Implementation of the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups Criteria: Not Always a Cause for Concern

Abstract

Background. Controversy surrounds the decision to adopt the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria for the diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) as fears that disease prevalence rates will soar have been raised. Aims. To investigate the prevalence of pregnancy complicated with GDM before and after the introduction of the IADPSG 2010 diagnostic criteria. Materials and Methods. A prospective audit of all women who delivered from July 1, 2010, to June 30, 2014, in a predefined geographic region within the North Metropolitan Health Service of Western Australia. Women were diagnosed with GDM according to Australian Diabetes in Pregnancy Society (ADIPS 1991) criteria until December 31, 2011, and by the IADPSG 2010 criteria after this date. Incidence of GDM and predefined pregnancy outcomes were audited. Results. Of 10,296 women, antenatal oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) results and follow-up data were obtained for 10,103 women (98%), of whom 349 (3.5%) were diagnosed with GDM. The rate of GDM utilising ADIPS criteria was 3.4% and the rate of utilising IADPSG criteria was 3.5% (p = 0.92). Conclusion. IADPSG diagnostic criteria did not significantly increase the incidence of GDM in this low prevalence region.

A comparison of the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups Recommendations with Former Criteria for Diagnosing Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Retrospective Cohort Study

“…Moreover, when the new criteria were recommended by the IADPSG Consensus Panel, further increase in the frequency of GDM was expected. However, latest analyses show either a stable low prevalence of GDM [9], a modest increase up to 7.4 %-13.4 % [10][11][12][13] or an epidemic of hyperglycemia in pregnancy, reaching 24.1 %-38.4 % of the population studied [14][15][16][17][18]. These disparities might be due to different ethnic groups, the type of screening (universal or riskbased), diagnostic criteria used before and the setting (community vs tertiary care hospitals) in which the study was conducted.…”

Serum homocysteine and folate concentrations in early pregnancy and subsequent events of adverse pregnancy outcome: the Sichuan Homocysteine study

“…Hypercholesterolemia and hypertriglyceridemia, low HDL-C level, and high LDL-C level were defined as TC ≥ 6.22 mmol/L and TG ≥ 2.26 mmol/L, HDL-C < 1.04 mmol/ L, and LDL-C ≥ 4.14 mmol/L, respectively, according to the Chinese guidelines on the prevention and treatment of dyslipidemia in adults [16]. Gestational diabetes was diagnosed when patients' FPG was ≥5.1 mmol/L, and/or 1-h plasma glucose (1hPG) during an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) ≥ 10.0 mmol/L, and/or 2-h plasma glucose (2hPG) during an OGTT ≥8.5 mmol/L, according to the 2010 International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups recommendations on the diagnosis and classification of hyperglycemia in pregnancy [17].…”

Establishment of assay method- and trimester-specific reference intervals for thyroid hormones during pregnancy in Chengdu, China

“…Hypercholesterolemia and hypertriglyceridemia, low HDL-C level, and high LDL-C level were de ned as TC ≥ 6.22 mmol/L and TG ≥ 2.26 mmol/L, HDL-C < 1.04 mmol/L, and LDL-C ≥ 4.14 mmol/L, respectively, according to the Chinese guidelines on the prevention and treatment of dyslipidemia in adults [15,16]. Gestational diabetes was diagnosed when patients' FPG was ≥ 5.1 mmol/L, and/or 1-h plasma glucose (1hPG) during an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) ≥ 10.0 mmol/L, and/or 2-h plasma glucose (2hPG) during an OGTT ≥ 8.5 mmol/L, according to the 2010 International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups recommendations on the diagnosis and classi cation of hyperglycemia in pregnancy [17].…”