Aim Current International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups/World Health Organization gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) diagnostic thresholds are based on a landmark study in which the pre-analytical plasma glucose sampling methodology is unclear. Worldwide, plasma glucose pre-analytical sampling methodology practices are divergent. We considered the effects of pre-analytical plasma glucose sampling methodology on GDM prevalence and gestational outcomes.Methods This is a retrospective observational cohort study of 1178 pregnant women undergoing an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). Of the 1178 pregnant women, a subset of 892 non-GDM women with singleton births undergoing OGTT between 24 and 28 weeks' gestation were investigated for large for gestation age (LGA) outcomes. OGTT were determined using traditional methods (sodium fluoride tubes batched at roomed temperature). We modelled the potential effects of using a recommended pre-analytical plasma glucose methodology (lyophilized citrate tubes) on GDM prevalence. ResultsThe GDM prevalence in our cohort was 13.5%. The incidence of LGA showed a linear association with maternal plasma glucose that was similar to the association observed in the Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome study. Frequency of LGA exceeded 10% at HAPO glucose category 4 (fasting, 4.8 to 4.9 mmol/l; 1-h, 8.7 to 9.5 mmol/l) for fasting and 1-h plasma glucose. The use of a recommended pre-analytical method is projected to increase the prevalence of GDM to 39.2%. ConclusionWe challenge the consensus that recommended pre-analytical plasma glucose methodologies are optimal for the accurate diagnosis of GDM. Recommended pre-analytical plasma glucose methods may profoundly overdiagnose GDM. Centres using recommended pre-analytical plasma glucose methodologies may need to reappraise their diagnostic thresholds.
Background: We investigated the treatment effects of tight glycaemic targets in a population universally screened according to the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnant Study Groups (IADPSG)/World Health Organisation (WHO) gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) guidelines. As yet there, have been no randomized control trials evaluating the effectiveness of treatment of mild GDM diagnosed under the IADPSG/WHO diagnostic thresholds. We hypothesize that tight glycaemic control in pregnant women diagnosed with GDM will result in similar clinical outcomes to women just below the diagnostic thresholds. Methods: A multiple cut-off regression discontinuity study design in a retrospective observational cohort undergoing oral glucose tolerance tests (OGTT) (n = 1178). Treatment targets for women with GDM were: fasting capillary blood glucose (CBG) of ≤5.0 mmol/L and the 2-h post-prandial CBG of ≤6.7 mmol/L. Regression discontinuity study designs estimate treatment effects by comparing outcomes between a treated group to a counterfactual group just below the diagnostic thresholds with the assumption that covariates are similar. The counterfactual group was selected based on a composite score based on OGTT plasma glucose categories. Results: Women treated for GDM had lower rates of newborns large for gestational age (LGA), 4.6% versus those just below diagnostic thresholds 12.6%, relative risk 0.37 (95% CI, 0.16–0.85); and reduced caesarean section rates, 32.2% versus 43.0%, relative risk 0.75 (95% CI, 0.56–1.01). This was at the expense of increases in induced deliveries, 61.8% versus 39.3%, relative risk 1.57 (95% CI, 1.18–1.9); notations of neonatal hypoglycaemia, 15.8% versus 5.9%, relative risk 2.66 (95% CI, 1.23–5.73); and high insulin usage 61.1%. The subgroup analysis suggested that treatment of women with GDM with BMI ≥30 kg/m2 drove the reduction in caesarean section rates: 32.9% versus 55.9%, relative risk 0.59 (95%CI, 0.4–0.87). Linear regression interaction term effects between non-GDM and treated GDM were significant for LGA newborns (p = 0.001) and caesarean sections (p = 0.015). Conclusions: Tight glycaemic targets reduced rates of LGA newborns and caesarean sections compared to a counterfactual group just below the diagnostic thresholds albeit at the expense of increased rates of neonatal hypoglycaemia, induced deliveries, and high insulin usage.
BackgroundWe investigated the treatment effects of tight glycaemic targets in a population universally screened according to the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnant Study Groups/World Health Organisation gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) guidelines. MethodsA multiple cut-off regression discontinuity study design in a retrospective observational cohort undergoing oral glucose tolerance tests (n = 1178). Treatment of GDM women with the targets: fasting glucose of ≤ 5.0 mmol/L and the 2-hour post-prandial glucose of ≤ 6.7 mmol/L. ResultsTreated GDM women had lower rates of large for gestational age 4.6% versus those just below diagnostic thresholds 12.6%, relative risk 0.37 (95% CI, 0.16-0.85); reduced caesarean section rates, 32.2% versus 43.0%, relative risk 0.75 (95% CI, 0.56-1.01). The subgroup analysis suggested that treatment of GDM women with BMI ≥ 30 kg/m 2 drove the reduction in caesarean section rates: 32.9% versus 55.9%, relative risk 0.59 (95%CI, 0.4-0.87). Linear regression interaction term effects between non-GDM and treated GDM were significant for LGA (p = 0.001) and caesarean sections (p = 0.015). ConclusionsTight glycaemic targets reduced rates of large for gestational age and caesarean sections compared to a counterfactual group just below the diagnostic thresholds albeit at the expense of increased rates of neonatal hypoglycaemia, induced deliveries, and insulin usage.
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.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
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.