Alejandra Duran1, Sofía Sáenz2, María J Torrejón3, Elena Bordiú1, Laura Del Valle2, Mercedes Galindo2, Noelia Perez4, Miguel A Herraiz5, Nuria Izquierdo4, Miguel A Rubio1, Isabelle Runkle1, Natalia Pérez-Ferre2, Idalia Cusihuallpa2, Sandra Jiménez2, Nuria García de la Torre2, María D Fernández2, Carmen Montañez2, Cristina Familiar2, Alfonso L Calle-Pascual6. 1. Endocrinology and Nutrition Department, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. 2. Endocrinology and Nutrition Department, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. 3. Clinical Laboratory Department, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain. 4. Gynecology and Obstetrician Department, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain. 5. Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain Gynecology and Obstetrician Department, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain. 6. Endocrinology and Nutrition Department, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain acallepascual@hotmail.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The use of the new International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups criteria (IADPSGC) for the diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) results in an increased prevalence of GDM. Whether their introduction improves pregnancy outcomes has yet to be established. We sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of one-step IADPSGC for screening and diagnosis of GDM compared with traditional two-step Carpenter-Coustan (CC) criteria. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: GDM risk factors and pregnancy and newborn outcomes were prospectively assessed in 1,750 pregnant women from April 2011 to March 2012 using CC and in 1,526 pregnant women from April 2012 to March 2013 using IADPSGC between 24 and 28 weeks of gestation. Both groups received the same treatment and follow-up regimes. RESULTS: The use of IADPSGC resulted in an important increase in GDM rate (35.5% vs. 10.6%) and an improvement in pregnancy outcomes, with a decrease in the rate of gestational hypertension (4.1 to 3.5%: -14.6%, P < 0.021), prematurity (6.4 to 5.7%: -10.9%, P < 0.039), cesarean section (25.4 to 19.7%: -23.9%, P < 0.002), small for gestational age (7.7 to 7.1%: -6.5%, P < 0.042), large for gestational age (4.6 to 3.7%: -20%, P < 0.004), Apgar 1-min score <7 (3.8 to 3.5%: -9%, P < 0.015), and admission to neonatal intensive care unit (8.2 to 6.2%: -24.4%, P < 0.001). Estimated cost savings was of €14,358.06 per 100 women evaluated using IADPSGC versus the group diagnosed using CC. CONCLUSIONS: The application of the new IADPSGC was associated with a 3.5-fold increase in GDM prevalence in our study population, as well as significant improvements in pregnancy outcomes, and was cost-effective. Our results support their adoption.
OBJECTIVE: The use of the new International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups criteria (IADPSGC) for the diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) results in an increased prevalence of GDM. Whether their introduction improves pregnancy outcomes has yet to be established. We sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of one-step IADPSGC for screening and diagnosis of GDM compared with traditional two-step Carpenter-Coustan (CC) criteria. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: GDM risk factors and pregnancy and newborn outcomes were prospectively assessed in 1,750 pregnant women from April 2011 to March 2012 using CC and in 1,526 pregnant women from April 2012 to March 2013 using IADPSGC between 24 and 28 weeks of gestation. Both groups received the same treatment and follow-up regimes. RESULTS: The use of IADPSGC resulted in an important increase in GDM rate (35.5% vs. 10.6%) and an improvement in pregnancy outcomes, with a decrease in the rate of gestational hypertension (4.1 to 3.5%: -14.6%, P < 0.021), prematurity (6.4 to 5.7%: -10.9%, P < 0.039), cesarean section (25.4 to 19.7%: -23.9%, P < 0.002), small for gestational age (7.7 to 7.1%: -6.5%, P < 0.042), large for gestational age (4.6 to 3.7%: -20%, P < 0.004), Apgar 1-min score <7 (3.8 to 3.5%: -9%, P < 0.015), and admission to neonatal intensive care unit (8.2 to 6.2%: -24.4%, P < 0.001). Estimated cost savings was of €14,358.06 per 100 women evaluated using IADPSGC versus the group diagnosed using CC. CONCLUSIONS: The application of the new IADPSGC was associated with a 3.5-fold increase in GDM prevalence in our study population, as well as significant improvements in pregnancy outcomes, and was cost-effective. Our results support their adoption.
Authors: Thaddeus P Waters; Alan R Dyer; Denise M Scholtens; Sharon L Dooley; Elaine Herer; Lynn P Lowe; Jeremy J N Oats; Bengt Persson; David A Sacks; Boyd E Metzger; Patrick M Catalano Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2016-09-15 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Julie Brown; Nisreen A Alwan; Jane West; Stephen Brown; Christopher Jd McKinlay; Diane Farrar; Caroline A Crowther Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-05-04
Authors: Irene González; Miguel A Rubio; Fernando Cordido; Irene Bretón; María J Morales; Nuria Vilarrasa; Susana Monereo; Albert Lecube; Assumptas Caixàs; Irene Vinagre; Albert Goday; Pedro P García-Luna Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 4.129