Heterogeneity of pregnancy outcomes and risk of LGA neonates in Caucasian females according to IADPSG criteria for gestational diabetes mellitus

Single Fasting Plasma Glucose Versus 75-g Oral Glucose-Tolerance Test in Prediction of Adverse Perinatal Outcomes: A Cohort Study

“…The previous studies that explored FPG performance used GDM diagnosed by specific criteria as the gold standard rather than used pregnancy outcomes (Agarwal et al, 2011, Poomalar and Rangaswamy, 2013). The few studies comparing FPG performance to post-load glucose based on pregnancy outcomes reported comparable AUCs for post-load glucose in prediction of LGA to our study (0.578 for 1 h, 0.573 for 2 h in Trujillo et al's study (Trujillo et al, 2015); 0.549 for 2 h in Disse et al's study (Disse et al, 2013)). The AUCs for fasting glucose in prediction of LGA in present study was higher than that reported by Trujillo et al ( n  = 4077, AUC: 0.553) and lower than that reported by Disse et al ( n  = 75, AUC: 0.783).…”

“…Fasting plasma glucose (FPG) provides a cheap, acceptable reliable, reproducible alternative GDM screening method to the OGTT for the last three decades (Mortensen et al, 1985, Zhu et al, 2013), with renewed attention following introduction of the IADPSG criteria. Early studies suggested that FPG had significantly higher predictive value for LGA in comparison to post-load glucose, independent of maternal BMI and 2 h glucose value (Disse et al, 2013, Legardeur et al, 2014). A recent systematic review also found that fasting glucose concentration has stronger associations with LGA than post-load glucose concentration (Farrar et al, 2016).…”

The Relationship between Maternal Gestational Impaired Glucose Tolerance and Risk of Large-for-Gestational-Age Infant: A Meta-Analysis of 14 Studies

“…The remaining 521 full-text articles were selected and inspected and then we excluded 507 articles because there were 30 reviews and 477 studies which did not meet the inclusion criteria of meta-analysis. Finally, we ended up with 14 observational studies (4,5,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25) for our analysis.…”

“…We abstracted the ORs from the 14 studies, the analysis of the effects of gestational IGT on LGA yielded an overall adjusted OR of 2.36 (1.64, 3.37), but this apparent relationship was not observed in the analyses of the unadjusted ORs. The definitions of gestational IGT in these studies were different - some studies restricted the value of fasting plasma glucose (FPG) (4,5,14,15,23,24), the others just formulated the value of OGTT (16,17,18,19,20,21,22,25). When stratified by the unequal definition, the analysis of the effects of gestational IGT with restricted FPG value on LGA yielded an overall OR of 1.73 (1.01, 2.99).…”

“…When stratified by the unequal definition, the analysis of the effects of gestational IGT with restricted FPG value on LGA yielded an overall OR of 1.73 (1.01, 2.99). The definition of gestational IGT employed different forms of OGTT as well - for instance, some studies used the value of OGTT at 0, 60, 120, and 180 min (19,20,21,25), some used the value of 2-h 75-g OGTT (4,5,14,15,17,18,22,23,24), and one used the value of 1-h 50-g OGTT (16). When we stratified by the different forms of OGTT, a positive association of gestational IGT and LGA was obtained in the studies conducted in unequal definition.…”