1.31-2.18; p < 0.001); and cesarean delivery (RR = 1.37;95%CI 1.24-1.51; p < 0.001). Less data were available for the IADPSG criteria, and associations were inconsistent across studies (I2 ? 73%). Magnitudes of RRs and their 95%CIs were 1.73 (1.28-2.35; p = 0.001) for large for gestational age; 1.71 (1.38-2.13; p < 0.001) for preeclampsia; and 1.23 (1.01-1.51; p = 0.04) for cesarean delivery. Excluding either the HAPO or the EBDG studies minimally altered these associations, but the RRs seen for the IADPSG criteria were reduced after excluding HAPO.

Conclusions

The WHO and the IADPSG criteria for GDM identified women at a small increased risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes. Associations were of similar magnitude for both criteria. However, high inconsistency was seen for those with the IADPSG criteria. Full evaluation of the latter in settings other than HAPO requires additional studies.

SUBMITTER: Wendland EM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3352245 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Gestational diabetes and pregnancy outcomes--a systematic review of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) diagnostic criteria.

Wendland Eliana M EM Torloni Maria Regina MR Falavigna Maicon M Trujillo Janet J Dode Maria Alice MA Campos Maria Amélia MA Duncan Bruce B BB Schmidt Maria Inês MI

BMC pregnancy and childbirth 20120331

<h4>Background</h4>Two criteria based on a 2 h 75 g OGTT are being used for the diagnosis of gestational diabetes (GDM), those recommended over the years by the World Health Organization (WHO), and those recently recommended by the International Association for Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group (IADPSG), the latter generated in the HAPO study and based on pregnancy outcomes. Our aim is to systematically review the evidence for the associations between GDM (according to these criteria) and advers ...[more]

PMID: 22462760

Similar Datasets

Project description:AIMS/HYPOTHESIS:Detection and management of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) are crucial to reduce the risk of pregnancy-related complications for both mother and child. In 2013, the WHO adopted new diagnostic criteria for GDM to improve pregnancy outcomes. However, the evidence supporting these criteria is limited. Consequently, these new criteria have not yet been endorsed in the Netherlands. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of these criteria on the number of GDM diagnoses and pregnancy outcomes. METHODS:Data were available from 10,642 women who underwent a 75 g OGTT because of risk factors or signs suggestive of GDM. Women were treated if diagnosed with GDM according to the WHO 1999 criteria. Data on pregnancy outcomes were obtained from extensive chart reviews from 4,431 women and were compared between women with normal glucose tolerance (NGT) and women classified into the following groups: (1) GDM according to WHO 1999 criteria; (2) GDM according to WHO 2013 criteria; (3) GDM according to WHO 2013 fasting glucose threshold, but not WHO 1999 criteria; and (4) GDM according to WHO 1999 2 h plasma glucose threshold (2HG), but not WHO 2013 criteria. RESULTS:Applying the new WHO 2013 criteria would have increased the number of diagnoses by 45% (32% vs 22%) in this population of women at higher risk for GDM. In comparison with women with NGT, women classified as having GDM based only on the WHO 2013 threshold for fasting glucose, who were not treated for GDM, were more likely to have been obese (46.1% vs 28.1%, p?<?0.001) and hypertensive (3.3% vs 1.2%, p?<?0.001) before pregnancy, and to have had higher rates of gestational hypertension (7.8% vs 4.9%, p?=?0.003), planned Caesarean section (10.3% vs 6.5%, p?=?0.001) and induction of labour (34.8% vs 28.0%, p?=?0.001). In addition, their neonates were more likely to have had an Apgar score <7 at 5 min (4.4% vs 2.6%, p?=?0.015) and to have been admitted to the Neonatology Department (15.0% vs 11.1%, p?=?0.004). The number of large for gestational age (LGA) neonates was not significantly different between the two groups. Women potentially missed owing to the higher 2HG threshold set by WHO 2013 had similar pregnancy outcomes to women with NGT. These women were all treated for GDM with diet and 20.5% received additional insulin. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION:Applying the WHO 2013 criteria will have a major impact on the number of GDM diagnoses. Using the fasting glucose threshold set by WHO 2013 identifies a group of women with an increased risk of adverse outcomes compared with women with NGT. We therefore support the use of a lower fasting glucose threshold in the Dutch national guideline for GDM diagnosis. However, adopting the WHO 2013 criteria with a higher 2HG threshold would exclude women in whom treatment for GDM seems to be effective.

