Emilia Huvinen1,2, Johan G Eriksson3,4,5, Beata Stach-Lempinen6, Aila Tiitinen7, Saila B Koivusalo7. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Helsinki University Hospital, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland. emilia.huvinen@helsinki.fi. 2. Unit of General Practice and Primary Health Care, University of Helsinki, Tukholmankatu 8 B, P.O. Box 20, 00014, Helsinki, Finland. emilia.huvinen@helsinki.fi. 3. Unit of General Practice and Primary Health Care, University of Helsinki, Tukholmankatu 8 B, P.O. Box 20, 00014, Helsinki, Finland. 4. Folkhälsan Research Centre, Helsinki, Finland. 5. Department of Chronic Disease Prevention, National Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland. 6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, South-Karelia Central Hospital, Lappeenranta, Finland. 7. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Helsinki University Hospital, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Abstract
AIMS: Gestational diabetes (GDM) affects a growing number of women and identification of individuals at risk, e.g., with risk prediction models, would be important. However, the performance of GDM risk scores has not been optimal. Here, we assess the impact of GDM heterogeneity on the performance of two top-rated GDM risk scores. METHODS: This is a substudy of the RADIEL trial-a lifestyle intervention study including women at high GDM risk. We assessed the GDM risk score by Teede and that developed by Van Leeuwen in our high-risk cohort of 510 women. To investigate the heterogeneity of GDM, we further divided the women according to GDM history, BMI, and parity. With the goal of identifying novel predictors of GDM, we further analyzed 319 women with normal glucose tolerance in the first trimester. RESULTS: Both risk scores underestimated GDM incidence in our high-risk cohort. Among women with a BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 and/or previous GDM, 49.4% developed GDM and 37.4% received the diagnosis already in the first trimester. Van Leeuwen score estimated a 19% probability of GDM and Teede succeeded in risk identification in 61%. The lowest performance of the risk scores was seen among the non-obese women. Fasting plasma glucose, HbA1c, and family history of diabetes were predictors of GDM in the total study population. Analysis of subgroups did not provide any further information. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the marked heterogeneity of GDM challenges the development of risk scores for detection of GDM.
AIMS: Gestational diabetes (GDM) affects a growing number of women and identification of individuals at risk, e.g., with risk prediction models, would be important. However, the performance of GDM risk scores has not been optimal. Here, we assess the impact of GDM heterogeneity on the performance of two top-rated GDM risk scores. METHODS: This is a substudy of the RADIEL trial-a lifestyle intervention study including women at high GDM risk. We assessed the GDM risk score by Teede and that developed by Van Leeuwen in our high-risk cohort of 510 women. To investigate the heterogeneity of GDM, we further divided the women according to GDM history, BMI, and parity. With the goal of identifying novel predictors of GDM, we further analyzed 319 women with normal glucose tolerance in the first trimester. RESULTS: Both risk scores underestimated GDM incidence in our high-risk cohort. Among women with a BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 and/or previous GDM, 49.4% developed GDM and 37.4% received the diagnosis already in the first trimester. Van Leeuwen score estimated a 19% probability of GDM and Teede succeeded in risk identification in 61%. The lowest performance of the risk scores was seen among the non-obesewomen. Fasting plasma glucose, HbA1c, and family history of diabetes were predictors of GDM in the total study population. Analysis of subgroups did not provide any further information. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the marked heterogeneity of GDM challenges the development of risk scores for detection of GDM.
Entities:
Keywords:
Gestational diabetes; Heterogeneity; Obesity; Prediction of diabetes; Pregnancy; Screening
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: Si Gao; Junhong Leng; Xilin Yang; Hongyan Liu; Shuo Wang; Weiqin Li; Yue Wang; Gang Hu; Juliana C N Chan; Zhijie Yu; Hong Zhu Journal: BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care Date: 2020-04
Authors: Clive J Petry; Benjamin G Fisher; Ken K Ong; Ieuan A Hughes; Carlo L Acerini; David B Dunger Journal: Acta Diabetol Date: 2019-05-13 Impact factor: 4.280
Authors: Anja Elaine Sørensen; Mireille N M van Poppel; Gernot Desoye; Peter Damm; David Simmons; Dorte Møller Jensen; Louise Torp Dalgaard Journal: Cells Date: 2021-01-15 Impact factor: 6.600
Authors: Ning Wang; Yanqi Peng; Lu Wang; Lin Song; Bo Sun; Junxiang Wei; Ting Wang; Yang Mi; Wei Cui Journal: Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes Date: 2021-03-02 Impact factor: 3.168
Authors: Daniel Eppel; Michael Feichtinger; Tina Lindner; Grammata Kotzaeridi; Ingo Rosicky; Guelen Yerlikaya-Schatten; Wolfgang Eppel; Peter Husslein; Andrea Tura; Christian S Göbl Journal: Acta Diabetol Date: 2021-01-02 Impact factor: 4.280