One-step versus two-step screening for diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus in Iranian population: A randomized community trial.
gestational diabetes
maternal and neonatal outcomes
one-step screening approach
prevalence
two-step screening approach
Journal
Frontiers in endocrinology
ISSN: 1664-2392
Titre abrégé: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101555782
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
08
09
2022
accepted:
19
12
2022
entrez:
23
2
2023
pubmed:
24
2
2023
medline:
3
3
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
There is considerable worldwide controversy regarding optimal screening and diagnostic approaches for GDM. This study aimed to compare the prevalence, maternal and neonatal outcomes of a One-step with a Two-step approach for the screening and diagnosis of GDM in a large community sample of pregnant women. We conducted a secondary analysis of a randomized community non-inferiority trial of GDM screening in Iran. For the current study, all pregnant women who met the inclusion criteria were randomized into two groups for GDM screening. The first group of women (n = 14611) was screened by a One-step screening approach [75-g 2-h oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT)] and the second group (n = 14160) by a Two-step method (the 50-g glucose challenge test followed by the 100-g OGTT). All study participants were followed up until delivery, and the adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes were recorded in detail. GDM was diagnosed in 9.3% of the pregnant women who were assigned to the One-step and in 5.4% of those assigned to the Two-step approach with a statistically significant difference between them (p < 0.001). Intention-to-treat analyses showed no significant differences between the One-step and the Two-step group in the unadjusted risks of the adverse pregnancy outcomes of macrosomia, primary cesarean-section, preterm birth, hypoglycemia, hypocalcemia, hyperbilirubinemia, preeclampsia, neonatal intensive care unit admission, birth trauma, low birth weight, and intrauterine fetal death. Results remained unchanged after adjustment for potential confounder variables including gestational age at enrollment and delivery, maternal body mass index, gestational weight gain, type of delivery, treatment modality, and GDM diagnosis in the first trimester. We found that although the rates of GDM more than doubled with the One-step strategy, the One-step approach was similar to the Two-step approach in terms of maternal and neonatal outcomes. These findings may warn that more caution should be exercised in adopting the One-step method worldwide. Future research is needed to assess the long-term harm and benefits of those approaches to GDM screening for both mothers and their offspring. https://www.irct.ir/trial/518, identifier (IRCT138707081281N1).
Identifiants
pubmed: 36818463
doi: 10.3389/fendo.2022.1039643
pmc: PMC9932332
doi:
Banques de données
IRCT
['IRCT138707081281N1']
Types de publication
Randomized Controlled Trial
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1039643Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Ramezani Tehrani, Rahmati, Farzadfar, Abedini, Farahmand, Hosseinpanah, Hadaegh, Torkestani, Valizadeh, Azizi and Behboudi-Gandevani.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Nov;128(5):e195-e209
pubmed: 27776071
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2020 Feb;33(4):612-617
pubmed: 29985079
Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2022 Jan;183:109050
pubmed: 34883186
Obstet Gynecol. 2022 Nov 1;140(5):712-723
pubmed: 36201772
Diabetes Care. 2016 Jan;39 Suppl 1:S4-5
pubmed: 26696680
Endocr Regul. 2016 Apr;50(2):62-71
pubmed: 27560638
Diabetes Care. 2016 Dec;39(12):2126-2140
pubmed: 27879358
JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Mar 1;5(3):e220773
pubmed: 35234881
J Pregnancy. 2012;2012:105918
pubmed: 22685661
Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2022 May 19;13:799625
pubmed: 35663318
NIH Consens State Sci Statements. 2013 Mar 06;29(1):1-31
pubmed: 23748438
Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Oct;120(4):964-73
pubmed: 22996126
Diabetol Metab Syndr. 2019 Dec 18;11:106
pubmed: 31890040
Diabetes Care. 2010 Mar;33(3):676-82
pubmed: 20190296
N Engl J Med. 2021 Mar 11;384(10):895-904
pubmed: 33704936
J Diabetes Metab Disord. 2019 Feb 21;18(1):41-50
pubmed: 31275873
Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Jan;127(1):3-6
pubmed: 26646138
Stat Med. 2014 Jan 30;33(2):209-18
pubmed: 23900808
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Nov;209(5):440.e1-9
pubmed: 23816844
J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2017 Jun;67(3):190-195
pubmed: 28546666
Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2021 Dec 15;12:743170
pubmed: 34975745
JAMA. 2022 Apr 12;327(14):1356-1367
pubmed: 35412565
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2014 Jan;27(1):36-41
pubmed: 23617557
Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2021 Feb;172:108642
pubmed: 33359574
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Dec;225(6):634-644
pubmed: 34023312
J Clin Med. 2021 Feb 09;10(4):
pubmed: 33572314
BMJ Open. 2017 Jun 24;7(6):e015557
pubmed: 28647726
Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Jul 1;138(1):6-15
pubmed: 34259458
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2019 May;32(9):1547-1555
pubmed: 29157030
Eur J Health Econ. 2019 Apr;20(3):407-417
pubmed: 30229375
J Pediatr Pharmacol Ther. 2013 Jul;18(3):199-208
pubmed: 24052783
Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2021 Nov 08;12:781384
pubmed: 34858350
Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2018 Oct 05;9:583
pubmed: 30344509
Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Feb;131(2):e49-e64
pubmed: 29370047
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2022 Jun 16;107(7):e2906-e2920
pubmed: 35325164
J Diabetes Res. 2017;2017:7058082
pubmed: 28326332
Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Jul;130(1):e17-e37
pubmed: 28644336
J Perinat Neonatal Nurs. 2011 Jul-Sep;25(3):226-32; quiz 233-4
pubmed: 21825911
Matern Child Health J. 2015 Jul;19(7):1472-80
pubmed: 25424454
Diabetes Metab J. 2022 Jul;46(4):605-619
pubmed: 35255550