Gestational diabetes mellitus screening and diagnosis: a prospective randomised controlled trial comparing costs of one-step and two-step methods

Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Medicine and Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University Health Center, 687 Pine Avenue West, Montreal, QC, Canada.
BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology (Impact Factor: 3.86). 03/2010; 117(4):407-15. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02475.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To conduct a cost minimisation analysis of three methods of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) screening and diagnosis.
Prospective randomised controlled trial.
University teaching hospital.
Pregnant women (n = 1594) presenting for GDM screening.
Women presenting for GDM screening, who consented to participate, were randomised to GR1 [1-hour, 50-g glucose screen (GS) +/- 3-hour, 100-g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT)], GR2 (50-g GS +/- 2-hour, 75-g OGTT) or GR3 (2-hour, 75-g OGTT). Demographics, health and time/travel cost information were assessed for each glucose testing visit.
Costs (direct and indirect) and prevalence of GDM diagnosis.
The direct sampling costs of the glucose tests per woman were as follows: GS, CAN$12.57; 75-g OGTT, $36.10; 100-g OGTT, CAN$48.13. Among women in the two-step method groups diagnosed with GDM, 39% of the GR1 and 61% of the GR2 groups were diagnosed at the first step by GS > or = 10.3 mmol/l, according to the Canadian Diabetes Association recommendations, contributing to a lower total cost in these groups. The total costs per woman screened were as follows: GR1, CAN$91.61; GR2, CAN$89.03; GR3, CAN$108.38. The GDM prevalence was similar (3.7%, 3.7% and 3.6%, respectively). The higher costs of GR3 were related to more blood draws and the time required for all women to undergo the 2-hour OGTT.
Careful consideration should be given to an internationally recommended method of universal screening for GDM which minimises the burden and cost for individual women and the healthcare system, yet provides diagnostic efficacy. The two-step method (GS +/- OGTT) accomplished this better than the one-step method (75-g OGTT).

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Early diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is important for both maternal and fetal health. The literature has varying recommendations about one-step and two-step tests for GDM screening and diagnosis. The present study aimed to investigate the difference in the cost and duration of hospital stay of a one-step procedure compared to a two-step procedure, which is routinely performed in our hospital. The two-step procedure was performed in 2,724 pregnant women, and the one-step procedure was performed in 185 pregnant women. The one-step and two-step screening procedures for gestational diabetes were compared with respect to the duration of hospital stay and cost. The test cost per woman was 0.75 TL less in the one-step procedure; however, the duration of the one-step test was 18.6 min longer, and the number of blood sampling procedures was 1.08 times higher. The one-step method may be preferred over the two-step (or glucose challenge) test due to its diagnostic value and lower cost.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To test the feasibility of conducting a pragmatic randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing the International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) versus Carpenter-Coustan diagnostic criteria for gestational diabetes (GDM), and to examine patient and provider views on GDM screening. A single-blinded pragmatic pilot RCT. Participants with a singleton pregnancy between 24 and 28 weeks gestation received a 50 g oral glucose challenge test and if the value was <200 mg/dL were randomized to either the 2 h 75 g OGTT using the IADPSG criteria or the 3 h 100 g OGTT using the Carpenter-Coustan criteria. Primary outcome was the feasibility of randomization and screening. Secondary outcomes included patient and provider views (or preferences) on GDM testing. Sixty-eight women were recruited, 48 (71 %) enrolled and 47 (69 %) were randomized. Participants in both study arms identified the main challenges to GDM testing to be: drinking the glucola, fasting prior to testing, waiting to have blood drawn, and multiple venipuntures. Women in both study arms would prefer the 2 h 75 g OGTT or whichever test is recommended by their doctor in a future pregnancy. Physicians and nurse midwives endorsed screening and were comfortable with being blinded to the GDM testing strategy and results values. Both pregnant women and providers value GDM screening, and pregnant women can be recruited to a blinded, randomized GDM screening trial with minimal attrition and missing data.
    Maternal and Child Health Journal 11/2014; DOI:10.1007/s10995-014-1651-4 · 2.24 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is an increasing cause of morbidity in women and their offspring. Screening and intervention can reduce perinatal and most likely also long-term diabetes consequences. There have been many economic studies, but not recently systematically compared. We conducted a systematic search and abstraction of cost-effectiveness and cost-utility studies from 2002 to 2014. We standardized all findings to 2014 US dollars. We found that cost-effectiveness ratios varied widely. Most variation was found to be due to differences in geographic setting, diagnostic criteria and intervention approaches, and outcomes (e.g. inclusion or exclusion of long-term type 2 diabetes risk and associated costs). We concluded that incorporation of long-term benefits of GDM-screening and treatment have huge impact on cost-effectiveness estimates. Based on the large methodological heterogeneity and varying results in the existing body of evidence, we find it unreasonable to outline any global recommendations. For future economic studies, we recommend inclusion of long-term outcomes and adaptation to local preferences, as well as examination of the impact of the diagnostic criteria recently proposed by the International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG).
    Bailli&egrave re s Best Practice and Research in Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology 08/2014; 29(2). DOI:10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2014.06.009 · 3.00 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Sep 15, 2014