Comparative epidemiology of gestational diabetes in ethnic Chinese from Shanghai birth cohort and growing up in Singapore towards healthy outcomes cohort.

BACKGROUND: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) has been associated with adverse health outcomes for mothers and offspring. Prevalence of GDM differs by country/region due to ethnicity, lifestyle and diagnostic criteria. We compared GDM rates and risk factors in two Asian cohorts using the 1999 WHO and the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria. METHODS: The Shanghai Birth Cohort (SBC) and the Growing Up in Singapore Towards healthy Outcomes (GUSTO) cohort are prospective birth cohorts. Information on sociodemographic characteristics and medical history were collected from interviewer-administered questionnaires. Participants underwent a 2-h 75-g oral glucose tolerance test at 24-28 weeks gestation. Logistic regressions were performed. RESULTS: Using the 1999 WHO criteria, the prevalence of GDM was higher in GUSTO (20.8%) compared to SBC (16.6%) (p = 0.046). Family history of hypertension and alcohol consumption were associated with higher odds of GDM in SBC than in GUSTO cohort while obesity was associated with higher odds of GDM in GUSTO. Using the IADPSG criteria, the prevalence of GDM was 14.3% in SBC versus 12.0% in GUSTO. A history of GDM was associated with higher odds of GDM in GUSTO than in SBC, while being overweight, alcohol consumption and family history of diabetes were associated with higher odds of GDM in SBC. CONCLUSIONS: We observed several differential risk factors of GDM among ethnic Chinese women living in Shanghai and Singapore. These findings might be due to heterogeneity of GDM reflected in diagnostic criteria as well as in unmeasured genetic, lifestyle and environmental factors.

Evaluation of fetal cardiac function in pregnancies with well-controlled gestational diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate fetal ventricular diastolic function in pregnancies of women with gestational diabetes (GD), to determine whether minimal anomalies of glucose metabolism may influence fetal cardiac function. STUDY DESIGN: Fetal ventricular filling time was measured by transabdominal ultrasound in singleton pregnancies between 34 and 37 weeks of gestation. We used a measurement which consists in the ratio between the diastolic time and the whole cardiac cycle time. RESULTS: The study included 35 women with a GD and 217 non-diabetic. Right ventricular filling time (RVFT) was significantly lower in the GD group (mean of RVFT = 39.2 ± 4.4 vs 43.6 ± 4.6; p < 0.01). Likewise, left ventricular filling time (LVFT) was shorter in the GD group compared to the non-GD group, though the difference was not significant (mean of LVFT = 43.6 ± 4.6 vs 44.6 ± 5.5; p = 0.33). CONCLUSIONS: Fetal right cardiac function is altered also in pregnancies where gestational diabetes is well controlled.

Ultrasound assessment of maternal adipose tissue during 1st trimester screening for aneuploidies and risk of developing gestational diabetes.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of the present study is to compare the sonographic measurement of subcutaneous adipose thickness and visceral adipose thickness during 1st trimester screening for aneuploidies between non-diabetic pregnant women and patients who develop 1st trimester or 2nd trimester gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Adipose thickness was measured by transabdominal ultrasound imaging in pregnant women attending our clinic for screening for fetal aneuploidies between 11 and 13 weeks of gestation. During the 1st trimester all patients were evaluated for fasting glycemia in accordance with the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) recommendations. Patients with confirmed fasting glycemia (FPG) ≥92 mg/dL were diagnosed as 1st trimester GDM. Patients with FPG <92 mg/dL underwent a 75-g oral glucose tolerance test between 24 and 28 weeks. RESULTS: The study population included 238 non-diabetic women, 29 women with 1st trimester GDM and 28 women with 2nd trimester GDM. Mean subcutaneous adipose thickness and visceral adipose thickness values in non-diabetic women were 9.8 mm (standard deviation [SD = 4.9) and 7.2 mm (SD = 3.5), respectively. Values in women with 1st trimester GDM were 12.8 mm (SD = 6.5) and 9.9 mm (SD = 4.4). In the 2nd trimester GDM group, the mean subcutaneous adipose thickness was 11.1 mm (SD = 4.6) and the mean visceral adipose thickness 10.5 mm (SD = 5.3). Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that visceral adipose thickness, but not subcutaneous adipose thickness, was significantly and independently associated with both 1st trimester GDM (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.02-1.29) and 2nd trimester GDM (odds ratio [OR] 1.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-1.34). CONCLUSIONS: Sonographic thickness of maternal visceral adipose tissue was greater in women with GDM than in non-diabetic patients, independently of other known risk factors associated with GDM in the 1st and in the 2nd trimester of pregnancy. Thus, this measurement may be considered of clinical use in 1st trimester screening.

