Umbilical cord blood concentration of connecting peptide (C-peptide) and pregnancy outcomes.

BACKGROUND: C-peptide offers potential as a marker to indicate childhood metabolic outcomes. Measuring C-peptide concentration might have better future utility in the risk stratification of neonates born to overweight or diabetic mothers. Prior research has tried to bring this matter into the light; however, the clinical significance of these associations is still far from reach. Here we sought to investigate the associations between fetomaternal metabolic variables and umbilical cord blood C-peptide concentration. METHODS: For the present study, 858 pregnant women were randomly selected from among a sub-group of 35,430 Iranian pregnant women who participated in a randomized community non-inferiority trial of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) screening. Their umbilical cord (UC) blood C-peptide concentrations were measured, and the pregnancy variables of macrosomia/large for gestational age (LGA) and primary cesarean section (CS) delivery were assessed. The variation of C-peptide concentrations among GDM and macrosomia status was plotted. Due to the skewed distribution of C-peptide concentration in the sample, median regression analysis was used to identify potential factors related to UC C-peptide concentration. RESULTS: In the univariate model, positive GDM status was associated with a 0.3 (95% CI: 0.06 - 0.54, p = 0.01) increase in the median coefficient of UC blood C-peptide concentration. Moreover, one unit (kg) increase in the birth weight was associated with a 0.25 (95% CI: 0.03 - 0.47, p = 0.03) increase in the median coefficient of UC blood C-peptide concentration. In the multivariate model, after adjusting for maternal age, maternal BMI, and macrosomia status, the positive status of GDM and macrosomia were significantly associated with an increase in the median coefficient of UC blood C-peptide concentration (Coef.= 0.27, 95% CI: 0.13 - 0.42, p < 0.001; and Coef.= 0.34, 95% CI: 0.06 - 0.63, p = 0.02, respectively). CONCLUSION: UC blood concentration of C-peptide is significantly associated with the incidence of maternal GDM and neonatal macrosomia. Using stratification for maternal BMI and gestational weight gain (GWG) and investigating molecular markers like Leptin and IGF-1 in the future might lay the ground to better understand the link between metabolic disturbances of pregnancy and UC blood C-peptide concentration.

A Cluster Randomized Noninferiority Field Trial of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Screening.

CONTEXT: Although it is well-acknowledged that gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is associated with the increased risks of adverse pregnancy outcomes, the optimal strategy for screening and diagnosis of GDM is still a matter of debate. OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to demonstrate the noninferiority of less strict GDM screening criteria compared with the strict International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria with respect to maternal and neonatal outcomes. METHODS: A cluster randomized noninferiority field trial was conducted on 35 528 pregnant women; they were scheduled to have 2 phases of GDM screening based on 5 different prespecified protocols including fasting plasma glucose in the first trimester with threshold of 5.1 mmol/L (92 mg/dL) (protocols A, D) or 5.6 mmol/L (100 mg/dL) (protocols B, C, E) and either a 1-step (GDM is defined if one of the plasma glucose values is exceeded [protocol A and C] or 2 or more exceeded values are needed [protocol B]) or 2-step approach (protocols D, E) in the second trimester. Guidelines for treatment of GDM were consistent with all protocols. Primary outcomes of the study were the prevalence of macrosomia and primary cesarean section (CS). The null hypothesis that less strict protocols are inferior to protocol A (IADPSG) was tested with a noninferiority margin effect (odds ratio) of 1.7. RESULTS: The percentages of pregnant women diagnosed with GDM and assigned to protocols A, B, C, D, and E were 21.9%, 10.5%, 12.1%, 19.4%, and 8.1%, respectively. Intention-to-treat analyses satisfying the noninferiority of the less strict protocols of B, C, D, and E compared with protocol A. However, noninferiority was not shown for primary CS comparing protocol E with A. The odds ratios (95% CI) for macrosomia and CS were: B (1.01 [0.95-1.08]; 0.85 [0.56-1.28], C (1.03 [0.73-1.47]; 1.16 [0.88-1.51]), D (0.89 [0.68-1.17]; 0.94 [0.61-1.44]), and E (1.05 [0.65-1.69]; 1.33 [0.82-2.00]) vs A. There were no statistically significant differences in the adjusted odds of adverse pregnancy outcomes in the 2-step compared with the 1-step screening approaches, considering multiplicity adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: The IADPSG GDM definition significantly increased the prevalence of GDM diagnosis. However, the less strict approaches were not inferior to other criteria in terms of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes.