Dataset Information

The effects of implementing the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups criteria for diagnosing gestational diabetes on maternal and neonatal outcomes.

ABSTRACT: In 2010, the International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) recommended a new strategy for the screening and diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). However, no study has indicated that adopting the IADPSG recommendations improves perinatal outcomes. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of implementing the IADPSG criteria for diagnosing GDM on maternal and neonatal outcomes.Previously, we used a two-step approach (a 1-h, 50-g glucose challenge test followed by a 3-h, 100-g glucose tolerance test when indicated) to screen for and diagnose GDM. In July 2011, we adopted the IADPSG recommendations in our routine obstetric care. In this study, we retrospectively compared the rates of various maternal and neonatal outcomes in all women who delivered after 24 weeks of gestation during the periods before (P1, between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2010) and after (P2, between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2013) the IADPSG criteria were implemented. Pregnancies complicated by multiple gestations, fetal chromosomal or structural anomalies, and pre-pregnancy diabetes mellitus were excluded. Our results showed that the incidence of GDM increased from 4.6% using the two-step method to 12.4% using the IADPSG criteria. Compared to the women in P1, the women in P2 experienced less weight gain during pregnancy, lower birth weights, shorter labor courses, and lower rates of macrosomia (<4000 g) and large-for-gestational age (LGA) infants. P2 was a significant independent factor against macrosomia (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.43-0.90) and LGA (adjusted OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.61-0.89) after multivariable logistic regression analysis.The adoption of the IADPSG criteria for diagnosis of GDM was associated with significant reductions in maternal weight gain during pregnancy, birth weights, and the rates of macrosomia and LGA.

SUBMITTER: Hung TH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4355616 | biostudies-literature | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The effects of implementing the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups criteria for diagnosing gestational diabetes on maternal and neonatal outcomes.

Hung Tai-Ho TH Hsieh T'sang-T'ang TT

PloS one 20150310 3

<h4>Background</h4>In 2010, the International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) recommended a new strategy for the screening and diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). However, no study has indicated that adopting the IADPSG recommendations improves perinatal outcomes. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of implementing the IADPSG criteria for diagnosing GDM on maternal and neonatal outcomes.<h4>Methodology/principal findings</h4>Previ ...[more]

PMID: 25756838

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTwo 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.MethodsWe 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%.ResultsData 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.ConclusionsThe 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.

Project description: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.

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.

Dataset Information

The effects of implementing the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups criteria for diagnosing gestational diabetes on maternal and neonatal outcomes.

Publications

The effects of implementing the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups criteria for diagnosing gestational diabetes on maternal and neonatal outcomes.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets