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: 3.27). 04/2011; 37(5):419-25. DOI: 10.1016/j.diabet.2011.01.004
Source: PubMed


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.

4 Reads
  • [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 · 1.54 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 · 1.77 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Diabetes care 10/2013; 36(10):2877-8. DOI:10.2337/dc13-0833 · 8.42 Impact Factor
Show more