Teresa A Hillier1, Kathryn L Pedula1, Keith K Ogasawara1, Kimberly K Vesco1, Caryn E S Oshiro1, Suzanne L Lubarsky1, Jan Van Marter1. 1. From the Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest (T.A.H., K.L.P., K.K.V., J.V.M.), and the Division of Perinatology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Northwest Permanente, Kaiser Permanente (S.L.L.), Portland, Oregon; and the Center for Integrated Health Care Research (T.A.H., C.E.S.O.) and the Division of Perinatology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (K.K.O.), Hawaii Permanente Medical Group (K.L.P., K.K.O.), Kaiser Permanente Hawaii, Honolulu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gestational diabetes mellitus is common and is associated with an increased risk of adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes. Although experts recommend universal screening for gestational diabetes, consensus is lacking about which of two recommended screening approaches should be used. METHODS: We performed a pragmatic, randomized trial comparing one-step screening (i.e., a glucose-tolerance test in which the blood glucose level was obtained after the oral administration of a 75-g glucose load in the fasting state) with two-step screening (a glucose challenge test in which the blood glucose level was obtained after the oral administration of a 50-g glucose load in the nonfasting state, followed, if positive, by an oral glucose-tolerance test with a 100-g glucose load in the fasting state) in all pregnant women who received care in two health systems. Guidelines for the treatment of gestational diabetes were consistent with the two screening approaches. The primary outcomes were a diagnosis of gestational diabetes, large-for-gestational-age infants, a perinatal composite outcome (stillbirth, neonatal death, shoulder dystocia, bone fracture, or any arm or hand nerve palsy related to birth injury), gestational hypertension or preeclampsia, and primary cesarean section. RESULTS: A total of 23,792 women underwent randomization; women with more than one pregnancy during the trial could have been assigned to more than one type of screening. A total of 66% of the women in the one-step group and 92% of those in the two-step group adhered to the assigned screening. Gestational diabetes was diagnosed in 16.5% of the women assigned to the one-step approach and in 8.5% of those assigned to the two-step approach (unadjusted relative risk, 1.94; 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 1.79 to 2.11). In intention-to-treat analyses, the respective incidences of the other primary outcomes were as follows: large-for-gestational-age infants, 8.9% and 9.2% (relative risk, 0.95; 97.5% CI, 0.87 to 1.05); perinatal composite outcome, 3.1% and 3.0% (relative risk, 1.04; 97.5% CI, 0.88 to 1.23); gestational hypertension or preeclampsia, 13.6% and 13.5% (relative risk, 1.00; 97.5% CI, 0.93 to 1.08); and primary cesarean section, 24.0% and 24.6% (relative risk, 0.98; 97.5% CI, 0.93 to 1.02). The results were materially unchanged in intention-to-treat analyses with inverse probability weighting to account for differential adherence to the screening approaches. CONCLUSIONS: Despite more diagnoses of gestational diabetes with the one-step approach than with the two-step approach, there were no significant between-group differences in the risks of the primary outcomes relating to perinatal and maternal complications. (Funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; ScreenR2GDM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02266758.).
