Esa M Davis1, 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. 1. Department of Medicine, the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Science, the Department of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, and the Department of Epidemiology, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts; and the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indianapolis.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate differences in short-term perinatal outcomes between the two prominent screening strategies for gestational diabetes mellitus, the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) and Carpenter-Coustan. METHODS: In this single-site, blinded, randomized, comparative effectiveness trial, participants received a nonfasting 50-g oral glucose tolerance test and, if less than 200 mg/dL (less than 11.1 mmol/L), were randomized to further screening with either IADPSG or Carpenter-Coustan criteria. Gestational diabetes treatment occurred per routine clinical care. The primary outcome was incidence of large-for-gestational-age (LGA) neonates. Prespecified secondary outcomes included small-for-gestational-age (SGA) neonates, cesarean birth, and neonatal and maternal composites of adverse perinatal outcomes. Assuming a 15% incidence of LGA neonates in the Carpenter-Coustan group, 782 participants provided more than 80% power to detect a 7% absolute risk reduction with the use of IADPSG; planned recruitment was 920 for anticipated attrition. RESULTS: From June 2015 to February 2019, 1,016 participants were enrolled and 921 were randomized to IADPSG (n=461) or Carpenter-Coustan (n=460) groups. Gestational diabetes incidence (14.4% vs 4.5%, P<.001) and diabetes medication use (9.3% vs 2.4%; P<.001) were more common in the IADPSG group; there were no differences in LGA neonates, either overall (risk reduction 0.90, 97.5% CI 0.53-1.52) or among women without gestational diabetes (risk reduction 0.85, 97.5% CI 0.49-1.48). Those screened with IADPSG had higher rates of neonatal morbidity but fewer study-related adverse events. Rates of SGA neonates, cesarean birth, and maternal morbidity composite did not differ significantly between study groups. CONCLUSIONS: The IADPSG screening criteria resulted in more women diagnosed and treated for gestational diabetes than Carpenter-Coustan without reducing the incidence of LGA birth weight or maternal or neonatal morbidity. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02309138.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate differences in short-term perinatal outcomes between the two prominent screening strategies for gestational diabetes mellitus, the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) and Carpenter-Coustan. METHODS: In this single-site, blinded, randomized, comparative effectiveness trial, participants received a nonfasting 50-g oral glucose tolerance test and, if less than 200 mg/dL (less than 11.1 mmol/L), were randomized to further screening with either IADPSG or Carpenter-Coustan criteria. Gestational diabetes treatment occurred per routine clinical care. The primary outcome was incidence of large-for-gestational-age (LGA) neonates. Prespecified secondary outcomes included small-for-gestational-age (SGA) neonates, cesarean birth, and neonatal and maternal composites of adverse perinatal outcomes. Assuming a 15% incidence of LGA neonates in the Carpenter-Coustan group, 782 participants provided more than 80% power to detect a 7% absolute risk reduction with the use of IADPSG; planned recruitment was 920 for anticipated attrition. RESULTS: From June 2015 to February 2019, 1,016 participants were enrolled and 921 were randomized to IADPSG (n=461) or Carpenter-Coustan (n=460) groups. Gestational diabetes incidence (14.4% vs 4.5%, P<.001) and diabetes medication use (9.3% vs 2.4%; P<.001) were more common in the IADPSG group; there were no differences in LGA neonates, either overall (risk reduction 0.90, 97.5% CI 0.53-1.52) or among women without gestational diabetes (risk reduction 0.85, 97.5% CI 0.49-1.48). Those screened with IADPSG had higher rates of neonatal morbidity but fewer study-related adverse events. Rates of SGA neonates, cesarean birth, and maternal morbidity composite did not differ significantly between study groups. CONCLUSIONS: The IADPSG screening criteria resulted in more women diagnosed and treated for gestational diabetes than Carpenter-Coustan without reducing the incidence of LGA birth weight or maternal or neonatal morbidity. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02309138.
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: Anna Palatnik; Kate Swanson; Tessa Churchill; Ania Bilski; William A Grobman; Emily S Miller Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 7.661
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: Erica P Gunderson; Vicky Chiang; Mark J Pletcher; David R Jacobs; Charles P Quesenberry; Stephen Sidney; Cora E Lewis Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2014-03-12 Impact factor: 6.106
Authors: Esa M Davis; Christina M Scifres; Kaleab Abebe; Tina Costacou; Diane Comer; Patrick Catalano; Hyagriv Simhan; Matthew Freiberg; Nancy Day Journal: AJP Rep Date: 2018-10-29
Authors: Delia Bogdanet; Michelle Toth Castillo; Helen Doheny; Louise Dervan; Miguel-Angel Luque-Fernandez; Jose A Halperin; Paula M O'Shea; Fidelma P Dunne Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-07-04 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: Lore Raets; Marie Vandewinkel; Paul Van Crombrugge; Carolien Moyson; Johan Verhaeghe; Sofie Vandeginste; Hilde Verlaenen; Chris Vercammen; Toon Maes; Els Dufraimont; Nele Roggen; Christophe De Block; Yves Jacquemyn; Farah Mekahli; Katrien De Clippel; Annick Van Den Bruel; Anne Loccufier; Annouschka Laenen; Roland Devlieger; Chantal Mathieu; Katrien Benhalima Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) Date: 2021-11-08 Impact factor: 5.555
Authors: Nina Meloncelli; Emma Shipton; Jenny Doust; Michael D'Emden; Harold David McIntyre; Leonie Callaway; Susan de Jersey Journal: Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol Date: 2022-08-12 Impact factor: 1.884