Cong Luat Nguyen1,2, Andy H Lee2, Ngoc Minh Pham2,3, Phung Thi Hoang Nguyen2,4, Anh Vo Van Ha2,5, Tan Khac Chu2,6, Dat Van Duong7, Hong Thi Duong1, Colin W Binns2. 1. National Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology, Hanoi, Vietnam. 2. School of Public Health, Curtin University, Perth, Australia. 3. Department of Epidemiology, Faculty of Public Health, Thai Nguyen University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Thai Nguyen, Vietnam. 4. Department of Nutrition and Food, Faculty of Public Health, University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. 5. Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, Pham Ngoc Thach University of Medicine, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. 6. Department of Epidemiology, Faculty of Public Health, Hai Phong University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Hai Phong, Vietnam. 7. United Nations Population Fund, Hanoi, Vietnam.
Abstract
Background: Several diagnostic criteria for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) have been developed and used internationally. This study estimated the prevalence of GDM and pregnancy outcomes among Vietnamese women. Methods: A prospective cohort study of 2030 women was undertaken in Vietnam between 2015 and 2016. Baseline interview and a single-step 75-g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) were conducted at 24-28 weeks of gestation. GDM was defined by five international diagnostic criteria: America Diabetes Association (ADA), European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD), International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy study groups (IADPSG), National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), and World Health Organization (WHO). Maternal and neonatal outcomes were assessed using medical records. Besides descriptive statistics and univariate analyses, logistic regressions were performed to ascertain the associations between GDM and maternal and neonatal outcomes. Results: The prevalence of GDM varied considerably by the diagnostic criteria: 6.4% (ADA), 7.9% (EASD), 22.8% (IADPSG/WHO), and 24.2% (NICE). Women with GDM according to EASD were more likely to have macrosomic infants (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 4.35, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.49-12.72), despite no apparent increase in risk under other criteria. Babies born to mothers with GDM appeared to be large-for-gestational age (LGA) by ADA criteria (adjusted OR 2.10, 95% CI: 1.10-4.02) or EASD criteria (adjusted OR 2.15, 95% CI: 1.16-3.98), when compared to their counterparts in the normal group. No significant differences in maternal and other neonatal outcomes were found between the normal and GDM groups.Conclusions: A global guideline is needed for the diagnosis, prevention and management of GDM.
Background: Several diagnostic criteria for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) have been developed and used internationally. This study estimated the prevalence of GDM and pregnancy outcomes among Vietnamese women. Methods: A prospective cohort study of 2030 women was undertaken in Vietnam between 2015 and 2016. Baseline interview and a single-step 75-g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) were conducted at 24-28 weeks of gestation. GDM was defined by five international diagnostic criteria: America Diabetes Association (ADA), European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD), International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy study groups (IADPSG), National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), and World Health Organization (WHO). Maternal and neonatal outcomes were assessed using medical records. Besides descriptive statistics and univariate analyses, logistic regressions were performed to ascertain the associations between GDM and maternal and neonatal outcomes. Results: The prevalence of GDM varied considerably by the diagnostic criteria: 6.4% (ADA), 7.9% (EASD), 22.8% (IADPSG/WHO), and 24.2% (NICE). Women with GDM according to EASD were more likely to have macrosomic infants (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 4.35, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.49-12.72), despite no apparent increase in risk under other criteria. Babies born to mothers with GDM appeared to be large-for-gestational age (LGA) by ADA criteria (adjusted OR 2.10, 95% CI: 1.10-4.02) or EASD criteria (adjusted OR 2.15, 95% CI: 1.16-3.98), when compared to their counterparts in the normal group. No significant differences in maternal and other neonatal outcomes were found between the normal and GDM groups.Conclusions: A global guideline is needed for the diagnosis, prevention and management of GDM.
Authors: Phung Thi Hoang Nguyen; Colin W Binns; Cong Luat Nguyen; Anh Vo Van Ha; Khac Tan Chu; Dat Van Duong; Dung Van Do; Andy H Lee Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-05-16 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Thubasni Kunasegaran; Vinod R M T Balasubramaniam; Valliammai Jayanthi Thirunavuk Arasoo; Uma Devi Palanisamy; Amutha Ramadas Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-01-31 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Serena Yue; Vu Thai Kim Thi; Le Phuong Dung; Bui Thi Hong Nhu; Evelyne Kestelyn; Dang Trong Thuan; Le Quang Thanh; Jane E Hirst Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2022-03-09 Impact factor: 3.007