Dataset Information

A Modified Two-Step Screening Strategy for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Based on the 2013 WHO Criteria by Combining the Glucose Challenge Test and Clinical Risk Factors.

ABSTRACT: This study determines if a modified two-step screening strategy with a glucose challenge test (GCT) ? 7.2 mmol/L and clinical risk factors improves the diagnostic accuracy for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), based on 2013 WHO criteria, while limiting the number of oral glucose tolerance tests (OGTT). This was a prospective multicentric cohort study with 1811 participants receiving both GCT and 75 g OGTT in pregnancy. Participants and health care providers were blinded for GCT. Characteristics were analyzed across four glucose tolerance groups: abnormal (?7.2 mmol/L), GCT GDM (n = 165), normal GCT GDM (n = 63), abnormal GCT normal glucose tolerant (NGT) (n = 472); normal GCT NGT (n = 1113). Compared to normal GCT NGT women, normal GCT GDM women had increased rates of obesity (23.8% vs. 10.5%, p < 0.001), ethnic minority background (19.3% vs. 8.2%, p < 0.001) and a history of GDM (13.8% vs. 4.6%, p = 0.03). By combined screening of GCT ? 7.2 mmol/L with these risk factors, sensitivity increased to respectively, 74.1?78.1% using one risk factor, and to 82.9% using any of these risk factors with a specificity of 57.5%. By using a modified two-step screening strategy, the number of women needing both a GCT and OGTT would be reduced to 25.5%, and 52.6% of all OGTTs could be avoided, compared to a universal one-step approach.

SUBMITTER: Benhalima K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6210855 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Modified Two-Step Screening Strategy for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Based on the 2013 WHO Criteria by Combining the Glucose Challenge Test and Clinical Risk Factors.

Benhalima Katrien K Van Crombrugge Paul P Moyson Carolien C Verhaeghe Johan J Vandeginste Sofie S Verlaenen Hilde H Vercammen Chris C Maes Toon T Dufraimont Els E De Block Christophe C Jacquemyn Yves Y Mekahli Farah F De Clippel Katrien K Van Den Bruel Annick A Loccufier Anne A Laenen Annouschka A Minschart Caro C Devlieger Roland R Mathieu Chantal C

Journal of clinical medicine 20181013 10

This study determines if a modified two-step screening strategy with a glucose challenge test (GCT) ≥ 7.2 mmol/L and clinical risk factors improves the diagnostic accuracy for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), based on 2013 WHO criteria, while limiting the number of oral glucose tolerance tests (OGTT). This was a prospective multicentric cohort study with 1811 participants receiving both GCT and 75 g OGTT in pregnancy. Participants and health care providers were blinded for GCT. Characteristi ...[more]

