scholarly journals Comparative analysis of current diagnostic criteria for gestational diabetes mellitus

2012 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 71-77 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariya V Boyadzhieva ◽  
Iliana Atanasova ◽  
Sabina Zacharieva ◽  
Tsvetalina Tankova ◽  
Violeta Dimitrova
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Gestational Diabetes ◽  
Gestational Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Diagnostic Criteria ◽  
International Association ◽  
Study Groups ◽  
World Health ◽  
Oral Glucose ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Iadpsg Criteria

Background To compare current guidelines for diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and to identify the ones that are the most relevant for application among pregnant Bulgarian population. Methods A total of 800 pregnant women at high risk for GDM underwent 75 g oral glucose tolerance test between 24 and 28 weeks of gestation as antenatal screening. The results were interpreted and classified according to the guidelines of the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG), American Diabetes Association (ADA), Australasian Diabetes in Pregnancy Society, Canadian Diabetes Association, European Association for the Study of Diabetes, New Zealand Society for the study of Diabetes and World Health Organization. Results The application of different diagnostic criteria resulted in prevalences of GDM between 10.8% and 31.6%. Using any two sets of criteria, women who were classified differently varied between 0.1% and 21.1% ( P < 0.001).The IADPSG criteria were the most inclusive criteria and resulted in the highest prevalence of GDM. There was a significant difference in the major metabolic parameters between GDM and control groups, regardless of which of the diagnostic criteria applied. GDM diagnosed according to all criteria resulted in increased proportion of delivery by caesarean section (CS). However, only ADA and IADPSG criteria identified both increased macrosomia (odds ratio, 2.36; 2.29) and CS rate. Conclusion The need for GDM screening is indisputable. In our view, the new IADPSG guidelines offer a unique opportunity for a unified national and global approach to GDM.

scholarly journals The Risk for Glucose Intolerance after Gestational Diabetes Mellitus since the Introduction of the IADPSG Criteria: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (9) ◽  
pp. 1431 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benhalima ◽  
Lens ◽  
Bosteels ◽  
Chantal
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Gestational Diabetes ◽  
Gestational Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Diagnostic Criteria ◽  
Glucose Intolerance ◽  
International Association ◽  
Study Groups ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Iadpsg Criteria ◽  
History Of

The aim of the study was to assess the postpartum risk for glucose intolerance since the introduction of the ‘International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups’ (IADPSG) criteria for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). Studies published since 2010 were included, which evaluated the risk for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), and cardiovascular (CV) events in women with previous GDM compared to normal glucose tolerant women. We included forty-three studies, evaluating 4,923,571 pregnant women of which 5.8% (284,312) had a history of GDM. Five studies used IADPSG criteria (n = 6174 women, 1314 with GDM). The overall pooled relative risk (RR) for postpartum T2DM was 7.42 (95% CI: 5.99–9.19) and the RR for postpartum T2DM with IADPSG criteria was 6.45 (95% CI: 4.74–8.77) compared to the RR of 9.08 (95% CI: 6.96–11.85; p = 0.17) for postpartum T2DM based on other diagnostic criteria. The RR for postpartum IGT was 2.45 (95% CI: 1.92–3.13), independent of the criteria used. None of the available studies with IADPSG criteria evaluated the risk for CV events. Women with a history of GDM based on the IADPSG criteria have a similarly increased risk for postpartum glucose intolerance compared to GDM based on other diagnostic criteria. More studies with GDM based on the IADPSG criteria are needed to increase the quality of evidence concerning the long-term metabolic risk.

