Dataset Information

A Comparison of Predictive Performances between Old versus New Criteria in a Risk-Based Screening Strategy for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus.

ABSTRACT: Background:The definition of the high-risk group for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) defined by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists was changed from the criteria composed of five historic/demographic factors (old criteria) to the criteria consisting of 11 factors (new criteria) in 2017. To compare the predictive performances between these two sets of criteria. Methods:This is a secondary analysis of a large prospective cohort study of non-diabetic Korean women with singleton pregnancies designed to examine the risk of GDM in women with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Maternal fasting blood was taken at 10 to 14 weeks of gestation and measured for glucose and lipid parameters. GDM was diagnosed by the two-step approach. Results:Among 820 women, 42 (5.1%) were diagnosed with GDM. Using the old criteria, 29.8% (n=244) of women would have been identified as high risk versus 16.0% (n=131) using the new criteria. Of the 42 women who developed GDM, 45.2% (n=19) would have been mislabeled as not high risk by the old criteria versus 50.0% (n=21) using the new criteria (1-sensitivity, 45.2% vs. 50.0%, P>0.05). Among the 778 patients who did not develop GDM, 28.4% (n=221) would have been identified as high risk using the old criteria versus 14.1% (n=110) using the new criteria (1-specificity, 28.4% vs. 14.1%, P<0.001). Conclusion:Compared with the old criteria, use of the new criteria would have decreased the number of patients identified as high risk and thus requiring early GDM screening by half (from 244 [29.8%] to 131 [16.0%]).

SUBMITTER: Hong S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7643588 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Comparison of Predictive Performances between Old versus New Criteria in a Risk-Based Screening Strategy for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus.

Hong Subeen S Lee Seung Mi SM Kwak Soo Heon SH Kim Byoung Jae BJ Koo Ja Nam JN Oh Ig Hwan IH Oh Sohee S Kim Sun Min SM Shin Sue S Kim Won W Joo Sae Kyung SK Norwitz Errol R ER Louangsenlath Souphaphone S Park Chan-Wook CW Jun Jong Kwan JK Park Joong Shin JS

Diabetes & metabolism journal 20200413 5

<h4>Background</h4>The definition of the high-risk group for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) defined by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists was changed from the criteria composed of five historic/demographic factors (old criteria) to the criteria consisting of 11 factors (new criteria) in 2017. To compare the predictive performances between these two sets of criteria.<h4>Methods</h4>This is a secondary analysis of a large prospective cohort study of non-diabetic Korean wo ...[more]

PMID: 32431101

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:BACKGROUND:Early diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is crucial to prevent short term delivery risks and long term effects such as cardiovascular and metabolic diseases in the mother and infant. Diagnosing GDM in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) however, remains sub-optimal due to associated logistical and cost barriers for resource-constrained populations. A cost-effective strategy to screen for GDM in such settings are therefore urgently required. We conducted this study to determine the prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and assess utility of various GDM point of care (POC) screening strategies in a resource-constrained setting. METHODS:Eligible women aged ?18 years, and between 24 and 32 weeks of a singleton pregnancy, prospectively underwent testing over two days. On day 1, a POC 1-h 50 g glucose challenge test (GCT) and a POC glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) was assessed. On day 2, fasting blood glucose, 1-h and 2-h 75 g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) were determined using both venous and POC tests, along with a venous HbA1c. The International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group (IADPSG) criteria was used to diagnose GDM. GDM prevalence was reported with 95% confidence interval (CI). Specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the various POC testing strategies were determined using IADPSG testing as the standard reference. RESULTS:Six hundred-sixteen eligible women completed testing procedures. GDM was diagnosed in 18 women, a prevalence of 2.9% (95% CI, 1.57% - 4.23%). Compared to IADPSG testing, POC IADPSG had a sensitivity and specificity of 55.6% and 90.6% respectively while that of POC 1-h 50 g GCT (using a diagnostic cut-off of ?7.2 mmol/L [129.6 mg/dL]) was 55.6% and 63.9%. All other POC tests assessed showed poor sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS:POC screening strategies though feasible, showed poor sensitivity for GDM detection in our resource-constrained population of low GDM prevalence. Studies to identify sensitive and specific POC GDM screening strategies using adverse pregnancy outcomes as end points are required. TRIALS REGISTRATION:Clinical trials.gov : NCT02978807 , Registered 29 November 2016.

Dataset Information

A Comparison of Predictive Performances between Old versus New Criteria in a Risk-Based Screening Strategy for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus.

Publications

A Comparison of Predictive Performances between Old versus New Criteria in a Risk-Based Screening Strategy for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets