An evaluation of two different screening criteria in gestational diabetes mellitus

A Review on Research Progress in the Application of Glycosylated Hemoglobin and Glycated Albumin in the Screening and Monitoring of Gestational Diabetes

Glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1C) and glycated albumin (GA) can be used for blood glucose management of a person with diabetes as a result of their convenience and stability. However, there is no corresponding standard for the application of glycosylated hemoglobin and glycosylated albumin in gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). In this review, we summarize the published research and discuss three aspects of the significance of HBA1C and GA in GDM patients: screening of gestational diabetes mellitus, blood glucose monitoring and the relationship with pregnancy outcome. At present, studies suggest that HBA1C can be used as a screening indicator for pregnant women, but it cannot completely replace OGTT. HbA1C and GA can be used for blood glucose management in patients with GDM to reduce the incidence of GDM complications. However, the application of HBA1C and GA in GDM still needs more research and clinical practice support.

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.

The prevalence and risk factors of gestational diabetes mellitus in Turkey: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To identify the prevalence and related risk factors of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) based on studies on the condition conducted in Turkey.

METHODS

The study is a systematic review and meta-analysis and was conducted over the period November-December 2017 by performing a search of the Turkish and English literature. The international databases were accessed using the keywords "gestational diabetes" and "Turkey" and the national databases were scanned using the word groups, "gestational diabetes", "diabetes in pregnancy", "pregnancy and diabetes," and "pregnancy diabetes". Forty-one complete articles on research carried out in Turkey over the period 2004-2016 and published in 2006-2018 on the prevalence of GDM and/or a reported risk factor were included in the study. Combined percentage calculations were employed to determine GDM prevalence.

RESULTS

It was found in this systematic review and meta-analysis of the studies examined that out of the total of 50,767 pregnant women included in the studies, 3891 had GDM. Based on these data, combined GDM prevalence was calculated as 7.7% (range: 1.9-27.9%). It was observed that the highest combined GDM prevalence was 17.6% in the black Sea Region and the lowest was 5.1% in the Central Anatolian Region. Fourteen risk factors had been reported as statistically significant in the studies included in the systematic review. The most commonly reported of these was advanced maternal age, being overweight prior to pregnancy, gaining weight in pregnancy, diabetes in the family, a history of GDM or giving birth to a large baby.

CONCLUSIONS

It was observed in this meta-analysis that the prevalence of GDM in Turkey is notably high and risk factors are similar to what has been reported in current international literature. The continuation of routine screening tests to detect GDM may contribute to controlling the condition while ensuring that risk groups take special preventive measures and mother-child health is protected.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Results of this study might be used in the organization of prenatal care, especially high-risk pregnant women for GDM. Nursing researchers and health care managers should consider this situation in the implementing of prenatal care serving.

Risk factors for gestational diabetes mellitus among women screened with the two-step and one-step methods: A before-and-after study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the risk profiles for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) using a one-step and two-step screening method and diagnostic criteria.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted among women screened using Carpenter and Coustan's (C&C) criteria (two-step method) and the International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria (one-step method). All deliveries after 28 weeks of gestation, except for pregnancies complicated by pre-pregnancy diabetes mellitus, were analyzed. Multiple logistic regression was used to assess the associations between GDM and various potential risk factors.

RESULTS

Risk factors for C&C-defined GDM were pre-pregnancy body mass index >24.2 kg/m² (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.92-3.23), maternal age at delivery >34 years (adjusted OR 2.46, 95% CI 1.96-3.09), history of fetal death (adjusted OR 2.56, 95% CI 1.37-4.78), and chronic hypertension (adjusted OR 3.66, 95% CI 1.50-8.91). In addition to these factors, conception assisted by reproductive technology (adjusted OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.19-2.25) and genetic amniocentesis (adjusted OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.03-1.38) were IADPSG-defined GDM risk factors.

CONCLUSION

Risk factors for GDM differ with the diagnostic criteria used. This information is important when changing GDM screening strategies from the two-step approach to the one-step approach.

Screening for gestational diabetes in low-risk women: effect of maternal age

Background Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is on the rise globally and there are various screening guidelines with regard to patients' criteria. Materials and methods We conducted a prospective cross-sectional study to determine the prevalence of GDM amongst low-risk pregnant women above the age of 25 years. A modified glucose tolerance test (MGTT) was performed between 24 and 36 weeks of gestation. Women with GDM were divided into two groups for analysis: age between 25 and 34 years (group A) and above 35 years (group B). They were managed as per hospital protocol and followed-up until delivery. The women's demographic data, treatment and subsequent pregnancy outcomes were analysed. Results The overall prevalence of GDM in our low-risk women was 14%. GDM was less common in the younger age group (25-34 years) in comparison to those aged above 35 years (9.7% vs. 26.3%, p = 0.001). There was a non-significant increase in the induction of labour (IOL) rate amongst those aged below 35 years compared to the older group (46.7 % vs. 38.5%). The insulin requirement in the age group 25-34 years and above 35 years, were 6.7% and 23.1%, respectively. There was no significant difference between both age groups with regard to caesarean delivery, birth weight above the 95th centile and neonatal hypoglycaemia. Conclusion In low-risk women, the prevalence of GDM is significantly lower in those aged less than 35 years. Diagnosing GDM had resulted in the increment of IOL in this group, although with no significant increase in maternal and neonatal morbidity.