MATERNAL GESTATIONAL DIABETES MELLITUS AND OFFSPRING BODY MASS INDEX FROM 1 TO 4 YEARS

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (6) ◽  
pp. 619-626
Author(s):  
Xiulin Shi ◽  
Dongmei Wang ◽  
Mingzhu Lin ◽  
Weijuan Su ◽  
Liying Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Body Mass Index ◽  
Gestational Diabetes ◽  
Gestational Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Body Mass ◽  
International Association ◽  
Study Groups ◽  
Z Score ◽  
Birth Registry ◽  
Iadpsg Criteria

Objective: Using the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria to diagnose gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), the association between GDM and offspring body mass index (BMI) gains in early childhood in China remains unclear. We aimed to assess the association between GDM diagnosed by the IADPSG criteria and BMI gain and the risk for overweight/obesity in offspring from 1 to 4 years. Methods: This prospective cohort study was based on the healthcare records data from the Medical Birth Registry in Xiamen, China. We included 10,412 mother-child pairs tested for GDM using IADPSG criteria. Results: A total of 1,786 (17.2%) offspring were exposed to GDM. The offspring exposed to GDM had higher mean BMI Z-score (difference, 0.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.02 to 0.12) and risk for overweight/obesity (odds ratio [OR], 1.22; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.40) compared to those unexposed to GDM from 1 to 4 years of age. However, after adjustment for maternal pre-pregnancy BMI (Model 2), these associations attenuated towards the null (difference in BMI Z-score, 0.02; 95% CI, −0.03 to 0.07; OR for overweight/obesity, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.25). Conclusion: The associations between GDM diagnosed using IADPSG criteria and BMI Z-score and the risk for overweight/obesity in offspring at the age of 1 to 4 years were largely explained by maternal pre-pregnancy BMI. Reducing the prevalence of childhood overweight and obesity in China should focus on maternal weight status before pregnancy, in addition to glycemia during pregnancy. Abbreviations: BMI = body mass index; CI = confidence interval; GDM = gestational diabetes mellitus; IADPSG = International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups; LGA = large for gestational age; MBRX = Medical Birth Registry in Xiamen; OGTT = oral glucose tolerance test; OR = odds ratio

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

2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Evelyn A. Huhn ◽  
Nadine Massaro ◽  
Simone Streckeisen ◽  
Gwendolin Manegold-Brauer ◽  
Andreas Schoetzau ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Gestational Diabetes ◽  
Gestational Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Pregnant Women ◽  
International Association ◽  
Study Groups ◽  
Absolute Increase ◽  
Period 2 ◽  
Iadpsg Criteria ◽  
Diabetes And Pregnancy

AbstractBackground: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.

scholarly journals Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: Screening and Outcomes in Southern Italian Pregnant Women

2013 ◽  
Vol 2013 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carmelo Capula ◽  
Eusebio Chiefari ◽  
Anna Vero ◽  
Biagio Arcidiacono ◽  
Stefania Iiritano ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Risk Factors ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Gestational Diabetes ◽  
Gestational Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Pregnant Women ◽  
International Association ◽  
Study Groups ◽  
Large For Gestational Age ◽  
Iadpsg Criteria

Recent Italian guidelines exclude women <35 years old, without risk factors for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), from screening for GDM. To determine the effectiveness of these measures with respect to the International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria, we evaluated 2,448 pregnant women retrospectively enrolled in Calabria, southern Italy. GDM was diagnosed following the IADPSG 2010 criteria. Among 538 women <35 years old, without risk factors, who would have not been tested according to the Italian guidelines, we diagnosed GDM in 171 (31.8%) pregnants (7.0% of total pregnants). Diagnosis was made at baseline (55.6%), 1 hour (39.8%), or 2 hours (4.7%) during OGTT. Despite of appropriate treatment, GDM represented a risk factor for cesarean section, polyhydramnios, increased birth weight, admission to neonatal intensive care units, and large for gestational age. These outcomes were similar to those observed in GDM women at high risk for GDM. In conclusion, Italian recommendations failed to identify 7.0% of women with GDM, when compared to IADPSG criteria. The risk for adverse hyperglycaemic-related outcomes is similar in low-risk and high-risk pregnants with GDM. To limit costs of GDM screening, our data suggest to restrict OGTT to two steps (baseline and 1 hour).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document