Abnormal glucose tolerance in women with prior gestational diabetes mellitus: a 4-year follow-up study.

BACKGROUND: Adoption of the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Group (IADPSG) criteria for diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) varies worldwide. Early detection of women at increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) following GDM enables initiation of measures to delay disease onset. OBJECTIVES: To determine the 4-year cumulative incidence and risk factors for developing abnormal glucose tolerance (AGT) among women with previous GDM using modified IADPSG criteria. Additionally, to review post-natal attendance at diabetes screening and the impact of post-partum lifestyle modifications and breastfeeding on the risk of T2DM development. METHODS: Four hundred twenty-six women with a prior history of GDM were invited to participate in the study, 4 years after the index pregnancy. The following were completed: body measurements, oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), vitamin D, and other biochemistry measurements. Participants also completed a lifestyle questionnaire. RESULTS: Of the 74 women who participated, 15 (20%) had AGT. Predictive factors for AGT development were as follows: fasting glucose levels (p = 0.004), HbA1c (p = 0.008) at GDM diagnosis, and early pregnancy BMI (p = 0.001). Thirty-three (45%) women had not attended their postnatal screening. The odds ratio of the association between breastfeeding and AGT development was 0.16 (95% CI: 0.05 to 0.53). CONCLUSION: The proportion of women who develop AGT after a diagnosis of GDM remains high. The factors associated with progression to AGT are available at GDM diagnosis. Preventing AGT in this group is possible by supporting breastfeeding. Attendance at post-natal screening should also be encouraged.

Screening of GDM during COVID pandemic in an Italian setting: comparison between IADPSG and WHO '99 criteria.

BACKGROUND: During pandemic period, a single fast glycemia value (≥ 92 mg/dl) performed within the recommended time window for the risk level defined by the Italian guidelines, was considered an acceptable surrogate for GDM diagnosis following Italian Diabetes Association recomendations. METHODS: All pregnant women who performed an OGTT following Italian Guidelines from march 2020 to september 2021 and then delivered at our University Hospital were prospectively enrolled in this study. Primary outcome of the study was the number of women diagnosed with GDM with only the FPG value (≥ 92 mg/dl), following Italian Diabetes Societies recommendations for COVID 19 pandemic period. At the same time, the data of women who became diabetic according to the 1999 WHO criteria was collected too. The secondary outcome was the comparison of risk factors of women undergoing OGTT according to IADPSG and WHO'99 criteria for the diagnosis of GDM and associated clinical outcomes. RESULTS: The number of women with a diagnosis of GDM following Italian guidelines in the 18-month period considered was 161. Only 109 (67.7%) had a fast glucose value ≥ 92 mg/dl. No differences between IADPSG and WHO'99 groups in relation to risk factors, with the exception for overweight and obesity, and clinical outcomes. CONCLUSION: Recommendations of Italian Diabetes Societis for COVID 19 pandemic failed to recognize one third of GDM diagnosis. Clinical Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov, www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov , NCT05026840, August 30, 2021, 'retrospectively registered'.

Progression to type 2 diabetes mellitus after gestational diabetes mellitus diagnosed by IADPSG criteria: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: To estimate the progression rates to type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) diagnosed by the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Group (IADPSG) criteria. Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted by searching Medline, Embase, and Cochrane between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2021 for observational studies investigating progression to T2DM after GDM. Inclusion criteria were IADPSG-diagnosed GDM, studies with both GDM and controls, postpartum follow-up duration at least one year. Data were pooled by random effects meta-analysis models. Heterogeneity was assessed by I2 statistic. The pooled relative risk for incidence of T2DM and pre-diabetes between GDM participants and controls were estimated. Reasons for heterogeneity among studies were investigated by prespecified subgroup and meta-regression analysis. Publication bias was assessed by the Begg's and Egger's tests. Results: This meta-analysis of six studies assessed a total of 61932 individuals (21978 women with GDM and 39954 controls). Women with IADPSG-diagnosed GDM were 6.43 times (RR=6.43, 95% CI:3.45-11.96) more likely to develop T2DM in the future compared with controls. For GDM women, the cumulative incidence of T2DM was 12.1% (95% CI: 6.9%-17.3%), while the pooled cumulative incidence of T2DM was estimated to be 8% (95% CI: 5-11%) in studies with 1 to 5 years of follow-up and increased to 19% (95% CI: 3-34%) for studies with more than 5 years of follow-up. Women with IADPSG-diagnosed GDM had 3.69 times (RR=3.69, 95% CI:2.70-5.06) higher risk of developing pre-diabetes (including impaired fasting glucose and/or impaired glucose tolerance) than controls. Meta-regression analysis showed that the study effect size was not significantly associated with study design, race, length of follow-up, and maternal age (P>0.05). Overall, the studies had a relatively low risk of bias. Conclusions: Women with IADPSG-diagnosed GDM have higher risk of developing T2DM and pre-diabetes. The risk of T2DM in GDM women are higher with longer follow-up duration. Our results highlight the importance of promoting postpartum screening and keeping health lifestyle as well as pharmacological interventions to delay/prevent the onset of T2DM/pre-diabetes in GDM women. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero, identifier (CRD42022314776).

Association between number of abnormal glucose values and severity of fasting plasma glucose in IADPSG criteria and maternal outcomes in women with gestational diabetes mellitus.

AIMS: The International Association for Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group (IADPSG) criteria recommend a single-step diagnostic oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) for diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). The aim of this study was to examine the association between the number of abnormal glucose values and levels of FPG with pregnancy outcomes. METHODS: Pregnant women (n=1,044) were screened for GDM at maternity centers in South India using IADPSG criteria. OGTTs were classified based on the number of abnormal glucose values (any one value or more than one value high) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) values (<92mg/dl,92-100mg/dl,>100mg/dl) and correlated with pregnancy outcomes. Odds ratio were adjusted for age, BMI, gestational week at diagnosis, family history of diabetes, previous history of GDM, gestational week at delivery and birth weight. For macrosomia and large for gestation age, birth weight was excluded from the model. RESULTS: Risk of caesarean section was significantly higher in women with any one abnormal glucose value (OR: 1.49; 95%CI: 1.07-2.09). This further increased in those with >1 value (OR: 1.35; 95%CI: 0.87-2.10), when compared to women with all values normal. Risk of large for gestation age (LGA) was higher in women with FPG 92-100mg/dl (OR: 1.37; 95%CI: 0.80-2.35) and in those with FPG >100mg/dl (OR: 1.87; 95%CI: 1.04-3.35), compared to those with FPG <92mg/dl. CONCLUSIONS: The risk for poor pregnancy outcomes starts in those with one abnormal value in the OGTT or with FPG >92mg/dl but becomes significantly higher in those with higher abnormal values.

Increasing prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus when implementing the IADPSG criteria: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: Quantify the proportional increase in gestational diabetes (GDM) prevalence when implementing the new International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria compared to prior GDM criteria, and to assess risk factors that might affect the change in prevalence. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed of cohort and cross-sectional studies between January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2018 among pregnant women with GDM using IADPSG criteria compared to, and stratified by, old GDM criteria. Web of science, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Open Grey and Grey literature reports were included. The relative risk for each study was calculated. Subgroup analyses were performed by maternal age, body mass index, study design, country of publication, screening method, sampling method and data stratified according to diagnostic criteria. RESULTS: Thirty-one cohort and cross-sectional studies with 136 705 women were included. Implementing the IADPSG criteria was associated with a 75% (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.53-2.01) increase in number of women with GDM with evidence of heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: The IADPSG criteria increase the prevalence of GDM, but allow movement towards more homogeneity. More studies are needed of the benefits, harms, psychological effects and health costs of implementing the IADPSG criteria.

Glycemic profile of women with normoglycemia and gestational diabetes mellitus during early pregnancy using continuous glucose monitoring system.

AIM: We studied women between 8 and 20 weeks of gestation with the aim of evaluating and comparing those having normoglycemia and GDM according to WHO 2013 criteria. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study (2017-2019), eligible pregnant women underwent a 75-g OGTT, followed by placement of a CGMS. RESULTS: Women (n = 96, 58 with normoglycemia and 38 with GDM) were enrolled at 14.0 ± 3.2 weeks of gestation. Mean preprandial, 1-h and 2-h postprandial and peak glucose values were significantly higher in women with GDM. Peak glucose value was achieved 60.0 ± 12.3 and 64.3 ± 11.6 min after meal in the normoglycemia and GDM group, respectively. 24-h mean glucose (5.8 ± 0.6 vs. 5.3 ± 0.4 mmol/L), mean daytime glucose (6.0 ± 0.6 vs. 5.5 ± 0.4 mmol/L) and mean nocturnal glucose (5.4 ± 0.7 vs. 5.0 0 ± 0.5 mmol/L) were significantly higher in women with GDM. Total time spent in range was significantly lower in the GDM group compared to the normoglycemia group (92.1 vs. 98.2%). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights differences in glycemic patterns between women with normoglycemia and GDM in the context of a South Asian population where burden of GDM is high but good quality data in early pregnancy are limited.

Change in prevalence of gestational diabetes and obstetric complications when applying IADPSG screening criteria in a Belgian French speaking University Hospital. A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In April 2012 our institution chose to switch from a two- step criteria for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM) screening, to the International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group (IADSPG) criteria. This shift led to an increased prevalence of GDM in our pregnant population. We designed a study in order to estimate the magnitude of the increase in GDM prevalence before and after the switch in screening strategy. As a secondary objective we wanted to evaluate if there was a significant difference between the two periods in the percentage of maternal and neonatal complications such as gestational hypertensive disorders (GHD), primary cesarean section (pCS), preterm birth, large for gestational age (LGA) newborns, macrosomia, shoulder dystocia, 5' Apgar score less than to 7 at birth, neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) transfer and neonatal hypoglycemia. METHODS: We selected retrospectively 3496 patients who delivered between January 2009 and December 2011 who were screened with the two-step criteria (group A), and compared them to 2555 patients who delivered between January 2013 and December 2014 and who were screened with IADPSG criteria (Group B). We checked patients' electronic files to establish GDM status, baseline characteristics (age, body mass index, nationality, parity) and the presence of maternal and neonatal complications. RESULTS: GDM prevalence increased significantly from group A (3.4%; 95%CI 2.8-4.06%) to group B (16.28%; 95%CI 14.8 -17.7%). In group B there were significantly more non-Belgian and primiparous patients. There was no statistically significant difference in maternal and neonatal complications between the two groups, even after adjustment for nationality and parity. There was a non-significant reduction of the proportion of macrosomic and of LGA babies. CONCLUSIONS: In our population the introduction of IADPSG screening criteria has increased the prevalence of GDM without having a statistically significant impact on pregnancy outcomes.

First trimester prediction of gestational diabetes mellitus using plasma biomarkers: a case-control study.

Objectives To evaluate the first trimester maternal biomarkers for early pregnancy prediction of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). Methods The study was a case-control study of healthy women with singleton pregnancies at the first trimester carried out at the Obstetrics and Gynecology Unit, Clinica Davila, Santiago, Chile. After obtaining informed consent, peripheral blood samples of pregnant women under 14 weeks of gestation were collected. At 24-28 weeks of pregnancy, women were classified as GDM (n=16) or controls (n=80) based on the results of a 75-g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). In all women, we measured concentrations of fasting blood glucose, insulin, glycated hemoglobin, uric acid, cholesterol, high density lipoprotein (HDL), low density lipoprotein (LDL), very low density lipoprotein (VLDL), triglycerides, aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), γ-glutamyl transpeptidase (GGT), alkaline phosphatase (AP), sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG), adiponectin, tissue plasminogen activator (t-PA), leptin and placental growth factor (PGF). Results The GDM group displayed an increased median concentration of cholesterol (P=0.04), triglycerides (P=0.003), insulin (P=0.003), t-PA (P=0.0088) and homeostatic model assessment (HOMA) (P=0.003) and an increased mean concentration of LDL (P=0.009) when compared to the control group. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for significant variables achieved an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.870, a sensitivity of 81.4% and a specificity of 80.0%. The OGTT was positive for GDM according to the IADPSG (International Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group) criteria. Conclusion Women who subsequently developed GDM showed higher levels of blood-borne biomarkers during the first trimester, compared to women who did not develop GDM. These data warrant validation in a larger cohort.

Prevalence and risk factors of gestational diabetes mellitus: findings from a universal screening feasibility program in Lima, Peru.

BACKGROUND: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a global public health concern with potential implications for the health of a mother and her offspring. However, data on the prevalence and risk factors of GDM in Latin America are scarce. The study was designed to estimate the prevalence of GDM and identify maternal risk factors among Peruvian women. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted among 1300 pregnant women attending a prenatal clinic in Lima, Peru. GDM was diagnosed using an Oral Glucose Tolerance Test (OGTT) performed between 24 and 28 gestational weeks using the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria. Depression status was assessed using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to identify risk factors of GDM. RESULTS: Approximately 16% of pregnant women were diagnosed with GDM. The prevalence of obesity and depression were 24.4 and 10.6%, respectively. After adjusting for confounders, mid-pregnancy obesity was associated with a 1.64-fold increased odds of GDM (OR: 1.64; 95% CI: 1.03-2.61). Participants with a family history of diabetes had a 1.5-fold increased odds of developing GDM (OR: 1.51, 95% CI: 1.10-2.07) as compared to women without this family history. Depression was associated with a 1.54-fold increased odds of GDM (OR: 1.54; 95% CI:1.09-2.17). CONCLUSIONS: GDM is highly prevalent and was associated with maternal obesity, family history of diabetes and antepartum depression among Peruvian women. Intervention programs aimed at early diagnoses and management of GDM need to take maternal obesity, family history of diabetes and antepartum depression into account.

Should the IADPSG criteria be applied when diagnosing early-onset gestational diabetes?

AIMS: To investigate whether the broad interpretation of the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria with application to the early pregnancy, which is adopted as the standard in Japan, is appropriate. METHODS: We conducted this investigation by comparing diabetes-related adverse pregnancy outcomes among women treated for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) following an early-pregnancy diagnosis (early-onset GDM, n = 528) and those treated for GDM following a mid-pregnancy diagnosis, which is the international standard (Mid-term-onset GDM, n = 147). RESULTS: Gestational weight gain was significantly lower in the early-onset GDM group (7.5 kg) than in the mid-term-onset GDM group (8.4 kg). The frequency of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy tended to be lower in the early-onset GDM group (5.6% vs. 8.8%, p = 0.085), but infant birth weight did not differ significantly between the groups. No between-group difference was observed in macrosomia, large-for-gestational-age (LGA), small-for-gestational age (SGA), low Apgar score, shoulder dystocia, cesarean delivery, NICU admission, hyperbilirubinemia, neonatal hypoglycemia, or respiratory distress syndrome. The frequency of LGA showed a significant association with pre-pregnancy body mass index, but did not differ according to the timing of therapy initiation. CONCLUSIONS: We could not find the effectiveness of therapeutic interventions initiated after GDM diagnosis in the early pregnancy based on the IADPSG criteria, compared with therapeutic interventions after a mid-pregnancy GDM diagnosis. It was suggested that the IADPSG criteria for diagnosing GDM at 24-28 weeks' gestation should not be applied to Japanese women in the early pregnancy by a broader interpretation.

An evaluation of two different screening criteria in gestational diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to identify the gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) prevalence difference according to American Diabetes Association (ADA) criteria and International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Group (IADPSG) criteria for 75 g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). METHODS: This study was conducted at Erciyes University Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology. A total of 320 pregnant who met the criteria were included in the study and 75 g OGTT was applied. Irrespective of the first results, the test was applied to most participants 2 weeks later. RESULTS: The GDM prevalence was found to be 9.1% according to the ADA criteria and 19.4% according to the IADPSG criteria. According to the ADA criteria, GDM prevalence was found to be statistically significantly high (p < .05) in patients with risk factors. According to the IADPSG criteria no relationship was found between GDM prevalence and any of the risk factors (p > .05). The patients diagnosed with GDM were observed not to reach the threshold levels for HbA1c. CONCLUSION: According to the IADPSG criteria, GDM prevalence doubles and leads to an increase in healthcare costs and workloads. HbA1c has no role in the diagnosis of GDM.

The IADPSG diagnostic criteria identify women with increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes in Victoria.

Controversy remains surrounding International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Group (IADPSG) diagnostic criteria for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), including perceived improvement in perinatal outcomes and health service implications. We compared perinatal outcomes for untreated women meeting IADPSG-only criteria and women without GDM in Victoria. Women meeting IADPSG-only criteria were characterised according to fasting and one hour glucose thresholds and by region of birth. IADPSG criteria identified women with increased risk of adverse perinatal outcomes, particularly women born in Australia compared to Asian regions.

Prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus evaluated by universal screening with a 75-g, 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test and IADPSG criteria.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and its association with maternal age among Turkish women diagnosed by International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Group (IADPSG) criteria. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted in 2013-2015 among non-diabetic pregnant women aged 18-49 years who were universally screened for GDM by IADPSG criteria. The percentage of women meeting each diagnostic threshold and the prevalence of GDM by age group were calculated. Linear trends were evaluated by logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 1434 women screened, 159 (11.1%, 95% confidence interval 9.5%-12.7%) were diagnosed with GDM; eleven of these women had been diagnosed according to a fasting glucose level in the first trimester. The prevalence of GDM was 6.6% (10/151), 7.3% (37/507), 8.8% (42/479), 16.7% (45/270), and 35.2% (25/71) among women aged younger than 25, 25-29, 30-34, 35-39, and 40 years or older, respectively. GDM prevalence increased with age (P<0.001). The numbers of women diagnosed with GDM in the second trimester who exceeded one, two, and three thresholds of the 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test were 66 (44.6%), 52 (35.1%), and 30 (20.3%), respectively. CONCLUSION: Prevalence of GDM was correlated with maternal age. Most women diagnosed in the second trimester exceeded the threshold at only one of the three timepoints.

Analysis of the main risk factors for gestational diabetes diagnosed with International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria in multiple pregnancies.

INTRODUCTION: The aim is to investigate the proportion of multiple pregnancies with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) diagnosed using the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria and to identify the impact of age, body mass index (BMI), and mode of conception on incidence of GDM. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a single center, retrospective cohort study on 656 multiple pregnancies screened for GDM with 75-g, 2-h oral glucose tolerance test at 24-28 weeks of gestation, between January 2010 and January 2016. The diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) was reached through the IADPSG. RESULTS: The incidence of GDM in our population was 15.1%. When patients who conceived through heterologous assisted reproduction technology were compared with those who conceived spontaneously, there was a significant difference for GDM (31.1 vs 13.6%, p < 0.001, OR 2.86). A similar finding was also observed comparing egg donation IVF/ICSI patients with homologous IVF/ICSI patients (31.1 vs 14.8%, p = 0.006, OR 2.59). Incidence of GDM was significantly higher in obese than in non-obese patients (42.5 vs 14.8%, p < 0.001, OR 4.88) and in women over 35 compared to younger patients (18.4 vs 11.1%, p = 0.01, OR 1.81). Logistic regression comparing the diabetes onset with conception mode gave a p = 0.07. The calculation of the Chi-square and odds ratio for single mode of conception showed that homologous vs conceived spontaneously p = 0.90, OR 0.97, heterologous vs homologous p = 0.01 with OR 2.46, and heterologous vs conceived spontaneously p = 0.01 with OR 2.39. Logistic regression showed that age and BMI are risk factors for developing GDM, respectively, p = 0.03 with OR 1.4 and p < 0.01 and OR 1.09. DISCUSSION: The contribution our study can make is improved counseling about GDM risks for couples with multiple pregnancies. Our data support the role of age, BMI, and mode of conception as risk factors for GDM in multiple pregnancies.

Maternal and neonatal outcomes in a treated versus non- treated cohort of women with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus according to the HAPO 5 and 4 criteria.

BACKGROUND: Our aim was to evaluate the treatment effect of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) according to the Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome group (HAPO) screening. RESULTS: The prevalence of GDM, using HAPO 5 was 23.8%. Of these, 72.8% were treated. Comparison of outcomes between treated and untreated patients showed no differences. The prevalence of GDM according to HAPO 4 criteria was 16.9%. In the untreated group, there were more cases of (pre)eclampsia (P=0.038), more admissions to neonatal care department (P=0.036), pregnancy duration was shorter (P=0.05), and Apgar score at five minutes was significantly lower (P=0.019). The outcomes didn't differ in the MAGG (midly aberrant glycemic group). CONCLUSIONS: Using HAPO 5 criteria in population-based screening doubled the prevalence of GDM. There were no differences between untreated and treated HAPO 5 and MAGG patients, while in the HAPO 4 group there might be a trend of therapy effectiveness.

A Comparison of Pregnancy Outcomes Using Two Diagnostic Criteria for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus-Carpenter Coustan Criteria and International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) Criteria.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the maternal and perinatal outcomes in women with GDM diagnosed by Carpenter & Coustan (CC) criteria and by the International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria. METHODOLOGY: A cross-sectional comparative study was conducted using data of women who were screened and diagnosed with GDM between April 2006-March 2007 using the CC criteria and April 2013-March 2014 using IADPSG criteria. Maternal and perinatal outcomes were noted. Means and proportions were calculated for continuous and categorical variables respectively. Data were analyzed using t-test for normally distributed data and Mann-Whitney U test for those that were not normally distributed. Pearson Chi-square test was used to find an association between the various outcomes between the two groups. RESULTS: Among 500 pregnant women screened, 36 were diagnosed GDM in the CC group. In the IADPSG group, 733 women were screened and 167 were diagnosed GDM. Prevalence of GDM was 7.2% in CC group and 22.78% in IADPSG group (p=0.000). There was a statistically significant difference in the number of women who developed hypertension and polyhydramnios among the two groups. Women who had an operative vaginal delivery (16.67% vs. 6.6%, p=0.085) and mean birth weight (3.10 ± 0.55 kg vs. 2.97 ± 0.48 kg, p=0.165) were higher in CC group than the IADPSG group. Among the perinatal outcomes, a statistically significant improvement was found in the number of neonates developing respiratory distress syndrome (p=0.000) and hyperbilirubinemia (p=0.000), when the IADPSG criteria were used. CONCLUSIONS: There is a statistically significant difference between the maternal and neonatal outcomes when the newer IADPSG criteria were used for diagnosis of GDM.

Fourfold increase in prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus after adoption of the new International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria.

BACKGROUND: The aim was to evaluate the influence of the new International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) guidelines for screening of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) on GDM prevalence in a cohort from a Swiss tertiary hospital. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study involving all pregnant women who were screened for GDM between 24 and 28 weeks of gestation. From 2008 until 2010 (period 1), a two-step approach with 1-h 50 g glucose challenge test (GCT) was used, followed by fasting, 1- and 2-h glucose measurements after a 75 g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) in case of a positive GCT. From 2010 until 2013 (period 2), all pregnant women were tested with a one-step 75 g OGTT according to new IADPSG guidelines. In both periods, women with risk factors could be screened directly with a 75 g OGTT in early pregnancy. RESULTS: Overall, 647 women were eligible for the study in period 1 and 720 in period 2. The introduction of the IADPSG criteria resulted in an absolute increase of GDM prevalence of 8.5% (3.3% in period 1 to 11.8% in period 2). CONCLUSIONS: The adoption of the IADPSG criteria resulted in a considerable increase in GDM diagnosis in our Swiss cohort. Further studies are needed to investigate if the screening is cost effective and if treatment of our additionally diagnosed GDM mothers might improve short-term as well as long-term outcome.

Diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus using the international association of the diabetes and pregnancy study groups criteria and adverse pregnancy outcomes among a cohort of Filipino women: An association analysis

Introduction@#Locally, there is no unified set of diagnostic criteria for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and this can lead to potential confusion on the part of the physician and the patient as well. Moreover, whether the adoption of the International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) threshold values for GDM diagnosis among Filipino women is appropriate is still unclear. This study serves to give a clinically important insight whether utilizing the abovementioned diagnostic criteria is appropriate in the local setting or not. The study aims to determine the association of the threshold values set up by the IADPSG to diagnose GDM with adverse pregnancy outcomes among a cohort of Filipino women.@*Methods@#A retrospective analysis of medical files of the women diagnosed with GDM using the IADPSG criteria from January 2013 to March 2016 was done. The results of seventyfive gram oral glucose tolerance test (75-g OGTT) were recorded. The association between each IADPSG threshold values (fasting blood glucose of ≥92 mg/dL, one-hour post glucose load of ≥180 mg/dL, two-hour post glucose load of ≥153 mg/dL) used to define GDM and maternal and perinatal outcomes were determined. @*Results@#One hundred twenty women with GDM were included in the analysis. Each of IADPSG-defined cut-off values was not significantly associated with increased likelihood of having adverse maternal outcomes namely: hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, miscarriage, primary cesarean section, operative vaginal delivery, and maternal death. Similarly, the likelihood of perinatal outcomes namely: macrosomia, perinatal death, prematurity, birth injuries, congenital anomalies, neonatal hypoglycemia, jaundice, low APGAR score, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and infection were not significantly higher even if these cut-off values were met. Of note, high odds ratio was noted for neonatal hypoglycemia at FBS >92 mg/dL and <92 mg/dL and the low Apgar Score in first minute at >153 mg/dL and <153 mg/dL even though they were statistically not significant. @*Conclusion@#We did not find a statistically significant positive association between IADPSG threshold values and specified adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes.

A comparison of pregnancy outcomes using two diagnostic criteria for gestational diabetes mellitus-carpenter coustan criteria and International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria / Journal of the ASEAN Federation of Endocrine Societies

Objectives@#To compare the maternal and perinatal outcomes in women with GDM diagnosed by Carpenter & Coustan (CC) criteria and by the International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria. @*Methodology@#A cross-sectional comparative study was conducted using data of women who were screened and diagnosed with GDM between April 2006-March 2007 using the CC criteria and April 2013-March 2014 using IADPSG criteria. Maternal and perinatal outcomes were noted. Means and proportions were calculated for continuous and categorical variables respectively. Data were analyzed using t-test for normally distributed data and Mann-Whitney U test for those that were not normally distributed. Pearson Chi-square test was used to find an association between the various outcomes between the two groups.@*Results@#Among 500 pregnant women screened, 36 were diagnosed GDM in the CC group. In the IADPSG group, 733 women were screened and 167 were diagnosed GDM. Prevalence of GDM was 7.2% in CC group and 22.78% in IADPSG group (p=0.000). There was a statistically significant difference in the number of women who developed hypertension and polyhydramnios among the two groups. Women who had an operative vaginal delivery (16.67% vs. 6.6%, p=0.085) and mean birth weight (3.10±0.55 kg vs. 2.97±0.48 kg, p=0.165) were higher in CC group than the IADPSG group. Among the perinatal outcomes, a statistically significant improvement was found in the number of neonates developing respiratory distress syndrome (p=0.000) and hyperbilirubinemia (p=0.000), when the IADPSG criteria were used. @*Conclusion@#There is a statistically significant difference between the maternal and neonatal outcomes when the newer IADPSG criteria were used for diagnosis of GDM.

Prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus according to IADPSG and NICE criteria.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of the International Association of Diabetic Pregnancy Study Group (IADPSG) diagnostic criteria on the prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and overt diabetes as compared with the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) criteria, and to evaluate the prevalence of maternal and perinatal outcomes among pregnant women with fasting plasma glucose (FPG) levels of 5.1-5.5 mmol/L. METHODS: A retrospective study was undertaken of data for women who underwent a 2-hour 75-g oral glucose tolerance test at 24-32 weeks of a singleton pregnancy at a center in Croatia between January 2012 and December 2014. RESULTS: Among 4646 included women, 1074 (23.1%) had GDM according to IADPSG criteria, 826 (17.8%) would be diagnosed according to NICE criteria, and 50 (1.1%) had overt diabetes. FPG levels were 5.1-5.5 mmol/L for 409 (8.8%) women. Compared with a control group (n=3391), these women had higher odds of large-for-gestational-age newborns (odds ratio 3.7, 95% CI 2.0-4.6) and cesarean delivery (odds ratio 1.8, 95% CI 1.3-2.3). CONCLUSION: Women with FPG levels of 5.1-5.5 mmol/L have an increased risk of adverse maternal and perinatal outcome, although they would not be diagnosed with GDM according to NICE criteria.