Clinical Risk Factors and First Gestational 75 g OGTT May Predict Recurrent and New-Onset Gestational Diabetes in Multiparous Women.

Background: Women who experience gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) during their first pregnancy are at a high risk of developing GDM again in subsequent pregnancies. Even mothers with no previous history of GDM may develop the condition in a new pregnancy. Methods: In this retrospective cross-sectional observational study, 759 multiparous women tested for GDM in two successive pregnancies using the 75 g OGTT (IADPSG criteria) were enrolled. The OGTT was performed at 24-28 weeks' gestation or earlier if there was a history of GDM. Participants were categorized into four groups: women with normal glucose tolerance (NGT) in both pregnancies (n = 493), women with a first occurrence of GDM in their second pregnancy (n = 74), women with non-recurrent GDM in their second pregnancy (n = 92), and women with recurrent GDM in their second pregnancy (n = 100). Results: Intergroup comparisons revealed clinical predictors of GDM in the first pregnancy (family history of type 2 diabetes, PCOS, advanced maternal age, pregravid obesity) and in the second pregnancy (interpregnancy BMI gain), as well as predictors of recurrent GDM (pregravid obesity, PCOS). A positive correlation was observed between the OGTT glucose levels of consecutive pregnancies. Adjusted logistic regression indicated that a higher 1-h post-load glucose level (≥130 mg/dL) during the first pregnancy significantly increased the likelihood of new-onset GDM in the second pregnancy (OR: 2.496), whereas a higher 2-h post-load glucose level (≥153 mg/dL) at the first diagnostic OGTT increased the likelihood of recurrent GDM (OR: 2.214). Conclusions: Clinical risk factors and post-load glucose levels during the first gestational 75 g OGTT can help predict new-onset or recurrent GDM in multiparous women.

Metabolic factors and perinatal outcomes among pregnant individuals with mild glucose intolerance.

AIMS: Metabolic characteristics and outcomes were compared among pregnant individuals with varying levels of glucose intolerance. METHODS: 827 participants from a randomized clinical trial comparing the IADPSG and Carpenter Coustan Criteria were grouped as follows: normal glucose tolerance, mild glucose intolerance (100 g OGTT with one abnormal value) and treated GDM (diagnosed by Carpenter Coustan or IADPSG criteria). Differences in metabolic characteristics and perinatal outcomes were assessed using inverse probability of treatment weighting. RESULTS: Mild glucose intolerance had lower insulin sensitivity and beta cell response than normal glucose tolerance, and similar findings to treated GDM. Small for gestational age (SGA) (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.08-0.24) and neonatal composite morbidity were lower (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.38-0.74), and maternal composite morbidity higher (OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.57-2.62) when comparing mild intolerance to normal glucose tolerance. Large for gestational age (OR 3.42 95% CI 1.39-8.41) was higher while SGA (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.05-0.81) and neonatal composite morbidity (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.17-0.57) were lower with mild glucose intolerance compared to treated GDM. CONCLUSIONS: Mild glucose intolerance has a similar metabolic profile to treated GDM, and outcome differences are likely related to knowledge of diagnosis and treatment. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY: NCT02309138.

Neonatal outcomes according to different glucose threshold values in gestational diabetes: a register-based study.

BACKGROUND: Mild hyperglycaemia is associated with increased birth weight but association with other neonatal outcomes is controversial. We aimed to study neonatal outcomes in untreated mild hyperglycaemia using different oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) thresholds. METHODS: This register-based study included all (n = 4,939) singleton pregnant women participating a 75 g 2-h OGTT in six delivery hospitals in Finland in 2009. Finnish diagnostic cut-offs for GDM were fasting ≥ 5.3, 1 h ≥ 10.0 or 2-h glucose ≥ 8.6 mmol/L. Women who did not meet these criteria but met the International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria (fasting 5.1-5.2 mmol/L and/or 2-h glucose 8.5 mmol/L, n = 509) or the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) criteria (2-h glucose 7.8-8.5 mmol/L, n = 166) were considered as mild untreated hyperglycaemia. Women who met both the Finnish criteria and the IADPSG or the NICE criteria were considered as treated GDM groups (n = 1292 and n = 612, respectively). Controls were normoglycaemic according to all criteria (fasting glucose < 5.1 mmol/L, 1-h glucose < 10.0 mmol/L and 2-h glucose < 8.5 mmol/L, n = 3031). Untreated mild hyperglycemia groups were compared to controls and treated GDM groups. The primary outcome - a composite of adverse neonatal outcomes, including neonatal hypoglycaemia, hyperbilirubinaemia, birth trauma or perinatal mortality - was analysed using multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: The risk for the adverse neonatal outcome in untreated mild hyperglycemia was not increased compared to controls (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.71-1.44, using the IADPSG criteria; aOR: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.60-1.85, using the NICE criteria). The risk was lower compared to the treated IADPSG (aOR 0.38, 95% CI 0.27-0.53) or the treated NICE group (aOR 0.32, 95% CI 0.18-0.57). DISCUSSION: The risk of adverse neonatal outcomes was not increased in mild untreated hyperglycaemia compared to normoglycaemic controls and was lower than in the treated GDM groups. The OGTT cut-offs of 5.3 mmol/L at fasting and 8.6 mmol/L at 2 h seem to sufficiently identify clinically relevant GDM, without excluding neonates with a risk of adverse outcomes.

The first International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups summit on the diagnosis of gestational diabetes in early pregnancy: TOBOGM Summit Report.

The first International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups Summit on the diagnosis of gestational diabetes in early pregnancy (Treatment of Booking Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (TOBOGM) Summit) was held on the 17 November 2022 in Sydney, Australia. It sought to use the TOBOGM trial findings to scope the issues involved with early screening, to inform future discussions over possible approaches for diagnosing gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) in early pregnancy. Most delegates supported testing for early GDM using a one-step 75 g oral glucose tolerance test approach with Canadian Diabetes Association criteria preferred, but highlighted the importance of considering resources, cost, consumer perspectives and equity in translating TOBOGM results into a clinical approach to screening for, and diagnosing, early GDM.

National and regional prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus in India: a systematic review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is frequently misdiagnosed during pregnancy. There is an abundance of evidence, but little is known regarding the regional prevalence estimates of GDM in India. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to provide valuable insights into the national and regional prevalence of GDM among pregnant women in India. METHODS: We conducted an initial article search on PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, and ShodhGanga searches to identify quantitative research papers (database inception till 15th June,2022). This review included prevalence studies that estimated the occurrence of GDM across different states in India. RESULTS: Two independent reviewers completed the screening of 2393 articles, resulting in the identification of 110 articles that met the inclusion criteria, which collectively provided 117 prevalence estimates. Using a pooled estimate calculation (with an Inverse square heterogeneity model), the pooled prevalence of GDM in pregnant women was estimated to be 13%, with a 95% confidence interval (CI) ranging from 9 to 16%.. In India, Diabetes in Pregnancy Study of India (DIPSI) was the most common diagnostic criteria used, followed by International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) and World Health Organization (WHO) 1999. It was observed that the rural population has slightly less prevalence of GDM at 10.0% [6.0-13.0%, I2=96%] when compared to the urban population where the prevalence of GDM was 12.0% [9.0-16.0%, I2 = 99%]. CONCLUSIONS: This review emphasizes the lack of consensus in screening and diagnosing gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), leading to varied prevalence rates across Indian states. It thoroughly examines the controversies regarding GDM screening by analyzing population characteristics, geographic variations, diagnostic criteria agreement, screening timing, fasting vs. non-fasting approaches, cost-effectiveness, and feasibility, offering valuable recommendations for policy makers. By fostering the implementation of state-wise screening programs, it can contribute to improving maternal and neonatal outcomes and promoting healthier pregnancies across the country.

Performance of glycated hemoglobin A1c for the diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in Belgium (2020-2021).