Project description: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) using mutually exclusive categories according to the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria cut-off points in patients with GDM, so as to establish a risk-stratification method for developing GDM management strategies.Design, setting and participantsIn this retrospective cohort study, 942 women who had been diagnosed with GDM (IADPSG criteria) at 24-28 weeks of gestation from November 2016 to April 2018 underwent a 75 g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) at 6-12 weeks postpartum in a tertiary hospital of Singapore. Seven mutually exclusive categories (three one timepoint positive categories (fasting, 1 hour and 2 hours), three two timepoint positive categories (fasting+1 hour, fasting+2 hours and 1 hour+2 hours) and one three timepoint positive category (fasting+1 hour+2 hours)) were derived from the three timepoint antenatal OGTT according to the IADPSG criteria. To calculate the RRs of postpartum dysglyceamia of each mutually exclusive group, logistic regression was applied.Results924 mothers with GDM, whose mean age was 32.7±4.7 years, were mainly composed of Chinese (45.4%), Malay (21.7%) and Indian (14.3%) ethnicity. The total prevalence of postnatal dysglycaemia was 16.7% at 6-12 weeks postpartum. Stratifying subjects into seven mutually exclusive categories, the RRs of the one-time, two-time and three-time positive groups of the antenatal OGTT test were 1.0 (Ref.), 2.0 (95% CI=1.3 to 3.1; p=0.001) and 6.7 (95% CI=4.1 to 10.9; p<0.001), respectively, which could be used to categorise patients with GDM into low-risk, intermediate-risk and high-risk group.ConclusionsMutually exclusive categories could be useful for risk stratification and early management of patients with prenatal GDM. It is plausible and can be easily translated into clinical practice.

Project description:Background:Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a major public health problem and threat to maternal and child health in Africa. No prior review has been conducted in Africa using the updated GDM diagnostic criteria. Therefore, this review aimed to estimate the pooled prevalence and determinants of GDM in Africa by using current international diagnostic criteria. Methods:A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted by comprehensive search of the published studies in Africa. Electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Google Scholar, CINAHL, Web of Science, Science direct and African Journals Online) were searched using relevant search terms. Data were extracted on an excel sheet and Stata/ SE 14.0 software was used to perform the meta-analysis. Heterogeneity of included studies were assessed using I 2 and Q test statistics. I2?>?50% and Q test with its respective p-value <?0.05 were suggestive for the presence of a significant heterogeneity. Publication bias was assessed using the Egger's regression test and funnel plot. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were done. A random effects model was used to estimate the pooled prevalence of GDM and odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Result:A total of 23 studies were included in the final analysis. The pooled prevalence of GDM in Africa was 13.61% (95% CI: 10.99, 16.23; I2?=?96.1%), and 14.28% (95% CI, 11.39, 17.16; I2?=?96.4%) in the sub-Saharan African region. The prevalence was highest in Central Africa 20.4% (95% CI, 1.55, 38.54), and lowest in Northern Africa 7.57% (95% CI, 5.89, 9.25) sub- regions. Overweight and obesity, macrosomia, family history of diabetes, history of stillbirth, history of abortion, chronic hypertension and history of previous GDM had positively associated with GDM. Conclusions:The prevalence of GDM is high in Africa. Being overweighed and/or obese, ever had macrocosmic baby, family history of diabetes, history of stillbirth, history of abortion or miscarriage, chronic hypertension and history of previous GDM were factors associated with GDM. Preventing overweighed and obese, giving due attention to women having high-risk cases for GDM in pregnancy are strongly recommended to mitigate the burden. Systematic review registration:PROSPERO (2018:CRD42018116843).

Project description:BackgroundWe assessed the impact of adopting the 2013 World Health Organization (WHO) diagnostic criteria on the rates of gestational diabetes (GDM), pregnancy outcomes and identification of women at future risk of type 2 diabetes.MethodsDuring a period when the 1999 WHO GDM criteria were in effect, pregnant women were universally screened using a one-step 75 g 2-h oral glucose tolerance test at 26-28 weeks' gestation. Women were retrospectively reclassified according to the 2013 criteria, but without the 1-h glycaemia measurement. Pregnancy outcomes and glucose tolerance at 4-5 years post-delivery were compared for women with GDM classified by the 1999 criteria alone, GDM by the 2013 criteria alone, GDM by both criteria and without GDM by both sets of criteria.ResultsOf 1092 women, 204 (18.7%) and 142 (13.0%) were diagnosed with GDM by the 1999 and 2013 WHO criteria, respectively, with 27 (2.5%) reclassified to GDM and 89 (8.2%) reclassified to non-GDM when shifting from the 1999 to 2013 criteria. Compared to women without GDM by both criteria, cases reclassified to GDM by the 2013 criteria had an increased risk of neonatal jaundice requiring phototherapy (relative risk (RR) = 2.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.32, 5.86); despite receiving treatment for GDM, cases reclassified to non-GDM by the 2013 criteria had higher risks of prematurity (RR = 2.17, 95% CI 1.12, 4.24), neonatal hypoglycaemia (RR = 3.42, 95% CI 1.04, 11.29), jaundice requiring phototherapy (RR = 1.71, 95% CI 1.04, 2.82), and a higher rate of abnormal glucose tolerance at 4-5 years post-delivery (RR = 3.39, 95% CI 2.30, 5.00).ConclusionsAdoption of the 2013 WHO criteria, without the 1-h glycaemia measurement, reduced the GDM rate. Lowering the fasting glucose threshold identified women who might benefit from treatment, but raising the 2-h threshold may fail to identify women at increased risk of adverse pregnancy and future metabolic outcomes.Trial registrationNCT01174875 . Registered 1 July 2010 (retrospectively registered).

Dataset Information

Gestational diabetes and pregnancy outcomes--a systematic review of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) diagnostic criteria.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Gestational diabetes and pregnancy outcomes--a systematic review of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) diagnostic criteria.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets