Screening pregnant women in a high-risk population with WHO-2013 or NICE diagnostic criteria does not affect the prevalence of gestational diabetes

Integrated care of diabetes during pregnancy: a Qatari nationwide cohort

Background

Diabetes in pregnancy (DIP) is associated with adverse fetal and maternal outcomes. DIP is classified as either pre-existing or new-onset diabetes mellitus (DM), which is classified into gestational DM (GDM) and newly detected type 2 (N-T2D). All pregnant women in Qatar who are not known to have pre-existing DM are offered screening for DIP during the first antenatal care visit and after 24 weeks gestation. The study aims to report the DIP screening rates, the prevalence of DIP, and the impact of the universal screening program on adverse pregnancy outcomes.

Methods

This retrospective study included all women who gave birth in Hamad Medical Corporation (HMC) hospitals between 2019 and 2022. New-onset DIP was defined using the WHO-2013 criteria. The primary outcomes were the screening rates and the prevalence of DIP in Qatar. The secondary outcomes were the difference in preterm delivery, C-section, macrosomia, large for gestational age (LGA), small for gestational age (SGA), and intra-uterine fetal death (IUFD) between women with or without GDM.

Findings

We included 94,422 women who gave birth to 96,017 neonates (85.7%) out of 112,080 neonates born nationwide. The number of women with pre-existing diabetes was 2496 women. Of 91,926 eligible women, 77,372 (84.2%) were screened for DIP. The prevalence of GDM is 31.6% (95% CI: 31.3-32.0%); N-T2D is 2.2% (95% CI: 2.1-2.3%), and pre-existing Type 2 DM and Type 1 DM was 2.6% (95% CI: 0.8-3.0%) and 0.2% (0.19-0.25), respectively. Compared to the non-GDM group, women with GDM were older (30.8 ± 5.3 versus 29.7 ± 5.2 years, p < 0.001). After adjusting for age, women with GDM had lower risk of IUFD and SGA (0.63 [95% CI 0.50-0.80, p < 0.001], 0.88 [95% CI 0.84-0.92, p < 0.001] respectively) but higher risk of C-section and LFD (1.07 [95% CI 1.04-1.10, p < 0.001], 1.09 [95% CI 1.01-1.15, p = 0.01], respectively, compared to women with no-GDM.

Interpretation

Of the women eligible for screening, 84.2% were screened by the DIP program in Qatar. The prevalence of DIP in Qatar is 36.9%. Integrated care is critical for the screening and management of diabetes during pregnancy.

Fundings

The authors did not receive any funding for this project.

An overview of diabetes mellitus in pregnant women with obesity

Rates of obesity are increasing world-wide with an estimated 1billion people projected to be obese by 2030 if current trends remain unchanged. Obesity currently considered one of the most significant associated factors of non-communicable diseases poses the greatest threat to health. Diabetes mellitus is an important metabolic disorder closely associated with obesity. It is therefore expected that with the increasing rates of obesity, the rates of diabetes in pregnancy will also be rising. This disorder may pre-date pregnancy (diagnosed or undiagnosed and diagnosed for the first time in pregnancy) or may be of onset in pregnancy. Irrespective of the timing of onset, diabetes in pregnancy is associated with both fetal and maternal complications. Outcomes are much better if control is maximised. Early diagnosis, multidisciplinary care and tailored management with optimum glycaemic control is associated with a significant reduction in not only pregnancy complications but long-term consequences on both the mother and offspring. This review brings together the current understanding of the pathogenesis of the endocrine derangements that are associated with diabetes in pregnancy how screening should be offered and management including pre-pregnancy care and the role of newer agents in management.

Gestational diabetes mellitus and adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes in twin and singleton pregnancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the risk of adverse maternal and perinatal complications between twin and singleton pregnancies affected by gestational diabetes mellitus and the respective group without gestational diabetes mellitus (controls).

DATA SOURCES

A literature search was performed using MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane from January 1980 to May 2023.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Observational studies reporting maternal and perinatal outcomes in singleton and/or twin pregnancies with gestational diabetes mellitus vs controls were included.

METHODS

This was a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pooled estimate risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals were generated to determine the likelihood of adverse pregnancy outcomes between twin and singleton pregnancies with and without gestational diabetes mellitus. Heterogeneity among studies was evaluated in the model and expressed using the I2 statistic. A P value of <.05 was considered statistically significant. The meta-analyses were performed using Review Manager (RevMan Web). Version 5.4. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2020. Meta-regression was used to compare relative risks between singleton and twin pregnancies. The addition of multiple covariates into the models was used to address the lack of adjustments.

RESULTS

Overall, 85 studies in singleton pregnancies and 27 in twin pregnancies were included. In singleton pregnancies with gestational diabetes mellitus, compared with controls, there were increased risks of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (relative risk, 1.85; 95% confidence interval, 1.69-2.01), induction of labor (relative risk, 1.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.77), cesarean delivery (relative risk, 1.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-1.38), large-for-gestational-age neonate (relative risk, 1.61; 95% confidence interval, 1.46-1.77), preterm birth (relative risk, 1.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.46), and admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (relative risk, 1.43; 95% confidence interval, 1.38-1.49). In twin pregnancies with gestational diabetes mellitus, compared with controls, there were increased risks of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (relative risk, 1.69; 95% confidence interval, 1.51-1.90), cesarean delivery (relative risk, 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.13), large-for-gestational-age neonate (relative risk, 1.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.60), preterm birth (relative risk, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.32), and admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (relative risk, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.32) and reduced risks of small-for-gestational-age neonate (relative risk, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.81-0.97) and neonatal death (relative risk, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.39-0.65). When comparing relative risks in singleton vs twin pregnancies, there was sufficient evidence to suggest that twin pregnancies have a lower relative risk of cesarean delivery (P=.003), have sufficient adjustment for confounders, and have lower relative risks of admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (P=.005), stillbirths (P=.002), and neonatal death (P=.001) than singleton pregnancies.

CONCLUSION

In both singleton and twin pregnancies, gestational diabetes mellitus was associated with an increased risk of adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes. In twin pregnancies, gestational diabetes mellitus may have a milder effect on some adverse perinatal outcomes and may be associated with a lower risk of neonatal death.

Impacts of pregnancy and menopause on COVID-19 severity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 4.6 million women

BACKGROUND

Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is still a public health emergency of international concern. However, whether pregnancy and menopause impact the severity of COVID-19 remain unclear.

AIM

This study is performed to investigate the truth.

DESIGN

Study appraisal and synthesis follows PRISMA guideline. Meta-analysis is performed in random-effects model.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane database, Central, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO COVID-19 database and WHO-ICTRP are searched until 28 March 2023.

RESULTS

In total, 57 studies (4 640 275 COVID-19 women) were analyzed. Pregnant women were at a lower risk of severe COVID-19, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and disease mortality compared to those nonpregnant women with comparable comorbidities. In contrast, pregnant women with more prepregnancy comorbidities were at a higher risk of severe COVID-19, ICU admission and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). In addition, pregnant women with pregnancy complications had a significantly increased risk of severe COVID-19 and ICU admission. Menopause increased COVID-19 severity, IMV requirement and disease mortality. Hormone replacement therapy inhibited COVID-19 severity in postmenopausal women. Premenopausal and postmenopausal women had a lower chance of severe illness than age-matched men. The impact of pregnancy on COVID-19 severity was significant in Americans and Caucasians, whereas the effect of menopause on COVID-19 severity was only significant in Chinese.

CONCLUSIONS

Pregnancy and menopause are protective and risk factors for severe COVID-19, respectively. The protective role of pregnancy on COVID-19 is minimal and could be counteracted or masked by prepregnancy or pregnancy comorbidities. The administration of estrogen and progesterone may prevent severe COVID-19.

Incidence of gestational diabetes mellitus in the United Arab Emirates; comparison of six diagnostic criteria: The Mutaba'ah Study

Background

For more than half a century, there has been much research and controversies on how to accurately screen for and diagnose gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). There is a paucity of updated research among the Emirati population in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The lack of a uniform GDM diagnostic criteria results in the inability to accurately combine or compare the disease burden worldwide and locally. This study aimed to compare the incidence of GDM in the Emirati population using six diagnostic criteria for GDM.

Methods

The Mutaba'ah study is the largest multi-center mother and child cohort study in the UAE with an 18-year follow-up. We included singleton pregnancies from the Mutaba'ah cohort screened with the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) at 24-32 weeks from May 2017 to March 2021. We excluded patients with known diabetes and with newly diagnosed diabetes. GDM cumulative incidence was determined using the six specified criteria. GDM risk factors were compared using chi-square and t-tests. Agreements among the six criteria were assessed using kappa statistics.