OBJECTIVES: During the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic, health care access was restricted. To reduce the risk of maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection, simplified screening recommendations for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) have been suggested, leading to glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) being proposed as an alternative to the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). This study aimed to assess the optimal HbA1c cutoff to confirm GDM diagnosis according to IADPSG/WHO2013 guidelines. METHODS: In this retrospective study, 3361 pregnancies were followed at the hospital of Mouscron and the Cliniques Universitaires St Luc in Brussels (2020-2021). GDM was universally screened in the third trimester of gestation. The ROC curve was used to evaluate the diagnostic performance of HbA1c with OGTT as the reference. Sensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratios for different HbA1c thresholds were calculated. RESULTS: In total, 312 women were selected due to HbA1c analysis in addition to OGTT, and 149 had GDM. The area under the ROC curve for GDM detection by HbA1c was 0.73 (95% CI 0.68-0.79, p < 0.0001). The cutoff value chosen as a possible threshold was HbA1c 5.5% (37 mmol/mol). The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios for this cutoff were 12.0%, 99.4%, 20 and 0.88, respectively. The Fagan nomogram test showed a posttest GDM probability of approximately 70%, corresponding to a 10-fold higher pretest probability. An HbA1c ≥ 5.5% (37 mmol/mol) would have avoided OGTT in 18% of women with GDM. These women with an HbA1c ≥ 5.5% had significantly higher rates of family history of diabetes, older age, higher BMI and higher blood glucose levels (fasting, 1 h and 2 h) at OGTT. CONCLUSION: Our results are consistent with the literature concerning the diagnostic ability of GDM through HbA1c ≥ 5.5%.

Applying WHO2013 diagnostic criteria for gestational diabetes mellitus reveals currently untreated women at increased risk.

AIMS: To estimate the prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) in a Danish cohort comparing the current Danish versus the WHO2013 diagnostic criteria, and to evaluate adverse pregnancy outcomes among currently untreated women in the gap between the diagnostic thresholds. METHODS: Diagnostic testing was performed by a 75 g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) at 24-28 weeks' gestation in a cohort of pregnant women. GDM diagnosis was based on the current Danish criterion (2-h glucose ≥ 9.0 mmol/L, GDMDK) and on the WHO2013 criteria (fasting ≥ 5.1, 1 h ≥ 10.0 or 2 h glucose ≥ 8.5 mmol/L, GDMWHO2013). Currently untreated women fulfilling the WHO2013 but not the Danish diagnostic criteria were defined as New-GDM-women (GDMWHO2013-positive and GDMDK-negative). Adverse outcomes risks were calculated using logistic regression. RESULTS: OGTT was completed by 465 women at a median of 25.7 weeks' gestation. GDMDK prevalence was 2.2% (N = 10) and GDMWHO2013 21.5% (N = 100). New-GDM was present in 19.4% (N = 90), of whom 90.0% had elevated fasting glucose. Pregnancies complicated by New-GDM had higher frequencies of pregnancy-induced hypertension (13.3% vs 4.1%, p = 0.002), large-for-gestational-age infants (22.2% vs 9.9%, p = 0.004), neonatal hypoglycaemia (8.9% vs 1.9%, p = 0.004) and neonatal intensive care unit admission (16.7% vs 5.8%, p = 0.002) compared to pregnancies without GDM. CONCLUSIONS: GDM prevalence increased tenfold when applying WHO2013 criteria in a Danish population, mainly driven by higher fasting glucose levels. Untreated GDM in the gap between the current Danish and the WHO2013 diagnostic criteria resulted in higher risks of adverse pregnancy outcomes.

Meta-analysis comparing diabetes in pregnancy study group India (DIPSI) vs the international association of the diabetes and pregnancy study groups (IADPSG) criteria for diagnosis of gestational diabetes among Indian population.

Despite consensus on universal screening of women at 24-28 weeks for a diagnosis of gestational diabetes, controversy remains on an appropriate criterion. The study is aimed to find out the sensitivity and specificity of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group India (DIPSI) criteria compared to the International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria for diagnosis of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM). A meta-analysis of studies comparing DIPSI as an index test to IADPSG as the reference test for diagnosing GDM was carried out. A total of 8 comparative studies were included. Pooled analysis showed a sensitivity of 0.44 [0.29 to 0.60] and specificity of 0.97 [0.94 to 0.98], which means the index test DIPSI will correctly identify only 44% of the subjects who have the disease (GDM positive) but it will also fail to identify 56% of the GDM positive subjects. Derek's funnel graph revealed fewerchances of publication bias. Though convenient, DIPSI criteria was not found to be sensitive enough for a diagnosis of GDM and missed an opportunity to improve pregnancy and subsequent long-term outcomes for a substantial number of women. Further studies should focus on comparing pregnancy outcomes for the two criteria, so that decision to adopt any criteria is more evidence-based.

Predicting insulin use among women with gestational diabetes diagnosed in oral glucose tolerance test.

BACKGROUND: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is one of the most common complications affecting pregnant women. While most women will achieve adequate glycemic levels with diet and exercise, some will require pharmacological treatment to reach and maintain glucose levels between the desired thresholds. Identifying these patients early in pregnancy could help direct resources and interventions. METHODS: This retrospective cohort of women with GDM diagnosed with an abnormal 75g-OGTT presents data from 869 patients (724 in the diet group and 145 in the insulin group). Univariate logistic regression was used to compare the groups, and multivariable logistic regression was used to identify independent factors associated with the need for insulin. A log-linear function was used to estimate the probability of requiring pharmacological treatment. RESULTS: Women in the insulin group had higher pre-pregnancy BMI index (29.8 vs 27.8 kg/m2, odds ratio [OR] 1.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.09), more frequent history of previous GDM (19.4% vs. 7.8%, OR 2.84, 95% CI 1.59-5.05), were more likely to have chronic hypertension (31.7% vs. 23.2%, OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.04-2.27), and had higher glucose levels at all three OGTT points. Multivariable logistic regression final model included age, BMI, previous GDM status, and the three OGTT values as predictors of insulin requirement. CONCLUSIONS: We can use regularly collected data from patients (age, BMI, previous GDM status, and the three OGTT values) to calculate the risk of a woman with GDM diagnosed in OGTT needing insulin. Identifying patients with a greater risk of requiring pharmacological treatment could help healthcare services to better allocate resources and offer closer follow-up to high-risk patients.

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.

The NDDG criteria versus the IADPSG or the ADA criteria for diagnosing early-onset gestational diabetes mellitus or abnormal glucose tolerance.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the effects of substituting the National Diabetes Data Group (NDDG) criteria with the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) or American Diabetes Association (ADA) criteria for the diagnosis of early-onset gestational diabetes mellitus (Early-GDM) or first trimester abnormal glucose tolerance (1 t-AGT). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted of 3200 women: 400 with Early-GDM, 800 with GDM, and 2000 with Non-GDM, according to the NDDG criteria. Rates of women with missed and new Early-GDM according to the IADPSG or ADA criteria were calculated. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to compare perinatal outcomes between groups. RESULTS: Using the IADPSG criteria, 61.6% of women with Early-GDM according to the NDDG were undiagnosed (Missed-Early-GDM group), and 25.9% of women with GDM and 15.7% of women with Non-GDM were diagnosed with Early-GDM (New-Early-GDM groups). Perinatal outcomes were worse in Missed-Early-GDM than in Non-GDM and better in New-Early-GDM groups than in the Early-GDM group. According to the ADA recommendations, only 11.8% of women with Early-GDM according to the NDDG criteria were diagnosed. CONCLUSION: Replacing the NDDG recommendations for the diagnosis of Early-GDM with the IADPSG or ADA criteria would mean depriving a large number of women with AGT and higher risk of adverse perinatal outcomes from early treatment and treating others with lower risk.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring System Profile of Women Stratified Using Different Levels of Glycated Hemoglobin (HbA1c) in Early Pregnancy: A Cross-sectional Study.

AIM: To evaluate the differences in the continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS) profiles of women in early pregnancy stratified based on different HbA1c levels known to be predictive of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) at 24-28 weeks of gestation (≥ 5.2%) and adverse pregnancy outcomes (≥ 5.5%) in Indian women. METHODS: We enrolled women at 8+ 0 to 19+ 6 weeks of gestation (early pregnancy), evaluated the glycaemic parameters of clinical interest using CGMS, and reported them per standard methodology proposed by Hernandez et al. WHO 2013 criteria were used for diagnosis of early GDM. RESULTS: Ninety-six women were enrolled at 14.0 ± 3.2 weeks of gestation. Of these, 38 were found to have early GDM (diagnosed before 20 weeks of gestation) on evaluation. Of 96 women, 33 (34.4%) had HbA1c value ≥ 5.5% [11 (19.0%) with normoglycaemia and 22 (57.9%) with GDM]. The women with elevated HbA1c differed significantly from those with HbA1c < 5.5% for all evaluated parameters. The differences for overall women were > 10 mg/dl (0.56 mmol/l) for 1-h postprandial glucose (difference of 0.78 mmol/l), 2-h postprandial glucose (difference of 0.59 mmol/l), peak postprandial glucose (difference of 0.75 mmol/l), and 1-h postprandial glucose excursion (difference of 0.59 mmol/l). Of 58 women with normoglycaemia, 29 (50.0%) had an HbA1c value ≥ 5.2%. In comparison, in the normoglycaemic group of women with and without HbA1c ≥ 5.2% (known to be predictive of future GDM), the results were significant for 1-h (difference of 0.44 mmol/l), 2-h (difference of 0.278 mmol/l), and peak postprandial glucose (difference of 0.35 mmol/l). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that women with elevated HbA1c (≥ 5.5%) in early pregnancy significantly differ from those with HbA1c < 5.5% in all glycaemic parameters evaluated in this study, suggesting that HbA1c at this cut-off has a role to play in early pregnancy.

Incidence of gestational diabetes mellitus in the United Arab Emirates; comparison of six diagnostic criteria: The Mutaba'ah Study.

Background: For more than half a century, there has been much research and controversies on how to accurately screen for and diagnose gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). There is a paucity of updated research among the Emirati population in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The lack of a uniform GDM diagnostic criteria results in the inability to accurately combine or compare the disease burden worldwide and locally. This study aimed to compare the incidence of GDM in the Emirati population using six diagnostic criteria for GDM. Methods: The Mutaba'ah study is the largest multi-center mother and child cohort study in the UAE with an 18-year follow-up. We included singleton pregnancies from the Mutaba'ah cohort screened with the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) at 24-32 weeks from May 2017 to March 2021. We excluded patients with known diabetes and with newly diagnosed diabetes. GDM cumulative incidence was determined using the six specified criteria. GDM risk factors were compared using chi-square and t-tests. Agreements among the six criteria were assessed using kappa statistics. Results: A total of 2,546 women were included with a mean age of 30.5 ± 6.0 years. Mean gravidity was 3.5 ± 2.1, and mean body mass index (BMI) at booking was 27.7 ± 5.6 kg/m2. GDM incidence as diagnosed by any of the six criteria collectively was 27.1%. It ranged from 8.4% according to the EASD 1996 criteria to 21.5% according to the NICE 2015 criteria. The two most inclusive criteria were the NICE 2015 and the IADPSG criteria with GDM incidence rates of 21.5% (95% CI: 19.9, 23.1) and 21.3% (95% CI: 19.8, 23.0), respectively. Agreement between the two criteria was moderate (k = 0.66; p < 0.001). The least inclusive was the EASD 1996 criteria [8.4% (95% CI: 7.3, 9.6)]. The locally recommended IADPSG/WHO 2013 criteria had weak to moderate agreement with the other criteria, with Cohen's kappa coefficient ranging from (k = 0.51; p < 0.001) to (k = 0.71; p < 0.001). Most of the GDM risk factors assessed were significantly higher among those with GDM (p < 0.005) identified by all criteria. Conclusions: The findings indicate discrepancies among the diagnostic criteria in identifying GDM cases. This emphasizes the need to unify GDM diagnostic criteria in this population to provide accurate and reliable incidence estimates for healthcare planning, especially because the agreement with the recommended criteria was not optimal.

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'.

Diabetes in pregnancy study group of India, the answer for gestational diabetes mellitus diagnosis dilemma: May be not!!!!

Introduction: For many years, there has been a lack of consensus over the appropriate diagnostic criteria for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and the significance of the diagnosis. Multiple guidelines on diagnostic criteria across the world have complicated the diagnosis and further management of the disease, also complicating the healthcare delivery system. Aim: To compare the prevalence of GDM according to Modified Carpenter & Coustan, International association of Diabetes & Pregnancy Group (IADPSG) and DIPSI. Settings and Design: It was cross sectional observational study, conducted at KGMU, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh between Aug 2016 and Sept 2017. 162 patients were enrolled after fulfilling the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Methods and Material: The study population was derived by screening pregnant females attending for their routine antenatal check up from 24 to 28 weeks of gestation. Plasma glucose levels was measured following 8hrs of overnight fasting. The pregnant females were given 82.5 glucose (equivalent to 75gm anhydrous glucose). Venous blood sample was collected for estimating plasma glucose at 0,1and 2hr. Results: In our study the prevalence of GDM among study population according to IADPSG criteria was 22.64%, as per Modified Carpenter & Coustan criteria was 17.61% while that as per DIPSI criteria was 13.21%. Conclusions: Considering IADPSG criteria as gold standard DIPSI is missing 66.6% of patients diagnosed as GDM by IADPSG. Considering Modified C&C criteria as gold standard over the years DIPSI is missing 64.2% of patients diagnosed as GDM by C&C.

Early vs. Late Gestational Diabetes: Comparison between Two Groups Diagnosed by Abnormal Initial Fasting Plasma Glucose or Mid-Pregnancy Oral Glucose Tolerance Test.

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is one of the most common complications in pregnancy. It may be diagnosed using a fasting plasma glucose (FPG) early in pregnancy (eGDM) or a 75-g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) (late GDM). This retrospective cohort of women with GDM presents data from 1891 patients (1004 in the eGDM and 887 in the late GDM group). Student's t-test, chi-squared or Fisher's exact test and the Bonferroni test for post hoc analysis were used to compare the groups. Women with eGDM had higher pre-pregnancy BMI, more frequent family history of DM, more frequent history of previous GDM, and were more likely to have chronic hypertension. They were more likely to deliver by cesarean section and to present an abnormal puerperal OGTT. Even though they received earlier treatment and required insulin more frequently, there was no difference in neonatal outcomes. Diagnosing and treating GDM is necessary to reduce complications and adverse outcomes, but it is still a challenge. We believe that women with eGDM should be treated and closely monitored, even though this may increase healthcare-related costs.

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).

Continuous Glucose Monitoring System Profile of Women with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Missed Using Isolated Fasting Plasma Glucose-Based Strategies Alternative to WHO 2013 Criteria: A Cross-Sectional Study.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study was to evaluate the differences in the continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS)-based glycemic parameters between women with normoglycemia and early gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) identified on the basis of mild fasting plasma glucose elevation (FPG, 5.1-5.5 mmol/L) and/or post-load plasma glucose elevation (PLG, 1-h ≥ 10.0 mmol/L or 2-h ≥ 8.5 mmol/L). METHODS: This cross-sectional study included women with singleton pregnancy (8+0 to 19+6 weeks of gestation) and normoglycemia or GDM per World Health Organization (WHO) 2013 criteria. We evaluated the glycemic parameters of clinical interest using blinded CGMS evaluation and reported them per standard methodology proposed by Hernandez et al. RESULTS: A total of 87 women (GDM, n = 38) were enrolled at 28.6 ± 4.5 years. Among women with GDM, 10 (26.3%) had isolated mild FPG elevation (5.1-5.5 mmol/L), 10 (26.3%) had isolated PLG elevation (1-h ≥ 10.0 mmol/L or 2-h ≥ 8.5 mmol/L), and 7 (18.4%) had a combination of both. The remaining 11 (28.9%) had elevated FPG (≥ 5.6 mmol/L) with or without PLG elevation. Thus, when an isolated FPG cutoff ≥ 5.6 mmol/L is used to diagnose GDM, 27 (71.0%) women would be perceived as normoglycemic. Such women had significantly higher CGMS parameters of clinical interest, such as 24-h mean glucose, fasting glucose, 1-h and 2-h postprandial glucose (PPG), 1-h PPG excursion, and peak PPG. CONCLUSIONS: An isolated FPG threshold, especially the higher cutoff ≥ 5.6 mmol/L, can potentially miss a large proportion of women (nearly three-fourths) diagnosed with GDM per WHO 2013 criteria. Eventually, such women fare significantly differently from normoglycemic women in various CGMS parameters of clinical interest.

