OBJECTIVE: More evidence is required to endorse the 1-step approach for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) for clinical practice. Since 2010, our department has pragmatically allowed faculty to self-select the guidelines they use to screen and diagnose GDM. We sought to compare the maternal and neonatal outcomes from these two simultaneous cohorts. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a retrospective cohort study of all singleton pregnancies delivered between October 2011 and -November 2013 at our hospital. Patients were excluded if they had preexisting diabetes, were not screened or screened inappropriately, or their fetus had congenital anomalies. Patients were grouped by their screening strategy, and maternal and neonatal outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: The 1-step group had a higher incidence of GDM (21.6% versus 5.0%). Initial results suggested higher rates of neonatal hypoglycemia, phototherapy for hyperbilirubinemia, and a lower rate of gestational HTN. After adjustment, these differences disappeared, but a lower rate of large for gestational age (LGA) infants was discovered (adjusted odds ratios (aOR) 0.78). CONCLUSION: The picture remains unclear as to whether the 1-step approach is associated with significantly improved outcomes compared with the 2-step approach. We did find a lower risk for a LGA infant in our 1-step cohort, but it is unlikely that the 1-step approach would be cost-effective due to the absence of other improved outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: More evidence is required to endorse the 1-step approach for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) for clinical practice. Since 2010, our department has pragmatically allowed faculty to self-select the guidelines they use to screen and diagnose GDM. We sought to compare the maternal and neonatal outcomes from these two simultaneous cohorts. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a retrospective cohort study of all singleton pregnancies delivered between October 2011 and -November 2013 at our hospital. Patients were excluded if they had preexisting diabetes, were not screened or screened inappropriately, or their fetus had congenital anomalies. Patients were grouped by their screening strategy, and maternal and neonatal outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: The 1-step group had a higher incidence of GDM (21.6% versus 5.0%). Initial results suggested higher rates of neonatal hypoglycemia, phototherapy for hyperbilirubinemia, and a lower rate of gestational HTN. After adjustment, these differences disappeared, but a lower rate of large for gestational age (LGA) infants was discovered (adjusted odds ratios (aOR) 0.78). CONCLUSION: The picture remains unclear as to whether the 1-step approach is associated with significantly improved outcomes compared with the 2-step approach. We did find a lower risk for a LGA infant in our 1-step cohort, but it is unlikely that the 1-step approach would be cost-effective due to the absence of other improved outcomes.
Authors: Jing Ji; Zhangya He; Zhao Yang; Yang Mi; Na Guo; Hong Zhao; Jiayi Gao; Zhengfeei Ma; Xiaoqin Luo; Zhen Han Journal: BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care Date: 2020-04