Results

A total of 2,546 women were included with a mean age of 30.5 ± 6.0 years. Mean gravidity was 3.5 ± 2.1, and mean body mass index (BMI) at booking was 27.7 ± 5.6 kg/m2. GDM incidence as diagnosed by any of the six criteria collectively was 27.1%. It ranged from 8.4% according to the EASD 1996 criteria to 21.5% according to the NICE 2015 criteria. The two most inclusive criteria were the NICE 2015 and the IADPSG criteria with GDM incidence rates of 21.5% (95% CI: 19.9, 23.1) and 21.3% (95% CI: 19.8, 23.0), respectively. Agreement between the two criteria was moderate (k = 0.66; p < 0.001). The least inclusive was the EASD 1996 criteria [8.4% (95% CI: 7.3, 9.6)]. The locally recommended IADPSG/WHO 2013 criteria had weak to moderate agreement with the other criteria, with Cohen's kappa coefficient ranging from (k = 0.51; p < 0.001) to (k = 0.71; p < 0.001). Most of the GDM risk factors assessed were significantly higher among those with GDM (p < 0.005) identified by all criteria.

Conclusions

The findings indicate discrepancies among the diagnostic criteria in identifying GDM cases. This emphasizes the need to unify GDM diagnostic criteria in this population to provide accurate and reliable incidence estimates for healthcare planning, especially because the agreement with the recommended criteria was not optimal.

CGMS profile of women diagnosed as GDM by IADPSG criteria and labelled as normoglycemic by alternate criteria in early pregnancy

AIMS/INTRODUCTION

We aimed to evaluate and compare CGMS-based glycemic parameters in women in early pregnancy (<20 weeks of gestation) who were classified as: a) GDM by IADPSG but normoglycemia by alternate (UK NICE, CDA and DIPSI) criteria, and b) normoglycemia by both (IADPSG and alternate) criteria.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, eligible women underwent standard 75-g OGTT, followed by the placement of a CGMS. Glycemia-related parameters were calculated using the standard approach for CGMS data in pregnancy.

RESULTS

We enrolled 96 women at 14.0 ± 3.2 weeks of gestation. Of the women diagnosed as GDM by IADPSG criteria, 34.2%, 26.3% and 44.7% were classified as normoglycemic by UK NICE, CDA and DIPSI criteria, respectively. Mean 1-h postprandial glucose and time above range were significantly higher in women who were GDM by IADPSG, but normoglycemia by CDA criteria, compared to women with normoglycemia using both criteria. Similarly, mean 1-h postprandial glucose, 2-h postprandial glucose, peak postprandial glucose, 1-hr postprandial glucose excursion and time above range were significantly higher in women who were not identified as GDM by UK NICE criteria. Finally, women missed by DIPSI criteria had significantly higher mean 1-h postprandial glucose, 2-h postprandial glucose, peak postprandial glucose, postprandial glucose excursion, 24-h glucose, and time above range parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

More than a quarter of women diagnosed as GDM by IADPSG criteria are not identified by alternate criteria. Such women are significantly different from normoglycemic women in terms of several CGMS-based glycemic parameters of clinical significance.

Gestational diabetes mellitus and adverse pregnancy outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the association between gestational diabetes mellitus and adverse outcomes of pregnancy after adjustment for at least minimal confounding factors.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Web of Science, PubMed, Medline, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, from 1 January 1990 to 1 November 2021.

REVIEW METHODS

Cohort studies and control arms of trials reporting complications of pregnancy in women with gestational diabetes mellitus were eligible for inclusion. Based on the use of insulin, studies were divided into three subgroups: no insulin use (patients never used insulin during the course of the disease), insulin use (different proportions of patients were treated with insulin), and insulin use not reported. Subgroup analyses were performed based on the status of the country (developed or developing), quality of the study, diagnostic criteria, and screening method. Meta-regression models were applied based on the proportion of patients who had received insulin.