Evolution of maternal and neonatal outcomes before and after the adoption of the IADPSG/WHO guidelines in Belgium: A descriptive study of 444,228 pregnancies.

Objectives: To appraise adverse pregnancy outcomes after the adoption of IADPSG/WHO guidelines in Belgium. Methods: A retrospective study of the Center for Perinatal Epidemiology registry was conducted. Demographic changes and adverse pregnancy outcomes were compared between a pre- and post-guideline period in women with and without hyperglycemia in pregnancy (HIP). Adjusted odds ratios with a 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to compare maternal and neonatal outcomes controlling for potential confounders (maternal age, body mass index (BMI), hypertension, parity, and multiple births). Results: The prevalence of HIP increased (6.0%-9.2%). In the overall population regardless of glycemic status, gestational weight gain (12.3 ± 5.7 vs 11.9 ± 5.8; p < 0.001), hypertension (0.92; 95% CI, 0.89-0.94; p < 0.001), and neonatal intensive care unit/special care nursery (0.89; 95% CI, 0.87-0.91; p < 0.001) decreased despite increasing maternal age and pre-pregnancy BMI. Emergency cesarean section rates (1.07; 95% CI, 1.05-1.09; p < 0.001) increased, but not in the HIP population (1.02; 95% CI, 0.95-1.10; ns). The overall incidence of preterm birth (1.09; 95% CI, 1.06-1.12; p < 0.001), stillbirth (1.10; 95% CI, 1.01-1.21; p < 0.05), and perinatal mortality (1.10; 95% CI, 1.01-1.19; p < 0.05) increased, except in the HIP population (1.03; 95% CI, 0.95-1.11; ns), (1.04; 95% CI, 0.74-1.47; ns) and (1.09; 95% CI, 0.80-1.49; ns), respectively. The overall incidence of small- for-gestational-age remained unchanged (0.99; 95%CI, 0.97-1.01; ns) regardless of glycemic status. In the HIP population, large-for-gestational age (0.90; 95% CI, 0.84-0.95; p < 0.001) and macrosomia (0.84; 95% CI, 0.78-0.92; p < 0.001) decreased. Conclusion: After the implementation of IADPSG/WHO guidelines, the prevalence of HIP increased by 53.7% and the incidence of major HIP-related pregnancy complications appears to be lower. However, we cannot conclude that the reduction of LGA-macrosomia is due to a better management of diabetes or due to greater recruitment of women with mild HIP associated with a lower risk of obstetrical complications.

A Prospective Study to Determine if Management of Cases of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM) can be Modified.

Background: To study maternal-fetal outcomes in patients of GDM diagnosed by International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria but subsequently using a twenty-four-hour seven-value sugar profile to evaluate patients before instituting management. Methods: This prospective observational study was conducted at a tertiary hospital in New Delhi, India, over a period of one year. During this period, women diagnosed as GDM between 24 and 28 weeks of gestation using IADPSG criteria underwent seven-value sugar profile in twenty-four hours before initiating any therapy. Those with normal profile were kept on observation only, whereas others were managed by Medical Nutrition Therapy (MNT) with or without pharmacotherapy as required to maintain euglycemia. Maternal and fetal outcomes were documented and analysed to detect differences between the groups. Results: Out of 2279 pregnant women, 201 (8.8%) were diagnosed as GDM. The twenty-four-hour seven-value sugar profile was normal in 78 (38.8%) patients, who were managed only by close observation. Treatment was given to other patients; 93 (46.2%) patients were managed with MNT only, whereas pharmacotherapy by way of metformin was added to 22 (10.9%) patients and 8 (3.9%) patients required insulin. Differences in maternal-fetal outcomes between the treated and untreated groups were not found to be statistically significant. Conclusions: The policy of evaluating patients with twenty-four-hour seven-value sugar profile after an abnormal Oral Glucose Tolerance Test eliminated over one-third women from receiving treatment and interventions for GDM without compromising maternal-fetal outcomes.