Comparison of criteria of International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) for diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Different screening procedures and diagnostic criteria are being followed in the same as well as in different countries with no single standard criteria established for diagnosis of GDM. So far, there are no studies in the Indian population comparing IADPSG with NICE criteria. OBJECTIVE: To compare International Association of Pregnancy and Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) for diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus and its influence on maternal and perinatal outcomes. METHOD: This prospective observational study was conducted in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of a tertiary care institute in South India from March 2017 to October 2018. Six-hundred and eighty women with or without risk factors for GDM were recruited in the study and screened for GDM based on IADPSG and NICE criteria. Women with preexisting diabetes mellitus or with fasting plasma glucose ≥ 126 mg/dl were excluded. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of GDM in our study was 27.2% by either IADPSG/NICE criteria. In this study, 25.1% women and 11.6% women were diagnosed as GDM using IADPSG and NICE criteria, respectively. The level of agreement between the two diagnostic criteria was found to be poor in our study and was statistically significant (kappa = 0.429, p < 0.001). Women testing IADPSG-positive NICE-negative had a higher risk of GHTN, abortions, PROM, preterm delivery, caesarean section and congenital anomalies, meconium-stained liquor, and low Apgar scores at 1 min when compared to non GDM group. In addition, except for preterm delivery, women diagnosed as GDM by both IADPSG and NICE criteria had adverse outcomes such as preeclampsia, urinary tract infection, and polyhydramnios. Women diagnosed as GDM in IADPSG-negative NICE-positive had no significant adverse maternal or perinatal outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: IADPSG criteria appear to be more robust than NICE criteria for diagnosis of GDM. Women with substantial risk of maternal and perinatal outcomes are better identified by IADPSG criteria who would have been missed if NICE criteria was used.

Pregnancy outcome of gestational diabetes mellitus using a structured model of care : WINGS project (WINGS-10).

AIM: To evaluate the impact of a structured model of care (MOC) prepared for resource-constrained settings, on the pregnancy outcomes of Asian Indian women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). METHODS: Pregnant women were screened under the Women in India with GDM Strategy (WINGS) MOC for GDM using the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups criteria. Women with GDM went through a structured MOC that included medical nutrition therapy (MNT), regular physical activity (PA); and insulin when indicated. Fasting blood glucose and post-prandial blood sugar were monitored every 2 weeks. The pregnancy outcomes of women with GDM who underwent the MOC were compared with those without GDM. RESULTS: Under the MOC, 212 women with GDM were followed through pregnancy, of whom 33 (15.6%) required insulin and 179 (84.4%) were managed with MNT and PA. The maternal and neonatal outcomes of women with GDM were similar to the non-GDM women: there were no significant differences in pregnancy complications such as cesarean section, macrosomia, pre-eclampsia, oligo/polyhydramnios, preterm delivery, neonatal death, fetal distress, hyperbilirubinemia and low birthweight. CONCLUSION: Implementation of a structured MOC for women with GDM helped achieve pregnancy outcomes similar to those without GDM.

Gestational diabetes mellitus and the predisposing factors.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the occurrence of gestational diabetes mellitus and its association with demographic and anthropometric variables in pregnant women. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted at the Aga Khan University Hospital, Abbasi Shaheed Hospital and Memon Hospital in Karachi, from February 2014 to December 2015, and comprised pregnant women who were screened by 75-g 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test, (24-28 weeks of gestation) and classified as per the criteria of the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Group. Weight, body mass index and serum glycated haemoglobin levels were measured. Women with pre-gestational diabetes were excluded. SPSS 21 was used for data analysis. RESULTS: Of the 1,210 participants, 208(17.2%) had gestational diabetes, while 1,002(82.8%) did not have the condition. Gestational diabetes was associated with advancing age, deranged glycated haemoglobin, elevated body mass index at booking (p<0.001) and history of first-degree type 2 diabetic relatives (p=0.05). When stratified according to ethnicities, no difference was observed in terms of gestational diabetes predilection among those who had the condition (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Pre-existing adiposity and presence of strong family history rendered a considerable number of pregnant women to suffer from gestational diabetes.

Impact of the new IADPSG gestational diabetes diagnostic criteria on pregnancy outcomes in Western Australia.

BACKGROUND: There is debate as to the most appropriate diagnostic criteria to diagnose gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). The proposed International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria have recently been endorsed by various bodies, but there remains no national consensus. AIM: To assess the perinatal outcomes of women with GDM classified according to the 1998 Australasian Diabetes in Pregnancy Society (ADIPS) criteria compared to those with GDM by the IADPSG criteria. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Results of glucose tolerance tests performed between January 2011 and January 2014 were linked with the perinatal data of those who delivered singleton fetuses after 24 weeks' gestation. Analysed data included birthweight, gestational age at birth, macrosomia, mode of delivery, perinatal mortality, nursery admission, maternal body mass index, and gestational weight gain. RESULTS: Of 3571 women, 466 (13%) and 559 (16%) met the criteria for the 1998 ADIPS and IADPSG criteria for GDM, respectively. Those with GDM according to the IADPSG criteria only (6%) were more obese (95% CI 2.3-4.8 kg/m(2) ), delivered neonates on average 106 g heavier (95% CI 19-193 g) and had more fetal macrosomia (18% vs 11%, P = 0.002) than those with normal glucose tolerance. CONCLUSIONS: The IADPSG criteria for GDM identified a group of women at previously unrecognised increased risk of adverse perinatal outcomes. Adopting the IADPSG criteria would increase the number of women diagnosed with GDM by 20%; however, the improvements in perinatal morbidity, in addition to potential long-term benefits, may justify the increase in healthcare workload.

Impact of using the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups criteria in South Auckland: prevalence, interventions and outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Adopting the modified International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria for diagnosing gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) will increase the prevalence of GDM resulting in increased resource utilisation and an unknown effect on clinical outcomes. AIMS: To determine the prevalence of GDM by the modified IADPSG criteria and compare characteristics and pregnancy outcomes between women with GDM by IADPSG-additional, those with GDM by the New Zealand Society for the Study of Diabetes (NZSSD) criteria and those with a normal oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). METHODS: All women who delivered at Counties Manukau District Health Board (CMDHB) for a 12-month period from July 2012 to June 2013 had demographic, pregnancy and laboratory data obtained from hospital databases and clinical records. RESULTS: Of the 6376 (85%) of eligible women screened for GDM, 381 (6%) had GDM by NZSSD criteria and an additional 238 (4%) by the modified IADPSG-additional criteria, a relative increase of 62%. Women with GDM by NZSSD criteria had similar characteristics compared to women with GDM by IADPSG-additional. The outcomes between the two groups were also similar with the exception of a higher induction of labour (IOL) rate in women with GDM by NZSSD and a higher mean birthweight in the GDM by IADPSG-additional. CONCLUSION: Adopting the modified IADPSG criteria will result in a 62% increase in the number of GDM cases with a significant impact on workload and resources. Currently, there is insufficient evidence to support the introduction of the IADPSG criteria for our service.

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 diagnosed as gestational diabetes mellitus by International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups criteria and labeled as normoglycemic by alternate criteria in early pregnancy.

AIMS/INTRODUCTION: We aimed to evaluate and compare continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS)-based glycemic parameters in women in early pregnancy (<20 weeks of gestation) who were classified as: (i) gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) by the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG), but normoglycemia by alternate (UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Canadian Diabetes Association and Diabetes in Pregnancy Study group of India) criteria; and (ii) normoglycemia by both (IADPSG and alternate) criteria. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, eligible women underwent standard 75-g oral glucose tolerance test, 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 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Canadian Diabetes Association and Diabetes in Pregnancy Study group of India criteria, respectively. Mean 1-h postprandial glucose and time above range were significantly higher in women who were GDM by IADPSG, but normoglycemia by Canadian Diabetes Association criteria, compared with women with normoglycemia using both criteria. Similarly, mean 1-h postprandial glucose, 2-h postprandial glucose, peak postprandial glucose, 1-h postprandial glucose excursion and time above range were significantly higher in women who were not identified as GDM by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence criteria. Finally, women missed by the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study group of India 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 one-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.

Prevalence of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and factors associated with it in Indian women with a history of gestational diabetes mellitus.

AIMS/INTRODUCTION: This study aims to evaluate the prevalence of and factors associated with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) in Indian women with prior gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) diagnosed using International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional study (2018-2019) enrolled women with and without prior GDM. Study participants underwent detailed assessments, including relevant medical, obstetric and demographic details; 75-g oral glucose tolerance test with glucose and insulin estimation at 0, 30 and 120 min; and other relevant biochemical and anthropometric measurements. NAFLD status was defined by ultrasonography. RESULTS: We evaluated a total of 309 women (201 and 108 with and without prior GDM, respectively) at a mean age of 31.9 ± 5.0 years and median of 16 months (interquartile range 9-38 months) following the index delivery. The prevalence of NAFLD was significantly higher in women with prior GDM (62.7% vs 50.0%, P = 0.038; grade 2 and 3 disease, 13.9% vs 6.5%). On logistic regression analysis (fully adjusted model), the odds of NAFLD were 2.11-fold higher in women with prior GDM (95% confidence interval 1.16-3.85, P = 0.014). Overweight/obesity, metabolic syndrome, prediabetes and homeostasis model of assessment of insulin resistance (a measure of insulin resistance) were positively associated with NAFLD, whereas the Matsuda index (a measure of insulin sensitivity) showed a negative association with NAFLD. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of NAFLD is high in women with prior GDM. Such women also have a high burden of cardiometabolic risk factors. Future studies should evaluate the intermediate and long-term hepatic and cardiovascular risk, and the impact of lifestyle interventions in reducing morbidity in such women.

Management of gestational diabetes in women with a concurrent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection, experience of a single center in Northern Italy.

OBJECTIVE: In this study we describe the management of women with gestational diabetes (GD) and an ongoing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. The aim of the study is to evaluate whether coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can further complicate pregnancies, and if the protocol we usually use for GD pregnancies is also applicable to patients who have contracted a SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: This is a retrospective study analyzing all pregnant women with GD and concomitant COVID-19 admitted to our institution for antenatal care between March 1 and April 30, 2020. RESULTS: Among pregnant women with GD and a concomitant SARS-CoV-2 infection, the mean age was 32.9 (SD 5.6) years. Two patients (33%) were of white racial origin and four (67%) were of non-white racial origin. All patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 during the third trimester of pregnancy. Two women were asymptomatic and four were symptomatic. Only two (33.3%) women received treatment with insulin. None of the patients required intensive care or mechanical ventilation. No complications were found among the neonates. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 was not found to worsen the prognosis of patients with GD or of their offspring. Glycemic monitoring, diet therapy, and insulin, when needed, are sufficient for good metabolic control and favorable maternal and fetal outcomes.

