Gestational diabetes mellitus screening according to Carpenter–Coustan and IADPSG criteria: A 7-year follow-up of prevalence, treatment and neonatal complications at a Belgian general hospital

Prediction of gestational diabetes mellitus in the first trimester: comparison of maternal fetuin-A, N-terminal proatrial natriuretic peptide, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, and fasting glucose levels

“…GDM affects 8%-18% of all pregnancies, and with impaired glucose tolerance first recognized during the second or third trimester of pregnancy, it is a main cause of maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality (20). The cornerstone of management is glycemic control, and poor control during pregnancy has been associated with miscarriage, preterm birth, stillbirth, macrosomia, urinary tract infection, polyhydramnios, shoulder dystocia, operative delivery, neonatal hyperbilirubinemia-hypocalcemia, and increased NICU admission (21).…”

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

“…Our study also reported a 30% increase in hyperglycaemia during pregnancy when early screening was performed. Similarly, in Belgium [29] and in the US [30], implementing early screening was reported to nearly double the number of detected hyperglycaemias compared with the previous standard two-step approach (Carpenter-Coustan criteria) [30].…”

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

“…Indeed, international studies show conflicting results on the effects of screening and treatment of HIP by comparing the one-step approach with the two-step approach. Some studies have reported better pregnancy outcomes [ 3 , 17 , 18 , 19 ], while others have not [ 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 ].…”

“…However, the Belgian prevalence appears to be lower than in some previous studies in other countries (18.9–35.5%) [ 3 , 26 , 27 ]. Previous studies in Belgium have shown that the prevalence of HIP before and after application of the IADPSG/WHO criteria increased from 3.3% to 5.7% at the University Hospital of Gasthuisberg (UZ Leuven) [ 21 ] , from 3.4% to 16.2% at the Erasme Hospital Brussels [ 22 ], and from 8.0% to 23.0% at the Mouscron Hospital Centre in Western Hainaut [ 23 ]. The reasons for these discrepancies are unclear but may be related to universal screening for HIP and the high or low proportion of diabetes risk factors in the pregnant populations studied (age, excess weight, different ethnicities, or social demographic statuses) [ 21 , 23 , 28 , 29 ].…”

“…Previous studies in Belgium have shown that the prevalence of HIP before and after application of the IADPSG/WHO criteria increased from 3.3% to 5.7% at the University Hospital of Gasthuisberg (UZ Leuven) [ 21 ] , from 3.4% to 16.2% at the Erasme Hospital Brussels [ 22 ], and from 8.0% to 23.0% at the Mouscron Hospital Centre in Western Hainaut [ 23 ]. The reasons for these discrepancies are unclear but may be related to universal screening for HIP and the high or low proportion of diabetes risk factors in the pregnant populations studied (age, excess weight, different ethnicities, or social demographic statuses) [ 21 , 23 , 28 , 29 ]. The observed increase in prevalence is also related to the IADPSG/WHO guidelines that call for universal screening for HIP, which is diagnosed when a single blood glucose value is above the threshold defined by the one-step loading test.…”