The new gestational diabetes: Treatment, evidence and consent

Various screening and diagnosis approaches for gestational diabetes mellitus and adverse pregnancy outcomes: a secondary analysis of a randomized non-inferiority field trial

INTRODUCTION

We evaluate which screening and diagnostic approach resulted in the greatest reduction in adverse pregnancy outcomes due to increased treatment.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This study presents a secondary analysis of a randomized community non-inferiority trial conducted among pregnant women participating in the GULF Study in Iran. A total of 35 430 pregnant women were randomly assigned to one of the five prespecified gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) screening protocols. The screening methods included fasting plasma glucose (FPG) in the first trimester and either a one-step or a two-step screening method in the second trimester of pregnancy. According to the results, participants were classified into 6 groups (1) First-trimester FPG: 100-126 mg/dL, GDM diagnosed at first trimester; (2) First trimester FPG: 92-99.9 mg/dL, GDM diagnosed at first trimester; (3) First trimester FPG: 92-99.9 mg/dL, GDM diagnosed at second trimester; (4) First trimester FPG: 92-99.9 mg/dL, healthy at second trimester; (5) First trimester FPG<92 mg/dL, GDM diagnosed at second trimester; (6) First trimester FPG<92 mg/dL, healthy at second trimester. For our analysis, we initially used group 6, as the reference and repeated the analysis using group 2, as the reference group. The main outcome of the study was major adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes.

RESULTS

Macrosomia and primary caesarean section occurred in 9.8% and 21.0% in group 1, 7.8% and 19.8% in group 2, 5.4% and 18.6% in group 3, 6.6% and 21.5% in group 4, 8.3% and 24.0% in group 5, and 5.4% and 20.0% in group 6, respectively. Compared with group 6 as the reference, there was a significant increase in the adjusted risk of neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission in groups 1, 3, and 5 and an increased risk of macrosomia in groups 1, 2, and 5. Compared with group 2 as the reference, there was a significant decrease in the adjusted risk of macrosomia in group 3, a decreased risk of NICU admission in group 6, and an increased risk of hyperglycemia in group 3.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that screening approaches for GDM reduced the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes to the same or near the same risk level of healthy pregnant women, except for the risk of NICU admission that increased significantly in groups diagnosed with GDM compared with healthy pregnant women. Individuals with slight increase in FPG (92-100 mg/dL) at first trimester, who were diagnosed as GDM, had an even increased risk of macrosomia in comparison to those group of women with FPG 92-100 mg/dL in the first trimester, who were not diagnosed with GDM, and developed GDM in second trimester TRIAL REGISTRATION: IRCT138707081281N1 (registered: February 15, 2017).

Benefits and harms associated with an increase in gestational diabetes diagnosis in Queensland, Australia: a retrospective cohort comparison of diagnosis rates, outcomes, interventions and medication use for two periods, 2011-2013 and 2016-2018, using a large perinatal database

OBJECTIVES

To assess benefits and harms arising from increasing gestational diabetes (GDM) diagnosis, including for women with normal-sized babies.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Diagnosis rates, outcomes, interventions and medication use are compared in a retrospective cohort study of 229 757 women birthing in public hospitals of the Australian State of Queensland during two periods, 2011-2013 and 2016-2018, using data from the Queensland Perinatal Data Collection.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Comparisons include hypertensive disorders, caesarean section, shoulder dystocia and associated harm, induction of labour (IOL), planned birth (PB), early planned birth <39 weeks (EPB), spontaneous labour onset with vaginal birth (SLVB) and medication use.

RESULTS

GDM diagnosis increased from 7.8% to 14.3%. There was no improvement in shoulder dystocia associated injuries, hypertensive disorders or caesarean sections. There was an increase in IOL (21.8%-30.0%; p<0.001), PB (36.3% to 46.0%; p<0.001) and EPB (13.5%-20.6%; p<0.001), and a decrease in SLVB (56.0%-47.3%; p<0.001). Women with GDM experienced an increase in IOL (40.9%-49.8%; p<0.001), PB (62.9% to 71.8%; p<0.001) and EPB (35.3%-45.7%; p<0.001), and a decrease in SLVB (30.01%-23.6%; p<0.001), with similar changes for mothers with normal-sized babies. Of women prescribed insulin in 2016-2018, 60.4% experienced IOL, 88.5% PB, 76.4% EPB and 8.0% SLVB. Medication use increased from 41.2% to 49.4% in women with GDM, from 3.2% to 7.1% in the antenatal population overall, from 3.3% to 7.5% in women with normal-sized babies and from 2.21% to 4.38% with babies less than the 10th percentile.

CONCLUSION

Outcomes were not apparently improved with increased GDM diagnosis. The merits of increased IOL or decreased SLVB depend on the views of individual women, but categorising more pregnancies as abnormal, and exposing more babies to the potential effects of early birth, medication effects and growth limitation may be harmful.

CGMS profile of women diagnosed as GDM by IADPSG criteria and labelled as normoglycemic by alternate criteria in early pregnancy

AIMS/INTRODUCTION

We aimed to evaluate and compare CGMS-based glycemic parameters in women in early pregnancy (<20 weeks of gestation) who were classified as: a) GDM by IADPSG but normoglycemia by alternate (UK NICE, CDA and DIPSI) criteria, and b) normoglycemia by both (IADPSG and alternate) criteria.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, eligible women underwent standard 75-g OGTT, followed by the placement of a CGMS. Glycemia-related parameters were calculated using the standard approach for CGMS data in pregnancy.

RESULTS

We enrolled 96 women at 14.0 ± 3.2 weeks of gestation. Of the women diagnosed as GDM by IADPSG criteria, 34.2%, 26.3% and 44.7% were classified as normoglycemic by UK NICE, CDA and DIPSI criteria, respectively. Mean 1-h postprandial glucose and time above range were significantly higher in women who were GDM by IADPSG, but normoglycemia by CDA criteria, compared to women with normoglycemia using both criteria. Similarly, mean 1-h postprandial glucose, 2-h postprandial glucose, peak postprandial glucose, 1-hr postprandial glucose excursion and time above range were significantly higher in women who were not identified as GDM by UK NICE criteria. Finally, women missed by DIPSI criteria had significantly higher mean 1-h postprandial glucose, 2-h postprandial glucose, peak postprandial glucose, postprandial glucose excursion, 24-h glucose, and time above range parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

More than a quarter of women diagnosed as GDM by IADPSG criteria are not identified by alternate criteria. Such women are significantly different from normoglycemic women in terms of several CGMS-based glycemic parameters of clinical significance.