Sushila Todi1, Haritha Sagili2, Sadish Kumar Kamalanathan3. 1. Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry, India. sushila.todi@gmail.com. 2. Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry, India. 3. Department of Endocrinology, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry, India.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Different screening procedures and diagnostic criteria are being followed in the same as well as in different countries with no single standard criteria established for diagnosis of GDM. So far, there are no studies in the Indian population comparing IADPSG with NICE criteria. OBJECTIVE: To compare International Association of Pregnancy and Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) for diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus and its influence on maternal and perinatal outcomes. METHOD: This prospective observational study was conducted in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of a tertiary care institute in South India from March 2017 to October 2018. Six-hundred and eighty women with or without risk factors for GDM were recruited in the study and screened for GDM based on IADPSG and NICE criteria. Women with preexisting diabetes mellitus or with fasting plasma glucose ≥ 126 mg/dl were excluded. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of GDM in our study was 27.2% by either IADPSG/NICE criteria. In this study, 25.1% women and 11.6% women were diagnosed as GDM using IADPSG and NICE criteria, respectively. The level of agreement between the two diagnostic criteria was found to be poor in our study and was statistically significant (kappa = 0.429, p < 0.001). Women testing IADPSG-positive NICE-negative had a higher risk of GHTN, abortions, PROM, preterm delivery, caesarean section and congenital anomalies, meconium-stained liquor, and low Apgar scores at 1 min when compared to non GDM group. In addition, except for preterm delivery, women diagnosed as GDM by both IADPSG and NICE criteria had adverse outcomes such as preeclampsia, urinary tract infection, and polyhydramnios. Women diagnosed as GDM in IADPSG-negative NICE-positive had no significant adverse maternal or perinatal outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: IADPSG criteria appear to be more robust than NICE criteria for diagnosis of GDM. Women with substantial risk of maternal and perinatal outcomes are better identified by IADPSG criteria who would have been missed if NICE criteria was used.
BACKGROUND: Different screening procedures and diagnostic criteria are being followed in the same as well as in different countries with no single standard criteria established for diagnosis of GDM. So far, there are no studies in the Indian population comparing IADPSG with NICE criteria. OBJECTIVE: To compare International Association of Pregnancy and Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) for diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus and its influence on maternal and perinatal outcomes. METHOD: This prospective observational study was conducted in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of a tertiary care institute in South India from March 2017 to October 2018. Six-hundred and eighty women with or without risk factors for GDM were recruited in the study and screened for GDM based on IADPSG and NICE criteria. Women with preexisting diabetes mellitus or with fasting plasma glucose ≥ 126 mg/dl were excluded. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of GDM in our study was 27.2% by either IADPSG/NICE criteria. In this study, 25.1% women and 11.6% women were diagnosed as GDM using IADPSG and NICE criteria, respectively. The level of agreement between the two diagnostic criteria was found to be poor in our study and was statistically significant (kappa = 0.429, p < 0.001). Women testing IADPSG-positive NICE-negative had a higher risk of GHTN, abortions, PROM, preterm delivery, caesarean section and congenital anomalies, meconium-stained liquor, and low Apgar scores at 1 min when compared to non GDM group. In addition, except for preterm delivery, women diagnosed as GDM by both IADPSG and NICE criteria had adverse outcomes such as preeclampsia, urinary tract infection, and polyhydramnios. Women diagnosed as GDM in IADPSG-negative NICE-positive had no significant adverse maternal or perinatal outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: IADPSG criteria appear to be more robust than NICE criteria for diagnosis of GDM. Women with substantial risk of maternal and perinatal outcomes are better identified by IADPSG criteria who would have been missed if NICE criteria was used.
Entities:
Keywords:
Gestational diabetes mellitus; International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups; National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
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
Authors: Yuanying He; Ronald Ching Wan Ma; H David McIntyre; David A Sacks; Julia Lowe; Patrick M Catalano; Wing Hung Tam Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2022-09-01 Impact factor: 17.152