RESULTS

156 studies with 7 506 061 pregnancies were included, and 50 (32.1%) showed a low or medium risk of bias. In studies with no insulin use, when adjusted for confounders, women with gestational diabetes mellitus had increased odds of caesarean section (odds ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.32), preterm delivery (1.51, 1.26 to 1.80), low one minute Apgar score (1.43, 1.01 to 2.03), macrosomia (1.70, 1.23 to 2.36), and infant born large for gestational age (1.57, 1.25 to 1.97). In studies with insulin use, when adjusted for confounders, the odds of having an infant large for gestational age (odds ratio 1.61, 1.09 to 2.37), or with respiratory distress syndrome (1.57, 1.19 to 2.08) or neonatal jaundice (1.28, 1.02 to 1.62), or requiring admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (2.29, 1.59 to 3.31), were higher in women with gestational diabetes mellitus than in those without diabetes. No clear evidence was found for differences in the odds of instrumental delivery, shoulder dystocia, postpartum haemorrhage, stillbirth, neonatal death, low five minute Apgar score, low birth weight, and small for gestational age between women with and without gestational diabetes mellitus after adjusting for confounders. Country status, adjustment for body mass index, and screening methods significantly contributed to heterogeneity between studies for several adverse outcomes of pregnancy.

CONCLUSIONS

When adjusted for confounders, gestational diabetes mellitus was significantly associated with pregnancy complications. The findings contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the adverse outcomes of pregnancy related to gestational diabetes mellitus. Future primary studies should routinely consider adjusting for a more complete set of prognostic factors.

REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42021265837.

Prevalence of Gestational Diabetes in preCOVID-19 and COVID-19 Years and Its Impact on Pregnancy: A 5-Year Retrospective Study

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) affects a total of 3% to 9% of all pregnancies. It has a high impact on both mother and baby, increases the perinatal risks, and predicts the presence of long-term chronic metabolic complications. The aim of our study is to determine the incidence of GDM in tertiary hospitals in the west part of Romania to lay out the risk factors associated with GDM and to observe the evolution of pregnancy among patients with this pathology by emphasizing the state of birth of the fetus, the birth weight, and the way of birth. We also want to compare the prevalence of GDM in preCOVID-19 (Coronavirus disease) versus COVID-19 years. The study took place between January 2017 and December 2021 at the Municipal Emergency Hospital of Timisoara, Romania. The proportion of births with GDM was significantly increased during the COVID-19 period compared to the preCOVID-19 period (chi2 Fisher exact test, p < 0.001). The period 2020−2021 represents a significant risk factor for GDM births (OR = 1.87, with 95% CI = [1.30, 2.67]). COVID years represent a risk period for developing gestational diabetes, which can be explained by reduced physical activity, anxiety, or modified dietary habits, even if the follow-up period was not impacted.

Unifying the diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus: Introducing the NPRP criteria

AIMS

Disagreement about the appropriate criteria for the diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) persists. This study examines an alternative approach which combines information from all time-points on the glucose tolerance test (GTT) into a single index and expands the GDM spectrum into four categories using data from three geographically and ethnically distinct populations.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study design was used. Data from Wisconsin, USA (723 women) was used in derivation of the criterion and data from Doha, Qatar (1284 women) and Cape Town, South Africa (220 women) for confirmation. Pregnant women without pre-existing diabetes with a GTT done between 23 and 30 weeks gestation were included. A novel index was derived from the GTT termed the weighted average glucose (wAG). This was categorized into four pre-defined groups (henceforth National Priorities Research Program (NPRP) criterion); i) normal gestational glycemia (NGG), ii) impaired gestational glycemia (IGG), iii) GDM and iv) high risk GDM (hGDM).

RESULTS

In the Doha cohort, compared to the NGG group, the odds of large for gestational age babies increased 1.33 fold (P = 0.432), 2.86 fold (P < 0.001) and 3.35 fold (P < 0.001) in the IGG, GDM and hGDM groups respectively. The odds of pregnancy induced hypertension increased 2.10 fold (P = 0.024) in GDM & hGDM groups compared to the IGG and NGG groups. In the Cape Town cohort, a third of women in the GDM group and two-thirds in the hGDM group progressed to T2DM at 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

The NPRP categorization identifies four distinct risk clusters of glycemia in pregnancy which may aid better decision making in routine management, avoid potential over-diagnosis of women at lower risk of complications and assist with diabetes prevention in women at high-risk after an index pregnancy with GDM.