Have pregnancy outcomes improved with the introduction of the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups criteria in Japan?

AIMS/INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to investigate the effects of the introduction of the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria for diagnosing gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) on maternal and neonatal outcomes in Japan. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective study carried out at a tertiary center in Japan. Previously in Japan, GDM was diagnosed if two or more of the following Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology (JSOG) criteria were met: fasting plasma glucose ≥100 mg/dL, 1-h value ≥180 mg/dL or 2-h value ≥150 mg/dL on the 75-g oral glucose tolerance. Since 2010, GDM has been diagnosed if one or more of the following IADPSG criteria are met: fasting plasma glucose ≥92 mg/dL, 1-h value ≥180 mg/dL or 2-h value ≥153 mg/dL on the 75-g oral glucose tolerance. We compared the pregnancy outcomes of all pregnant women with singleton pregnancies after 22 weeks' gestation at our hospital before (JSOG period) and after (IADPSG period) the IADPSG criteria were adopted. RESULTS: There were 3,912 women in the JSOG period and 4,772 in the IADPSG period. GDM prevalence increased from 2.9% in the JSOG period to 13% in the IADPSG period (P < 0.001). No significant differences between the groups were found in rates of macrosomia, or large for gestational age, and no significant differences were found in birthweight. The neonatal hypoglycemia rate and neonatal intensive care unit admission rate were significantly lower in the IADPSG period (adjusted odds ratio 0.51 and 0.78, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Introduction of the IADPSG criteria for diagnosing GDM increased GDM diagnosis frequency fourfold, but reduced neonatal intensive care unit admission and neonatal hypoglycemia rates significantly.

Performance of a selective screening strategy for diagnosis of hyperglycaemia in pregnancy as defined by IADPSG/WHO criteria.

AIM: Our study evaluated the performance of a selective screening strategy for hyperglycaemia in pregnancy (HIP) based on the presence of risk factors (RFs; body mass index≥25kg/m2, age≥35years, family history of diabetes, personal history of HIP or macrosomic infant) to diagnose HIP and to predict HIP-related events. METHODS: Women with no known diabetes who had undergone complete universal screening (early, before 22weeks of gestation and, if normal, in the second part of pregnancy) at our department (2012-2016) were selected, resulting in four groups of women according to the presence of HIP and/or RFs, with a predefined composite endpoint (preeclampsia or large-for-gestational-age infant or shoulder dystocia). RESULTS: Included were 4518 women: 23.5% had HIP and 71.1% had at least one RF. The distribution among our four groups was: HIP-/RF- (n=1144); HIP-/RF+ (n=2313); HIP+/RF- (n=163); and HIP+/RF+ (n=898). HIP was more frequent when RFs were present rather than absent (33.1% vs 15.4%, respectively; P<0.001). Incidence of the composite endpoint differed significantly (P<0.0001) across groups [HIP-/RF- 6.3%; HIP-/RF+ 13.2%; HIP+/RF- 8.6%; and HIP+/RF+ 17.1% (HIP effect: P<0.05; RF effect: P<0.001; interaction HIP * RF: P=0.94)] and significantly increased with the number of RFs (no RF: 6.3%, 1 RF: 10.8%, 2 RFs: 14.7%, 3 RFs: 28.0%, 4-5 RFs: 25.0%; P<0.0001). CONCLUSION: RFs are predictive of HIP, although 15.4% of women with HIP have no RFs. Also, irrespective of HIP status, RFs are predictive of HIP-related events, suggesting that overweight/obesity, the only modifiable RFs, could be targets of interventions to improve pregnancy prognosis.

Influence of different diagnostic criteria on gestational diabetes mellitus incidence and medical expenditures in China.

AIMS/INTRODUCTION: To summarize the development of the criteria for diagnosing gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) in China, and investigate how different GDM diagnostic criteria influence the national prevalence of GDM, the national health system and the economic burden of GDM in China. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospectively using data from women undergoing a 2-h, 75-g oral glucose tolerance test at 24-28 gestational weeks in the First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University (Guangzhou, Guangdong, China) from January 2011 to December 2017, the prevalence rate of GDM and its impacts on the national health system were evaluated using different criteria (the 7th edition textbook criteria, National Diabetes Data Group 1979, World Health Organization 1985, European Association for the Study of Diabetes 1996, Japan 2002, American Diabetes Association [ADA] 2011 [International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups], and National Institute for Heath and Care Excellence 2015). RESULTS: The incidence rates of GDM based on the ADA 2011 and National Institute for Heath and Care Excellence 2015 were, respectively, 22.94% (P < 0.01) and 21.72% (P < 0.01), over threefold higher than implementing the 7th edition textbook criteria (P < 0.001). On the contrary, the incidence rates of GDM diagnosed with the National Diabetes Data Group 1979 and World Health Organization 1985 guidelines were significantly less than the 7th edition textbook criteria (P < 0.001). From 2001 to 2016, the estimated national cost of treating GDM rose from ¥3.9 billion to ¥27.4 billion after implementing the ADA 2011 guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: With the implementation of ADA 2011 (International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups) guidelines, there are fewer adverse perinatal outcomes and cases of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the long term, but the medical costs increased significantly, and the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic criteria in China is still yet to be confirmed.

Early screening for gestational diabetes mellitus is not associated with improved pregnancy outcomes: an observational study including 9795 women.

AIMS: In addition to screening for hyperglycaemia during pregnancy after 24 weeks of gestation (WG), the current guidelines also suggest screening in early pregnancy and referring women with early gestational diabetes mellitus (eGDM) or overt diabetes (OD) for immediate care. Our aim was to evaluate this strategy. METHODS: This study evaluated, at our hospital (2012-2016), whether the incidence of a predefined composite outcome (preeclampsia, large-for-gestational-age infant, shoulder dystocia) and secondary outcomes was different when women were screened only after 22WG ('late screening only') or before 22WG and treated for eGDM or OD if present, with repeat screening after 22WG if absent ('early ± late screening'). RESULTS: Early ± late screening (n = 4605, 47.0%) increased between 2012 and 2016 (P < 0.0001) and was associated with more risk factors for GDM than late screening only. Glycaemic status differed in both groups (early ± late screening: eGDM 10.3%, GDM 12.1%, OD 0.9% vs. late screening only: GDM 16.8%, OD 1.2%; P < 0.001), with a higher rate of insulin therapy (8.9% vs. 6.0%; P < 0.001) and less gestational weight gain (11.1 ± 5.4 kg vs. 11.4 ± 5.5 kg; P = 0.013) in the early ± late screening group. Rates of those meeting the composite criterion were similar in both groups [11.6% vs. 12.0%, respectively; odds ratio (OR): 1.040, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.920-1.176; P = 0.53] and remained comparable after adjusting for Propensity Scores (OR: 1.046, 95% CI: 0.924-1.185; P = 0.4790). Rates for secondary outcomes were also similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: While a strategy including early measurement of fasting plasma glucose during pregnancy increases the incidence and care of hyperglycaemia during pregnancy, it may not significantly improve pregnancy outcomes.

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

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.

Risk factors of gestational diabetes mellitus using results of a prospective population-based study in Iranian pregnant women.

AIMS: Early identification of at-risk groups is an important step in preventing gestational diabetes and its subsequent side effects. This study aimed to evaluate the risk factors of gestational diabetes based on the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups criteria in Ahvaz. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In a cross-sectional case control study, 520 pregnant women involving life after gestational diabetes Ahvaz cohort study (LAGAs) were investigated for risk factors of gestational diabetes mellitus. RESULT: The prevalence of overweight and obesity were 40% and25.8% in the GMD group and in 35.8% and 16.2% in the control group respectively (p = 0.002). According to NCEP-ATP III criteria, 16.9% of women with GDM and 6.9% of mothers in the control group had metabolic syndrome in first visit of pregnancy (p < 0.001. Logistic regression showed that there is a significant relationship between maternal age[OR = 1.05(95% CI, 1.01-1.10)] (p = 0.01), previous GDM [OR = 5.60(95% CI, 2.21-14.18)] (p = 0.001), positive family history of diabetes[OR = 1.86(95% CI, 1.19-2.94)] (p = 0.006), pre-pregnancy BMI [OR = 1.05(95% CI, 1.007-1.11)] (p = 0.04) and metabolic syndrome in first visit of pregnancy[OR = 2.34 (95% CI, 1.038-5.30)] (p = 0.04) with GDM. CONCLUSION: Factors including maternal age, previous GDM, family history of diabetes, pre-pregnancy BMI reported in previous studies around the world. A significant association between metabolic syndrome in the first visit of pregnancy and GDM is novel finding of this study. Therefore screening of pre-pregnancy metabolic syndrome in women at risk of gestational diabetes is recommended.

Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: Using the Fasting Plasma Glucose Level to Simplify the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups Diagnostic Algorithm in an Adult South Asian Population.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the value of the fasting plasma glucose (FPG) level for simplifying the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) diagnostic algorithm of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) in a South Asian population. METHODS: In 6,520 pregnant women undergoing universal screening with the 75 g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), the area under receiver operating characteristic curve was used to determine the overall FPG performance to detect GDM (IADPSG criteria). Specifically, 2 different FPG thresholds of the OGTT were used to rule in and rule out GDM so as to decrease the need for the cumbersome OGTT. RESULTS: GDM was present in 1,193 (18.3%) women. The FPG 1) area under receiver operating characteristic curve (95% CI) was 0.909 (0.898 to 0.920); 2) threshold of ≥5.1 mmol/L independently could rule in GDM in 708 (10.9%) women (100% specificity); 3) threshold of <4.3 mmol/L independently could rule out GDM in an additional 2,389 (36.6%) women (95.6% sensitivity). CONCLUSIONS: By circumventing nearly one half the OGTTs, an initial FPG can simplify the onerous GDM diagnostic IADPSG algorithm in this population parochially and in countries with large South Asian immigrant populations-without compromising medical care.

Should the IADPSG criteria be applied when diagnosing early-onset gestational diabetes?

AIMS: To investigate whether the broad interpretation of the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria with application to the early pregnancy, which is adopted as the standard in Japan, is appropriate. METHODS: We conducted this investigation by comparing diabetes-related adverse pregnancy outcomes among women treated for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) following an early-pregnancy diagnosis (early-onset GDM, n = 528) and those treated for GDM following a mid-pregnancy diagnosis, which is the international standard (Mid-term-onset GDM, n = 147). RESULTS: Gestational weight gain was significantly lower in the early-onset GDM group (7.5 kg) than in the mid-term-onset GDM group (8.4 kg). The frequency of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy tended to be lower in the early-onset GDM group (5.6% vs. 8.8%, p = 0.085), but infant birth weight did not differ significantly between the groups. No between-group difference was observed in macrosomia, large-for-gestational-age (LGA), small-for-gestational age (SGA), low Apgar score, shoulder dystocia, cesarean delivery, NICU admission, hyperbilirubinemia, neonatal hypoglycemia, or respiratory distress syndrome. The frequency of LGA showed a significant association with pre-pregnancy body mass index, but did not differ according to the timing of therapy initiation. CONCLUSIONS: We could not find the effectiveness of therapeutic interventions initiated after GDM diagnosis in the early pregnancy based on the IADPSG criteria, compared with therapeutic interventions after a mid-pregnancy GDM diagnosis. It was suggested that the IADPSG criteria for diagnosing GDM at 24-28 weeks' gestation should not be applied to Japanese women in the early pregnancy by a broader interpretation.