Lili Yuen1, Vincent W Wong2,3, Louise Wolmarans4, David Simmons1. 1. School of Medicine and the Translational Health Research Institute, Western Sydney University, Campbelltown, NSW 2560, Australia. 2. South Western Sydney Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Liverpool, NSW 2170, Australia. 3. Diabetes and Endocrine Service, Liverpool Hospital, Liverpool, NSW 2170, Australia. 4. Waikato District Health Board, Hamilton 3204, New Zealand.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Australia, but not New Zealand (NZ), has adopted the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria to diagnose gestational diabetes (GDM). We compared pregnancy outcomes using these different diagnostic approaches. METHOD: Prospective data of women with GDM were collected from one NZ (NZ) and one Australian (Aus) hospital between 2007-2018. Aus screening criteria with 2-step risk-based 50 g Glucose Challenge Testing (GCT) followed by 75 g-oral glucose tolerance testing (OGTT): fasting ≥ 5.5, 2-h ≥ 8.0 mmol/L (ADIPS98) changed to a universal OGTT and fasting ≥5.1, 1-h ≥ 10, 2-h ≥ 8.5 mmol/L (IADPSG). NZ used GCT followed by OGTT with fasting ≥ 5.5, 2-h ≥ 9.0 mmol/L (NZSSD); in 2015 adopted a booking HbA1c (NZMOH). Primary outcome was a composite of macrosomia, perinatal death, preterm delivery, neonatal hypoglycaemia, and phototherapy. An Aus subset positive using NZSSD was also defined. RESULTS: The composite outcome odds ratio compared to IADPSG (1788 pregnancies) was higher for NZMOH (934 pregnancies) 2.227 (95%CI: 1.84-2.68), NZSSD (1344 pregnancies) 2.19 (1.83-2.61), and ADIPS98 (3452 pregnancies) 1.91 (1.66-2.20). Composite outcomes were similar between the Aus subset and NZ. CONCLUSIONS: The IADPSG diagnostic criteria were associated with the lowest rate of composite outcomes. Earlier NZ screening with HbA1c was not associated with a change in adverse pregnancy outcomes.
INTRODUCTION: Australia, but not New Zealand (NZ), has adopted the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria to diagnose gestational diabetes (GDM). We compared pregnancy outcomes using these different diagnostic approaches. METHOD: Prospective data of women with GDM were collected from one NZ (NZ) and one Australian (Aus) hospital between 2007-2018. Aus screening criteria with 2-step risk-based 50 g Glucose Challenge Testing (GCT) followed by 75 g-oral glucose tolerance testing (OGTT): fasting ≥ 5.5, 2-h ≥ 8.0 mmol/L (ADIPS98) changed to a universal OGTT and fasting ≥5.1, 1-h ≥ 10, 2-h ≥ 8.5 mmol/L (IADPSG). NZ used GCT followed by OGTT with fasting ≥ 5.5, 2-h ≥ 9.0 mmol/L (NZSSD); in 2015 adopted a booking HbA1c (NZMOH). Primary outcome was a composite of macrosomia, perinatal death, preterm delivery, neonatal hypoglycaemia, and phototherapy. An Aus subset positive using NZSSD was also defined. RESULTS: The composite outcome odds ratio compared to IADPSG (1788 pregnancies) was higher for NZMOH (934 pregnancies) 2.227 (95%CI: 1.84-2.68), NZSSD (1344 pregnancies) 2.19 (1.83-2.61), and ADIPS98 (3452 pregnancies) 1.91 (1.66-2.20). Composite outcomes were similar between the Aus subset and NZ. CONCLUSIONS: The IADPSG diagnostic criteria were associated with the lowest rate of composite outcomes. Earlier NZ screening with HbA1c was not associated with a change in adverse pregnancy outcomes.
Entities:
Keywords:
Australia; IADPSG; New Zealand; diagnostic criteria; gestational diabetes; high BMI; multiethnic; perinatal outcomes; treatment threshold
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: David Simmons; N Wah Cheung; H David McIntyre; Jeff R Flack; Janet Lagstrom; Dianne Bond; Elizabeth Johnson; Louise Wolmarans; Peter Wein; Ashim K Sinha Journal: Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 2.100
Authors: Raimunda S S Azevedo; Jorge R de Sousa; Marialva T F Araujo; Arnaldo J Martins Filho; Bianca N de Alcantara; Fernanda M C Araujo; Maria G L Queiroz; Ana C R Cruz; Beatriz H Baldez Vasconcelos; Jannifer O Chiang; Lívia C Martins; Livia M N Casseb; Eliana V da Silva; Valéria L Carvalho; Barbara C Baldez Vasconcelos; Sueli G Rodrigues; Consuelo S Oliveira; Juarez A S Quaresma; Pedro F C Vasconcelos Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-01-08 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Helena Fadl; Maryam Saeedi; Scott Montgomery; Anders Magnuson; Erik Schwarcz; Kerstin Berntorp; Verena Sengpiel; Elisabeth Storck-Lindholm; Helena Strevens; Anna-Karin Wikström; Sophia Brismar-Wendel; Martina Persson; Stefan Jansson; Fredrik Ahlsson; Carina Ursing; Linda Ryen; Kerstin Petersson; Ulla-Britt Wennerholm; Karin Hildén; David Simmons Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2019-11-01 Impact factor: 3.007