PMID: 30322138

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:In response to concerns that the International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group (IADPSG) criteria labeled too many women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) without evidence of clinical or economic benefit, NICE recommended a change in diagnostic criteria in 2015. AIM:To compare diabetes associated maternal and neonatal complications in pregnancies complicated by GDM diagnosed using IADPSG criteria only, to those with GDM diagnosed using both IADPSG and NICE 2015 criteria. GDM screening was risk factor based. METHODS:This was a secondary analysis of a trial of women with GDM diagnosed by the IADPSG criteria (fasting blood glucose (BG) ? 5.1 mmol/L, 1 h ? 10.0 mmol/L and 2 h ? 8.5 mmol/L). Outcomes were compared for two groups: NICE + IADPSG defined as those with GDM diagnosed by both the NICE 2015 and IADPSG criteria (fasting BG ? 5.6 mmol/L, 2 h ? 8.5 mmol/L); and IADPSG-ONLY (fasting BG 5.1 mmol/L to 5.5 mmol/L, and/or 1-hour ?10.0 mmol/L, and 2 h ? 8.5 mmol/L). We were not able to obtain data for women with a 2-h value between BG 7.8?8.4 mmol/L (i.e., NICE-ONLY; NICE 2015 positive and IADPSG negative). All women were treated for GDM using targets of fasting BG < 5.3 mmol/L and 1-h post prandial BG < 7.8 mmol/L respectively. RESULTS:Of 159 women, 65 (40.9%) were NICE + IADPSG and 94 (59.1%) IADPSG-ONLY. Hypoglycaemic medication use was similar in both groups: 52.3% NICE + IADPSG, 46.8% IADPSG-ONLY, OR 1.0 (0.5?1.9). The IADPSG-ONLY group delivered later than the NICE + IADPSG group; 39.0 weeks (sd 1.4) compared to 38.2 weeks (sd 2.5), p value 0.02. Fewer caesarean sections occurred in IADPSG-ONLY group 30.9% vs. 52.3%, OR 0.4 (0.2?0.9). Birthweight, large for gestational age, and other neonatal complications were not significantly different between groups. CONCLUSIONS:Gestational diabetes-associated perinatal complications were similar in both groups. The IADPSG criteria detect women with evidence of ongoing hyperglycaemia who may benefit from treatment during pregnancy.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the predictability of gestational diabetes mellitus wth a 75 g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) in early pregnancy, based on the 2013 criteria of the World Health Organization, and to test newly proposed cut-off values.DesignInternational, prospective, multicentre cohort study.SettingSix university or cantonal departments in Austria, Germany, and Switzerland, from 1 May 2016 to 31 January 2019.ParticipantsLow risk cohort of 829 participants aged 18-45 years with singleton pregnancies attending first trimester screening and consenting to have an early 75 g OGTT at 12-15 weeks of gestation. Participants and healthcare providers were blinded to the results.Main outcome measuresFasting, one hour, and two hour plasma glucose concentrations after an early 75 g OGTT (12-15 weeks of gestation) and a late 75 g OGTT (24-28 weeks of gestation).ResultsOf 636 participants, 74 (12%) developed gestational diabetes mellitus, according to World Health Organization 2013 criteria, at 24-28 weeks of gestation. Applying WHO 2013 criteria to the early OGTT with at least one abnormal value gave a low sensitivity of 0.35 (95% confidence interval 0.24 to 0.47), high specificity of 0.96 (0.95 to 0.98), positive predictive value of 0.57 (0.41 to 0.71), negative predictive value of 0.92 (0.89 to 0.94), positive likelihood ratio of 10.46 (6.21 to 17.63), negative likelihood ratio of 0.65 (0.55 to 0.78), and diagnostic odds ratio of 15.98 (8.38 to 30.47). Lowering the postload glucose values (75 g OGTT cut-off values of 5.1, 8.9, and 7.8 mmol/L) improved the detection rate (53%, 95% confidence interval 41% to 64%) and negative predictive value (0.94, 0.91 to 0.95), but decreased the specificity (0.91, 0.88 to 0.93) and positive predictive value (0.42, 0.32 to 0.53) at a false positive rate of 9% (positive likelihood ratio 5.59, 4.0 to 7.81; negative likelihood ratio 0.64, 0.52 to 0.77; and diagnostic odds ratio 10.07, 6.26 to 18.31).ConclusionsThe results of this prospective low risk cohort study indicated that the 75 g OGTT as a screening tool in early pregnancy is not sensitive enough when applying WHO 2013 criteria. Postload glucose values were higher in early pregnancy complicated by diabetes in pregnancy. Lowering the postload cut-off values identified a high risk group for later development of gestational diabetes mellitus or those who might benefit from earlier treatment. Results from randomised controlled trials showing a beneficial effect of early intervention are unclear.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02035059.

Project description:Objectives There is considerable worldwide controversy regarding optimal screening and diagnostic approaches for GDM. This study aimed to compare the prevalence, maternal and neonatal outcomes of a One-step with a Two-step approach for the screening and diagnosis of GDM in a large community sample of pregnant women. Methods We conducted a secondary analysis of a randomized community non-inferiority trial of GDM screening in Iran. For the current study, all pregnant women who met the inclusion criteria were randomized into two groups for GDM screening. The first group of women (n = 14611) was screened by a One-step screening approach [75-g 2-h oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT)] and the second group (n = 14160) by a Two-step method (the 50-g glucose challenge test followed by the 100-g OGTT). All study participants were followed up until delivery, and the adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes were recorded in detail. Results GDM was diagnosed in 9.3% of the pregnant women who were assigned to the One-step and in 5.4% of those assigned to the Two-step approach with a statistically significant difference between them (p < 0.001). Intention-to-treat analyses showed no significant differences between the One-step and the Two-step group in the unadjusted risks of the adverse pregnancy outcomes of macrosomia, primary cesarean-section, preterm birth, hypoglycemia, hypocalcemia, hyperbilirubinemia, preeclampsia, neonatal intensive care unit admission, birth trauma, low birth weight, and intrauterine fetal death. Results remained unchanged after adjustment for potential confounder variables including gestational age at enrollment and delivery, maternal body mass index, gestational weight gain, type of delivery, treatment modality, and GDM diagnosis in the first trimester. Conclusion We found that although the rates of GDM more than doubled with the One-step strategy, the One-step approach was similar to the Two-step approach in terms of maternal and neonatal outcomes. These findings may warn that more caution should be exercised in adopting the One-step method worldwide. Future research is needed to assess the long-term harm and benefits of those approaches to GDM screening for both mothers and their offspring. Clinical trial registration https://www.irct.ir/trial/518, identifier (IRCT138707081281N1).

Dataset Information

A Modified Two-Step Screening Strategy for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Based on the 2013 WHO Criteria by Combining the Glucose Challenge Test and Clinical Risk Factors.

Publications

A Modified Two-Step Screening Strategy for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Based on the 2013 WHO Criteria by Combining the Glucose Challenge Test and Clinical Risk Factors.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets