Dataset Information

Perinatal Outcomes of Two Screening Strategies for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate differences in short-term perinatal outcomes between the two prominent screening strategies for gestational diabetes mellitus, the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) and Carpenter-Coustan.

Methods

In this single-site, blinded, randomized, comparative effectiveness trial, participants received a nonfasting 50-g oral glucose tolerance test and, if less than 200 mg/dL (less than 11.1 mmol/L), were randomized to further screening with either IADPSG or Carpenter-Coustan criteria. Gestational diabetes treatment occurred per routine clinical care. The primary outcome was incidence of large-for-gestational-age (LGA) neonates. Prespecified secondary outcomes included small-for-gestational-age (SGA) neonates, cesarean birth, and neonatal and maternal composites of adverse perinatal outcomes. Assuming a 15% incidence of LGA neonates in the Carpenter-Coustan group, 782 participants provided more than 80% power to detect a 7% absolute risk reduction with the use of IADPSG; planned recruitment was 920 for anticipated attrition.

Results

From June 2015 to February 2019, 1,016 participants were enrolled and 921 were randomized to IADPSG (n=461) or Carpenter-Coustan (n=460) groups. Gestational diabetes incidence (14.4% vs 4.5%, P<.001) and diabetes medication use (9.3% vs 2.4%; P<.001) were more common in the IADPSG group; there were no differences in LGA neonates, either overall (risk reduction 0.90, 97.5% CI 0.53-1.52) or among women without gestational diabetes (risk reduction 0.85, 97.5% CI 0.49-1.48). Those screened with IADPSG had higher rates of neonatal morbidity but fewer study-related adverse events. Rates of SGA neonates, cesarean birth, and maternal morbidity composite did not differ significantly between study groups.

Conclusions

The IADPSG screening criteria resulted in more women diagnosed and treated for gestational diabetes than Carpenter-Coustan without reducing the incidence of LGA birth weight or maternal or neonatal morbidity.

Clinical trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02309138.

SUBMITTER: Davis EM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8288467 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES: To assess the maternal and fetal complications of pregnancy in mothers with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) compared with non-diabetic patients who delivered in the hospital during the study period. METHODS: The outcome of pregnancy in 220 Saudi patients with GDM identified from the delivery register/hospital database and matched for age, parity and body mass index with 220 non-diabetic controls were studied retrospectively from their case files. Patients with multiple pregnancies and abnormal presentation of the fetus were excluded from the study. RESULTS: The GDM patients were treated with either diet alone or with additional insulin in some patients who required better control of their blood sugar levels. Patients with GDM had a significantly higher incidence of pre-eclampsia (p<0.0001); preterm delivery (p=0.0226); induction of labor (p<0.0001); cesarean section (p=0.0019); higher mean birth weight (p<0.0001) of babies; large for gestational age infants (p=0.0011); macrosomia (p=0.0186); and admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (p=0.0003), compared with the control group. However, the rates of Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes, respiratory distress syndrome, neonatal hypoglycemia, hyperbilirubinemia and the need for phototherapy were similar in both groups of patients. Congenital anomalies and perinatal mortality rates were not significantly different in the two groups. CONCLUSION: GDM is recognized to be associated with increased rates of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes, which are supported by the findings of this study. Even the mild form of GDM seems to have significant consequences for women and their offspring and is recommended to be aggressively treated. Evidence suggests that early diagnosis and strict control of blood sugar levels throughout the pregnancy can significantly reduce maternal and fetal complications. A multicenter, randomized controlled trial, based on universally accepted criteria for GDM screening test, standardized diagnostic OGTT and management of all patients with GDM versus the standard obstetric management of the control is warranted.

