Article

Universal two-step screening strategy for gestational diabetes has weak relevance in French Mediterranean women: Should we simplify the screening strategy for gestational diabetes in France?

Service d'Endocrinologie, Diabète et Médecine de la Reproduction, Hôpital de l'Archet, CHU de Nice, 151, route de Saint-Antoine-de-Ginestière, BP 3079, 06202 Nice cedex 3, France.
Diabetes & Metabolism (Impact Factor: 2.85). 04/2011; 37(5):419-25. DOI: 10.1016/j.diabet.2011.01.004
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Currently, there is no international consensus for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) diagnosis. This is a report of our experience of GDM screening according to the 1996 French guidelines.
For 5 years, all pregnant women followed at our hospital (n=11,545) were prospectively screened for GDM between weeks 24 and 28 of pregnancy with a two-step strategy: the O'Sullivan test (OS) with a threshold at 130 mg/dL, followed by a 100-g OGTT if positive. GDM was diagnosed according to Carpenter and Coustan criteria.
Prevalence of GDM was 4.26% [344/1451 of patients with an OS of 130-199 mg/dL (12.1%); and 148 patients with an OS greater than 200 mg/dL]. The false-positive rate for the OS was 76.8%. Compared with 140 mg/dL, a threshold of 130 mg/dL caused 401 additional negative OGTTs in 90% of cases. In 80.7% GDM patients, fasting glucose was less than 95 mg/dL. The time lag between OS and OGTT was 3 weeks (1-84 days). Risk factors associated with GDM were maternal age, preconception overweight and obesity, parity, personal history of GDM or macrosomia, and familial history of obesity (P<0.05), but not diabetes. Also, 20% of GDM patients had no risk factors, whereas they were present in 75% of patients without GDM.
In our population, a two-step screening strategy for GDM was neither relevant nor efficient. It could be simplified with a single-step definitive screening strategy using a 75-g OGTT, as used in the HAPO study, and as recommended by the IADPSG and the recent French Expert Consensus. At present, there are still no evidence-based arguments to help in deciding between selective or universal screening for GDM.

0 Followers
 · 
65 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The use of the new International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Group criteria (IADPSGC) for the diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) results in an increased prevalence of GDM. Whether their introduction improves pregnancy outcomes has yet to be established. We sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of one-step IADPSGC for screening and diagnosis of GDM compared with traditional two-step Carpenter/Coustan (CC) criteria.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: GDM risk factors and pregnancy and newborn outcomes were prospectively assessed in 1,750 pregnant women from April 2011 to March 2012 using CC and in 1,526 pregnant women from April 2012 to March 2013 using IADPSGC between 24 and 28 weeks of gestation. Both groups received the same treatment and follow-up regimes.RESULTS: The use of IADPSGC resulted in an important increase in GDM rate (35.5% vs. 10.6%) and an improvement in pregnancy outcomes, with a decrease in the rate of gestational hypertension (4.1-3.5%: -14.6%, P < 0.021), prematurity (6.4-5.7%: -10.9%, P < 0.039), cesarean section (25.4-19.7%: -23.9%, P < 0.002), small for gestational age (7.7-7.1%: -6.5%, P < 0.042), large for gestational age (4.6-3.7%: -20%, P < 0.004), Apgar 1-min score <7 (3.8-3.5%: -9%, P < 0.015), and admission to neonatal intensive care unit (8.2-6.2%: -24.4%, P < 0.001). Estimated cost savings was of €14,358.06 per 100 women evaluated using IADPSG versus the group diagnosed using CC.CONCLUSIONS: The application of the new IADPSGC was associated with a 3.5-fold increase in GDM prevalence in our study population, as well as significant improvements in pregnancy outcomes, and was cost-effective. Our results support their adoption.
    Diabetes Care 06/2014; 37(9). DOI:10.2337/dc14-0179 · 8.57 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) diagnosis remains controversial. ACOG criteria are based on the long-term risk of maternal diabetes. ADA recently suggested diagnosing GDM with 1 elevated value on an oral glucose tolerance test based on a 1.75-fold risk of large-for-gestational age infants resulting in a 17.8% rate of GDM. Given the lack of neonatal-based outcomes for the traditional position and problems of reproducibility and benefit/harm balance of the ADA approach, an alternative is presented herein based on a 2-fold risk of a large-for-gestational age baby, requiring 2 separate abnormalities to reduce false positives giving a more balanced benefit/harm ratio (10% GDM rate).
    Clinical obstetrics and gynecology 09/2013; 56(4). DOI:10.1097/GRF.0b013e3182a8e029 · 1.53 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is increasingly recognized as an opportunity for early prevention of diabetes and other diseases over the lifespan, and may be responsible for up to 30% of cases of type 2 diabetes. A newly developed mathematical model (the GDModel) provides provisional estimates of the cost and health impact of various GDM screening and management choices, and calculates averted disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs). The model was piloted in 5 different healthcare facilities in India and Israel. Universal screening of pregnant women followed by postpartum lifestyle management yielded net savings of US$78 per woman with GDM in India and US$1945 per woman in Israel. The estimated DALYs averted were 2.33 in India and 3.10 in Israel. With lower GDM prevalence, intervention efficacy, and type 2 diabetes incidence, the intervention had a net cost in India, with a cost per DALY averted of US$11.32. This was far below the WHO definition of "very cost-effective," set at annual GDP per capita. The intervention in Israel remained cost-saving. GDM screening and postpartum lifestyle management are either cost-saving or have a net cost but an attractive cost-effectiveness ratio. Some input values are currently being refined. Nevertheless, the current findings of cost-savings or favorable cost-effectiveness are robust to a wide range of plausible input values, including highly unfavorable values. The GDModel will be further developed into a user-friendly tool that can guide policy-makers on decisions regarding GDM screening strategies and guidelines.
    International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics 11/2011; 115 Suppl 1:S20-5. DOI:10.1016/S0020-7292(11)60007-6 · 1.56 Impact Factor