Katrien Benhalima1, Chantal Mathieu2, André Van Assche3, Peter Damm4, Roland Devlieger3, Tahir Mahmood5, Fidelma Dunne6. 1. Department of Endocrinology, UZ Gasthuisberg, KU Leuven, Belgium. Electronic address: katrien.benhalima@uzleuven.be. 2. Department of Endocrinology, UZ Gasthuisberg, KU Leuven, Belgium. 3. Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, UZ Gasthuisberg, KU Leuven, Belgium. 4. Center for Pregnant Women with Diabetes, Department of Obstetrics, Rigshospitalet, The Clinical Institute of Medicine, Faculty of Health and Medicine Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. 5. Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy, Scotland, UK. 6. Endocrinology School of Medicine and Galway Diabetes Research Centre (GDRC), National University of Ireland, Galway (NUIG), Ireland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: More uniformity is necessary in screening and diagnosis for gestational diabetes (GDM) across Europe. The European Board and College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (EBCOG) has recently recommended to use the 2013 World Health Organization (WHO) criteria for the diagnosis of GDM. We evaluated the uptake of these EBCOG recommendations in guidelines for GDM screening across Europe. METHODS: Between September and November 2015, an online survey on the current national or regional recommendations for GDM screening was directed to the 33 European countries that are members of EBCOG. RESULTS: There was a response rate of 84.8% (28 countries). From Belgium, data were separately obtained from the Dutch-and the French-speaking parts and from the UK data were also obtained from Scotland, leading to data from 30 responders. The response rates were high in Central Europe (100%), Northern Europe (100%) and Southern Europe (85.7%) with lower response rates in Eastern Europe (71.4%). 82.1% of guidelines recommend screening for unknown diabetes at first prenatal visit and 67.9% recommend to screen for GDM before 24 weeks of pregnancy. All guidelines recommend to screen for GDM ≥24 weeks, based on risk factors in 64.3% and by universal screening in 35.7%. The most commonly used diagnostic criteria for GDM are the 2013 WHO criteria in 67.9%, the 1999 WHO criteria in 10.7%, the European Association for the Study of Diabetes criteria in 7.1% and the Carpenter & Coustan criteria in 7.1%. Of all societies advising the use of the 2013 WHO criteria, 52.6% recommends this based on risk factors, 10.5% recommends universal screening in a two-step strategy and 36.8% recommends a universal one-step approach with a 75g OGTT. CONCLUSIONS: Our survey shows that the majority of European societies now advise to use the 2013 WHO criteria for GDM. However, only 36.8% recommends a universal one-step approach with a 75g OGTT with the majority of societies recommending screening based on risk factors. The use of common diagnostic criteria for GDM by the majority of societies is an important first step towards achieving uniformity in GDM screening across Europe.
OBJECTIVES: More uniformity is necessary in screening and diagnosis for gestational diabetes (GDM) across Europe. The European Board and College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (EBCOG) has recently recommended to use the 2013 World Health Organization (WHO) criteria for the diagnosis of GDM. We evaluated the uptake of these EBCOG recommendations in guidelines for GDM screening across Europe. METHODS: Between September and November 2015, an online survey on the current national or regional recommendations for GDM screening was directed to the 33 European countries that are members of EBCOG. RESULTS: There was a response rate of 84.8% (28 countries). From Belgium, data were separately obtained from the Dutch-and the French-speaking parts and from the UK data were also obtained from Scotland, leading to data from 30 responders. The response rates were high in Central Europe (100%), Northern Europe (100%) and Southern Europe (85.7%) with lower response rates in Eastern Europe (71.4%). 82.1% of guidelines recommend screening for unknown diabetes at first prenatal visit and 67.9% recommend to screen for GDM before 24 weeks of pregnancy. All guidelines recommend to screen for GDM ≥24 weeks, based on risk factors in 64.3% and by universal screening in 35.7%. The most commonly used diagnostic criteria for GDM are the 2013 WHO criteria in 67.9%, the 1999 WHO criteria in 10.7%, the European Association for the Study of Diabetes criteria in 7.1% and the Carpenter & Coustan criteria in 7.1%. Of all societies advising the use of the 2013 WHO criteria, 52.6% recommends this based on risk factors, 10.5% recommends universal screening in a two-step strategy and 36.8% recommends a universal one-step approach with a 75g OGTT. CONCLUSIONS: Our survey shows that the majority of European societies now advise to use the 2013 WHO criteria for GDM. However, only 36.8% recommends a universal one-step approach with a 75g OGTT with the majority of societies recommending screening based on risk factors. The use of common diagnostic criteria for GDM by the majority of societies is an important first step towards achieving uniformity in GDM screening across Europe.
Authors: Katrien Benhalima; Paul Van Crombrugge; Carolien Moyson; Johan Verhaeghe; Sofie Vandeginste; Hilde Verlaenen; Chris Vercammen; Toon Maes; Els Dufraimont; Christophe De Block; Yves Jacquemyn; Farah Mekahli; Katrien De Clippel; Annick Van Den Bruel; Anne Loccufier; Annouschka Laenen; Caro Minschart; Roland Devlieger; Chantal Mathieu Journal: Acta Diabetol Date: 2020-01-08 Impact factor: 4.280
Authors: Kaat Beunen; Astrid Neys; Paul Van Crombrugge; Carolien Moyson; Johan Verhaeghe; Sofie Vandeginste; Hilde Verlaenen; Chris Vercammen; Toon Maes; Els Dufraimont; Nele Roggen; Christophe De Block; Yves Jacquemyn; Farah Mekahli; Katrien De Clippel; Annick Van Den Bruel; Anne Loccufier; Annouschka Laenen; Roland Devlieger; Chantal Mathieu; Katrien Benhalima Journal: Acta Diabetol Date: 2021-11-01 Impact factor: 4.280
Authors: Per Glud Ovesen; Jens Fuglsang; Mette Bisgaard Andersen; Charlotte Wolff; Olav Bjørn Petersen; H David McIntyre Journal: J Diabetes Res Date: 2018-03-15 Impact factor: 4.011
Authors: Anca Maria Panaitescu; Anca Marina Ciobanu; Maria Popa; Irina Duta; Nicolae Gica; Gheorghe Peltecu; Alina Veduta Journal: Medicina (Kaunas) Date: 2021-04-15 Impact factor: 2.430