Project description:BackgroundThere is lack of ideal and comprehensive economic evaluations of various GDM strategies. The aim of this study is to the compare efficacy and cost-effectiveness of five different methods of screening for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM).MethodsThis study is a randomized community non-inferiority trial among 30,000 pregnant women in five different geographic regions of Iran, who were randomly assigned to one of the five GDM screening methods. All first trimester pregnant women, seeking prenatal care in governmental health care systems, who met our eligibility criteria were enrolled. The criteria suggested by the International-Association-of-Diabetes-in-Pregnancy-Study-Group, the most intensive approach, were used as reference. We used the non-inferiority approach to compare less intensive strategies to the reference one. Along with routine prenatal standard care, all participants were scheduled to have two phases of GDM screening in first and second-trimester of pregnancy, based on five different pre-specified protocols. The screening protocol included fasting plasma glucose in the first trimester and either a one step or a two-step screening method in the second trimester of pregnancy. Pregnant women were classified in three groups based on the results: diagnosed with preexisting pre-gestational overt diabetes; gestational diabetes and non-GDM women. Each group received packages for standard-care and all participants were followed till delivery; pregnancy outcomes, quality of life and cost of health care were recorded in detail using specific standardized questionnaires. Primary outcomes were defined as % birth-weight > 90th percentile and primary cesarean section. In addition, we assessed the direct health care direct and indirect costs.ResultsThis study will enable us to compare the cost effectiveness of different GDM screening protocols and intervention intensity (low versus high).ConclusionResults which if needed, will also enable policy makers to optimize the national GMD strategy as a resource for enhancing GDM guidelines.Trial registration Name of the registry: Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials. Trial registration number: IRCT138707081281N1. Date of registration: 2017-02-15. URL of trial registry record: https://www.irct.ir/trial/518.

Project description:BackgroundThe increasing prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a major challenge, particularly in rural areas of China where control rates are suboptimal. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a GDM subsidy program in promoting GDM screening and management in these underserved regions.MethodsThis multicenter, randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted in obstetric clinics of six rural hospitals located in three provinces in China. Eligible participants were pregnant women in 24-28 weeks' gestation, without overt diabetes, with a singleton pregnancy, access to a telephone, and provided informed consent. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either the intervention or control groups using an internet-based, computer-generated randomization system. The intervention group received subsidized care for GDM, which included screening, blood glucose retesting, and lifestyle management, with financial assistance provided to health care providers. In contrast, the control group received usual care. The primary outcomes of this study were the combined maternal and neonatal complications associated with GDM, as defined by the occurrence of at least one pre-defined complication in either the mother or newborn. The secondary outcomes included the GDM screening rate, rates of glucose retesting for pregnant women diagnosed with GDM, dietary patterns, physical activity levels, gestational weight gain, and antenatal visit frequency for exploratory purposes. Primary and secondary outcomes were obtained for all participants with and without GDM. Binary outcomes were analyzed by the generalized linear model with a link of logistic, and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported. Count outcomes were analyzed by Poisson regression, and incidence rate ratios with 95% CIs were reported.ResultsA total of 3294 pregnant women were randomly assigned to either the intervention group (n = 1649) or the control group (n = 1645) between 15 September 2018 and 30 September 2019. The proportion of pregnant women in the intervention group who suffered from combined maternal and/or neonatal complications was lower than in the control group with adjusted OR = 0.86 (0.80 to 0.94, P = 0.001), and a more significant difference was observed in the GDM subgroup (adjusted OR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.95, P = 0.025). No predefined safety or adverse events of ketosis or ketoacidosis associated with GDM management were detected in this study. Both the intervention and control groups had high GDM screening rates (intervention: 97.2% [1602/1649]; control: 94.5% [1555/1645], P < 0.001). Moreover, The intervention group showed a healthier lifestyle, with lower energy intake and more walking minutes (P values < 0.05), and more frequent blood glucose testing (1.5 vs. 0.4 visits; P = 0.001) compared to the control group.ConclusionIn rural China, a GDM care program that provided incentives for both pregnant women and healthcare providers resulted in improved maternal and neonatal health outcomes. Public health subsidy programs in China should consider incorporating GDM screening and management to further enhance reproductive health.Trial registrationChina Clinical Trials Registry ChiCTR1800017488. https://www.chictr.org.cn/.

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).