scholarly journals Screening pregnant women in a high-risk population with WHO-2013 or NICE diagnostic criteria does not affect the prevalence of gestational diabetes

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammed Bashir ◽  
Ibrahim Ibrahim ◽  
Fatin Eltaher ◽  
Stephen Beer ◽  
Khaled Baagar ◽  
...  

AbstractThere are currently several diagnostic criteria for gestational diabetes (GDM). Both the WHO -2013 and NICE diagnose GDM based on a single step 75 g OGT; however; each uses different glucose thresholds. Previous studies have shown that the prevalence of GDM using the NICE criteria (GDM-N) is lower than that using the WHO-2013 criteria (GDM-W). Qatar has national diabetes in pregnancy program in which all pregnant women undergo OGTT screening using the WHO-2013 criteria. This study aims to define the prevalence of GDM using both criteria in a high-risk population. This retrospective study included 2000 women who underwent a 75 g (OGTT) between Jan 2016 and Apr 2016 and excluded patients with known pre-conception diabetes, multiple pregnancy, and those who did not complete the OGTT. We then classified the women into GDM-W positive, GDM-N positive but GDM-W negative, and normal glucose tolerance (NGT) population. A total of 1481 women (74%) had NGT using the NICE or the WHO-2013 criteria. The number of patients who met both criteria was 279 subjects (14%) with a good agreement (Kappa coefficient 0.67, p < 0.001). The NICE and the WHO-2013 criteria were discordant in 240 subjects (12% of the cohort); 6.7% met the WHO -2013 criteria only and only 5.3% met the NICE criteria. The frequency of pre-eclampsia, pre-term delivery, Caesarean-section, LGA and neonatal ICU admissions were significantly increased in the GDM-W group. However, the GDM-N positive but GDM-W negative had no increased risk of maternal or fetal complications apart from pregnancy-induced hypertension. The WHO-2013 and the NICE criteria classified a similar proportion of pregnant women, 21.5% and 20.1%, respectively, as having GDM; however, they were concordant in only 14% of the cases. Women who are GDM-N positive but GDM-W negative are not at increased risk of maternal and fetal pregnancy complications, except for pregnancy-induced hypertension. As the NICE criteria are more specific to the UK population, we would recommend the use of the WHO-2013 criteria to diagnose GDM in the MENA region and possibly other regions that do not have the same set-up as the UK.

Open Heart ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. e001037 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudia I Rinciog ◽  
Laura M Sawyer ◽  
Alexander Diamantopoulos ◽  
Mitchell S V Elkind ◽  
Matthew Reynolds ◽  
...  

ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of insertable cardiac monitors (ICMs) compared with standard of care (SoC) for detecting atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients at high risk of stroke (CHADS2 >2), using a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective.MethodsUsing patient characteristics and clinical data from the REVEAL AF trial, a Markov model assessed the cost-effectiveness of detecting AF with an ICM compared with SoC. Costs and benefits were extrapolated across modelled patient lifetime. Ischaemic and haemorrhagic strokes, intracranial and extracranial haemorrhages and minor bleeds were modelled. Diagnostic and device costs were included, plus costs of treating stroke and bleeding events and costs of oral anticoagulants (OACs). Costs and health outcomes, measured as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), were discounted at 3.5% per annum. One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were undertaken.ResultsThe total per-patient cost for ICM was £13 360 versus £11 936 for SoC (namely, annual 24 hours Holter monitoring). ICMs generated a total of 6.50 QALYs versus 6.30 for SoC. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was £7140/QALY gained, below the £20 000/QALY acceptability threshold. ICMs were cost-effective in 77.4% of PSA simulations. The number of ICMs needed to prevent one stroke was 21 and to cause a major bleed was 37. ICERs were sensitive to assumed proportions of patients initiating or discontinuing OAC after AF diagnosis, type of OAC used and how intense the traditional monitoring was assumed to be under SoC.ConclusionsThe use of ICMs to identify AF in a high-risk population is cost-effective for the UK NHS.


Author(s):  
Akramsadat Dehghani Firoozabadi ◽  
Razieh Dehghani Firouzabadi ◽  
Maryam Eftekhar ◽  
Afsar Sadat Tabatabaei Bafghi ◽  
Farimah Shamsi

Background: Pregnancy is a process associated with various metabolic and hormonal changes, and polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) can affect this process. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate and compare the maternal and neonatal outcomes among pregnant women with different polycystic ovary syndrome phenotypes. Materials and Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 200 pregnant women with PCOS according to the 2003 ESHRE/ASRM criteria were categorized into four phenotype groups (A-D). The maternal outcomes include gestational diabetes mellitus, pregnancy-induced hypertension, premature rupture of membranes, preterm labor, small-for-gestational age birth, intrauterine growth restriction, intrauterine mortality, preeclampsia, abortion, amniotic fluid disorders, delivery method, and cause of cesarean section were studied between groups. Additionally, neonatal outcomes such as neonatal weight, neonatal recovery, 5-min Apgar score, neonatal icter, the need for NICU admission, the cause of hospitalization, and infant mortality rate were investigated and compared among the groups. Results: According to the results, phenotype D (37%) was the most common phenotype among the participants. The risk of gestational diabetes was more common in phenotype A than in the other phenotypes, whereas pregnancy-induced hypertension was most common in phenotype B. No significant differences were observed in the neonatal complications among the PCOS phenotypes. Conclusion: Considering the higher risk of gestational diabetes mellitus and pregnancy-induced hypertension in PCOS phenotypes A and B, women with these phenotypes need more precise prenatal care. Key words: Pregnancy outcome, Polycystic ovary syndrome, Phenotype, Pregnancy.


2021 ◽  
pp. 18-19
Author(s):  
Sangeetha Menon ◽  
Jyotsna Nalinan

Introduction: Maternal – fetal circulation can be studied non-invasively by using doppler which can be used as a screening tool for fetal and maternal disease. Morphological changes in the uterine vasculature can be demonstrated by colour and pulsed doppler studies. The majority of the studies on uterine artery doppler have focused on a high risk population. The effectiveness of the uterine artery doppler to predict pre eclampsia or FGR in a low risk population has been shown to have a low to moderate predictive value1. Also the criteria for normal and abnormal uterine artery doppler continue to vary with no well accepted denition. Aim: To nd out the correlation between abnormal uterine artery doppler in the second trimester of pregnancy between 18-22 weeks, with the subsequent development of pre eclampsia and FGR. Materials and methods: This is a prospective cohort study carried out in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology for a period of one year. Antenatal patients in the age group of 18-35 years, between 18-22 weeks of gestation, who were included in the study underwent a uterine artery doppler. They were followed up until delivery. SPSS software was used to analyze the data. Results: 193 Obstetric patients in the age group 18-35 years were evaluated with uterine artery doppler. 77.7% had normal doppler indices. In the abnormal doppler group, 81.4% were in the high risk category and 48.8% of those with abnormal dopplers developed pre eclampsia and 34.9% with abnormal dopplers developed FGR. Conclusion: Patients with abnormal uterine artery doppler indices in the second trimester of pregnancy, had an 18 times increased risk of developing pre eclampsia and a 6 times increased risk of developing FGR when compared to those with normal doppler indices.


2011 ◽  
Vol 71 (3) ◽  
pp. 207-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mukesh M. Agarwal ◽  
Gurdeep S. Dhatt ◽  
Yusra Othman ◽  
Milos R. Ljubisavljevic

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document