BACKGROUND: Gestational diabetes mellitus is common and is associated with an increased risk of adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes. Although experts recommend universal screening for gestational diabetes, consensus is lacking about which of two recommended screening approaches should be used. METHODS: We performed a pragmatic, randomized trial comparing one-step screening (i.e., a glucose-tolerance test in which the blood glucose level was obtained after the oral administration of a 75-g glucose load in the fasting state) with two-step screening (a glucose challenge test in which the blood glucose level was obtained after the oral administration of a 50-g glucose load in the nonfasting state, followed, if positive, by an oral glucose-tolerance test with a 100-g glucose load in the fasting state) in all pregnant women who received care in two health systems. Guidelines for the treatment of gestational diabetes were consistent with the two screening approaches. The primary outcomes were a diagnosis of gestational diabetes, large-for-gestational-age infants, a perinatal composite outcome (stillbirth, neonatal death, shoulder dystocia, bone fracture, or any arm or hand nerve palsy related to birth injury), gestational hypertension or preeclampsia, and primary cesarean section. RESULTS: A total of 23,792 women underwent randomization; women with more than one pregnancy during the trial could have been assigned to more than one type of screening. A total of 66% of the women in the one-step group and 92% of those in the two-step group adhered to the assigned screening. Gestational diabetes was diagnosed in 16.5% of the women assigned to the one-step approach and in 8.5% of those assigned to the two-step approach (unadjusted relative risk, 1.94; 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 1.79 to 2.11). In intention-to-treat analyses, the respective incidences of the other primary outcomes were as follows: large-for-gestational-age infants, 8.9% and 9.2% (relative risk, 0.95; 97.5% CI, 0.87 to 1.05); perinatal composite outcome, 3.1% and 3.0% (relative risk, 1.04; 97.5% CI, 0.88 to 1.23); gestational hypertension or preeclampsia, 13.6% and 13.5% (relative risk, 1.00; 97.5% CI, 0.93 to 1.08); and primary cesarean section, 24.0% and 24.6% (relative risk, 0.98; 97.5% CI, 0.93 to 1.02). The results were materially unchanged in intention-to-treat analyses with inverse probability weighting to account for differential adherence to the screening approaches. CONCLUSIONS: Despite more diagnoses of gestational diabetes with the one-step approach than with the two-step approach, there were no significant between-group differences in the risks of the primary outcomes relating to perinatal and maternal complications. (Funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; ScreenR2GDM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02266758.).
Authors: Teresa A Hillier; Kathryn L Pedula; Mark M Schmidt; Judith A Mullen; Marie-Aline Charles; David J Pettitt Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2007-05-22 Impact factor: 19.112
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: Mark B Landon; Lisa Mele; Michael W Varner; Brian M Casey; Uma M Reddy; Ronald J Wapner; Dwight J Rouse; Alan T N Tita; John M Thorp; Edward K Chien; George Saade; William Grobman; Sean C Blackwell; J Peter VanDorsten Journal: J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med Date: 2018-07-18
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: Rebecca F Goldstein; Sally K Abell; Sanjeeva Ranasinha; Marie Misso; Jacqueline A Boyle; Mary Helen Black; Nan Li; Gang Hu; Francesco Corrado; Line Rode; Young Ju Kim; Margaretha Haugen; Won O Song; Min Hyoung Kim; Annick Bogaerts; Roland Devlieger; Judith H Chung; Helena J Teede Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-06-06 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: David A Sacks; David R Hadden; Michael Maresh; Chaicharn Deerochanawong; Alan R Dyer; Boyd E Metzger; Lynn P Lowe; Donald R Coustan; Moshe Hod; Jeremy J N Oats; Bengt Persson; Elisabeth R Trimble Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: T E Darsaut; M B Keough; A M Chan; B Farzin; J M Findlay; M M Chow; M Chagnon; J Zehr; G Gevry; J Raymond Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2021-11-18 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Wei Wei Pang; Donna T Geddes; Ching-Tat Lai; Shiao-Yng Chan; Yiong Huak Chan; Clara Y Cheong; Doris Fok; Mei Chien Chua; Sok Bee Lim; Jonathan Huang; Shikha Pundir; Kok Hian Tan; Fabian Yap; Keith M Godfrey; Peter D Gluckman; Lynette P Shek; Mark H Vickers; Johan G Eriksson; Yap-Seng Chong; Mary E Wlodek Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2021-09-01 Impact factor: 7.045
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: Esa M Davis; Kaleab Z Abebe; Hyagriv N Simhan; Patrick Catalano; Tina Costacou; Diane Comer; Steven Orris; Kathleen Ly; Alison Decker; Dara Mendez; Nancy Day; Christina M Scifres Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2021-07-01 Impact factor: 7.623
Authors: Erin S LeBlanc; Ning X Smith; Kimberly K Vesco; Teresa A Hillier; Victor J Stevens Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2021-11-19 Impact factor: 6.134