Kathryn L Pedula1, Teresa A Hillier2, Keith K Ogasawara3, Kimberly K Vesco4, Suzanne Lubarsky5, Caryn E S Oshiro6, Jan VanMarter7. 1. Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, 3800 N Interstate Ave, Portland, OR 97227, USA. Electronic address: kathy.pedula@kp.org. 2. Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, 3800 N Interstate Ave, Portland, OR 97227, USA. Electronic address: teresa.hillier@kpchr.org. 3. Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Hawaii Permanente Medical Group, Kaiser Permanente, 3288 Moanalua Road, Honolulu, HI 96819, USA. Electronic address: keith.k.ogasawara@kp.org. 4. Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, 3800 N Interstate Ave, Portland, OR 97227, USA. Electronic address: kimberly.k.vesco@kpchr.org. 5. Department of Perinatology, Northwest Permanente, Kaiser Permanente, 10180 SE Sunnyside Rd, Clackamas, OR 97015, USA. Electronic address: suzanne.l.lubarsky@kp.org. 6. Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Hawaii, 501 Alakawa St, Suite 201, Honolulu, HI 96817, USA. Electronic address: caryn.es.oshiro@kp.org. 7. Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, 3800 N Interstate Ave, Portland, OR 97227, USA. Electronic address: jan.vanmarter@kpchr.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: ScreenR2GDM is a pragmatic randomized clinical trial designed to investigate if one of two gestational diabetes (GDM) screening and treatment protocols results in improved outcomes in the context of standard clinical care. METHODS:Pregnant women are randomized to one of two GDM screening strategies: 1-step: 2-h, 75 g, oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) or 2-step: 1-h, 50 g glucose challenge test (GCT) followed by 3-h, 100 g OGTT if GCT-positive. Providers are prompted within the electronic medical record to order the assigned test but were given the option to order the alternate test. Collected data include maternal and pregnancy characteristics, GDM testing, and outcomes for mother and newborn. We describe the study design and baseline characteristics and evaluate characteristics associated with adhering to the randomized protocol. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of the 23,792 randomized pregnancies were comparable between the two groups. Adherence to assigned test differed between the two strategies: 66.1% for 1-step and 91.7% for 2-step (p < .0001). 27% of the women randomized to receive the 1-step completed the 2-step test vs 2% randomized to the 2-step who completed the 1-step (p < .0001). Patient characteristics related to adherence included obesity, age, prior GDM, Medicaid insurance, race and nulliparity. Clinician characteristics related to adherence included provider type, age and gender. CONCLUSIONS: Both patient and provider characteristics were related to adherence to the randomized GDM screening protocol. Analytical techniques that incorporate these findings into the formal evaluation of the two protocols on GDM-associated outcomes will be necessary to account for potential biases introduced by non-adherence.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: ScreenR2GDM is a pragmatic randomized clinical trial designed to investigate if one of two gestational diabetes (GDM) screening and treatment protocols results in improved outcomes in the context of standard clinical care. METHODS: Pregnant women are randomized to one of two GDM screening strategies: 1-step: 2-h, 75 g, oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) or 2-step: 1-h, 50 g glucose challenge test (GCT) followed by 3-h, 100 g OGTT if GCT-positive. Providers are prompted within the electronic medical record to order the assigned test but were given the option to order the alternate test. Collected data include maternal and pregnancy characteristics, GDM testing, and outcomes for mother and newborn. We describe the study design and baseline characteristics and evaluate characteristics associated with adhering to the randomized protocol. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of the 23,792 randomized pregnancies were comparable between the two groups. Adherence to assigned test differed between the two strategies: 66.1% for 1-step and 91.7% for 2-step (p < .0001). 27% of the women randomized to receive the 1-step completed the 2-step test vs 2% randomized to the 2-step who completed the 1-step (p < .0001). Patient characteristics related to adherence included obesity, age, prior GDM, Medicaid insurance, race and nulliparity. Clinician characteristics related to adherence included provider type, age and gender. CONCLUSIONS: Both patient and provider characteristics were related to adherence to the randomized GDM screening protocol. Analytical techniques that incorporate these findings into the formal evaluation of the two protocols on GDM-associated outcomes will be necessary to account for potential biases introduced by non-adherence.
Authors: Boyd E Metzger; Steven G Gabbe; Bengt Persson; Thomas A Buchanan; Patrick A Catalano; Peter Damm; Alan R Dyer; Alberto de Leiva; Moshe Hod; John L Kitzmiler; Lynn P Lowe; H David McIntyre; Jeremy J N Oats; Yasue Omori; Maria Ines Schmidt Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 17.152
Authors: Caroline A Crowther; Janet E Hiller; John R Moss; Andrew J McPhee; William S Jeffries; Jeffrey S Robinson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-06-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: James P Vandorsten; William C Dodson; Mark A Espeland; William A Grobman; Jeanne Marie Guise; Brian M Mercer; Howard L Minkoff; Brenda Poindexter; Lisa A Prosser; George F Sawaya; James R Scott; Robert M Silver; Lisa Smith; Alyce Thomas; Alan T N Tita Journal: NIH Consens State Sci Statements Date: 2013-03-06
Authors: Lisa Hartling; Donna M Dryden; Alyssa Guthrie; Melanie Muise; Ben Vandermeer; Walie M Aktary; Dion Pasichnyk; Jennifer C Seida; Lois Donovan Journal: Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep) Date: 2012-10
Authors: Boyd E Metzger; Lynn P Lowe; Alan R Dyer; Elisabeth R Trimble; Udom Chaovarindr; Donald R Coustan; David R Hadden; David R McCance; Moshe Hod; Harold David McIntyre; Jeremy J N Oats; Bengt Persson; Michael S Rogers; David A Sacks Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-05-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Mark B Landon; Catherine Y Spong; Elizabeth Thom; Marshall W Carpenter; Susan M Ramin; Brian Casey; Ronald J Wapner; Michael W Varner; Dwight J Rouse; John M Thorp; Anthony Sciscione; Patrick Catalano; Margaret Harper; George Saade; Kristine Y Lain; Yoram Sorokin; Alan M Peaceman; Jorge E Tolosa; Garland B Anderson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-10-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Deborah J Wexler; Camille E Powe; Linda A Barbour; Thomas Buchanan; Donald R Coustan; Rosa Corcoy; Peter Damm; Fidelma Dunne; Denice S Feig; Assiamira Ferrara; Lorie M Harper; Mark B Landon; Sara J Meltzer; Boyd E Metzger; Hilary Roeder; Janet A Rowan; David A Sacks; David Simmons; Jason G Umans; Patrick M Catalano Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Teresa A Hillier; Kathryn L Pedula; Keith K Ogasawara; Kimberly K Vesco; Caryn E S Oshiro; Suzanne L Lubarsky; Jan Van Marter Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2021-08-09 Impact factor: 10.693
Authors: Teresa A Hillier; Kathryn L Pedula; Keith K Ogasawara; Kimberly K Vesco; Caryn E S Oshiro; Suzanne L Lubarsky; Jan Van Marter Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2021-03-11 Impact factor: 176.079