Background: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) contributes significantly to maternal and neonatal morbidity, but data from marginalized populations remains scarce. This study aims to compare risk-factor-based screening to universal testing for GDM among migrants along the Thailand-Myanmar border. Methods: From the prospective cohort (September 2016, February 2019), 374 healthy pregnant women completed a 75g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) at 24-32 weeks gestation. Fasting, one hour and two hour cut-offs were based on Hyperglycaemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes (HAPO trial) criteria and cases were treated. The sensitivity and specificity of risk-factor-based screening criteria was calculated using OGTT as the gold standard. Risk factors included at least one positive finding among 10 criteria, e.g., obesity (body mass index (BMI) ≥27.5kg/m2), 1st degree relative with diabetes etc. Adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes were compared by GDM status, and risk factors for GDM were explored. Results: GDM prevalence was 13.4% (50/374) (95% CI: 10.3-17.2). Risk-factors alone correctly identified 74.0% (37/50) OGTT positive cases: sensitivity 74.0% (59.7-85.4) and specificity 27.8% (3.0-33.0). Burman women accounted for 29.1% of the cohort population, but 38.0% of GDM cases. Percentiles for birthweight (p=0.004), head circumference (p=0.005), and weight-length ratio (p=0.010) were higher in newborns of GDM mothers compared with non-GDM, yet 21.7% (75/346) of newborns in the cohort were small-for-gestational age. In Burman women, overweight/obese BMI was associated with a significantly increased adjusted odds ratio 5.03 (95% CI: 1.43-17.64) for GDM compared to normal weight, whereas underweight and overweight/obese in Karen women were both associated with similarly elevated adjusted odds, approximately 2.4-fold (non-significant) for GDM. GDM diagnosis by OGTT was highest prior to peak rainfall. Conclusions: Risk-factor-based screening was not sufficiently sensitive or specific to be useful to diagnose GDM in this setting among a cohort of low-risk pregnant women. A two-step universal screening program has thus been implemented.
Background: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) contributes to maternal and neonatal morbidity. As data from marginalized populations remains scarce, this study compares risk-factor-based to universal GDM screening in a low resource setting. Methods: This is a secondary analysis of data from a prospective preterm birth cohort. Pregnant women were enrolled in the first trimester and completed a 75g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) at 24-32 weeks' gestation. To define GDM cases, Hyperglycaemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes (HAPO trial) criteria were used. All GDM positive cases were treated. Sensitivity and specificity of risk-factor-based selection for screening (criteria: age ≥30y, obesity (Body mass index (BMI) ≥27.5kg/m2), previous GDM, 1st degree relative with diabetes, previous macrosomia (≥4kg), previous stillbirth, or symphysis-fundal height ≥90th percentile) was compared to universal screening using the OGTT as the gold standard. Adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes were compared by GDM status. Results: GDM prevalence was 13.4% (50/374) (95% CI: 10.3-17.2). Three quarters of women had at least one risk factor (n=271 women), with 37/50 OGTT positive cases correctly identified: sensitivity 74.0% (59.7-85.4) and specificity 27.8% (3.0-33.0). Burman women (self-identified) accounted for 29.1% of the cohort population, but 38.0% of GDM cases. Percentiles for birthweight (p=0.004), head circumference (p=0.002), and weight-length ratio (p=0.030) were higher in newborns of GDM positive compared with non-GDM mothers. 21.7% (75/346) of newborns in the cohort were small-for-gestational age (≤10th percentile). In Burman women, overweight/obese BMI was associated with a significantly increased adjusted odds ratio 5.03 (95% CI: 1.43-17.64) for GDM compared with normal weight, whereas in Karen women, the trend in association was similar but not significant (OR 2.36; 95% CI 0.95-5.89). Conclusions: Risk-factor-based screening missed one in four GDM positive women. Considering the benefits of early detection of GDM and the limited additional cost of universal screening, a two-step screening program was implemented.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.