Skip to main content
  • More from ADA
    • Diabetes
    • Clinical Diabetes
    • Diabetes Spectrum
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Scientific Sessions Abstracts
    • BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care
  • Subscribe
  • Log in
  • My Cart
  • Follow ada on Twitter
  • RSS
  • Visit ada on Facebook
Diabetes Care

Advanced Search

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current
    • Current Issue
    • Online Ahead of Print
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Browse
    • By Topic
    • Issue Archive
    • Saved Searches
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • About the Editors
    • ADA Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Guidance for Reviewers
  • Reprints/Reuse
  • Advertising
  • Subscriptions
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions and Site Licenses
    • Access Institutional Usage Reports
    • Purchase Single Issues
  • Alerts
    • E­mail Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Podcasts
    • Diabetes Core Update
    • Special Podcast Series: Therapeutic Inertia
    • Special Podcast Series: Influenza Podcasts
    • Special Podcast Series: SGLT2 Inhibitors
    • Special Podcast Series: COVID-19
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • ADA Peer Review
  • More from ADA
    • Diabetes
    • Clinical Diabetes
    • Diabetes Spectrum
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Scientific Sessions Abstracts
    • BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Diabetes Care
  • Home
  • Current
    • Current Issue
    • Online Ahead of Print
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Browse
    • By Topic
    • Issue Archive
    • Saved Searches
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • About the Editors
    • ADA Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Guidance for Reviewers
  • Reprints/Reuse
  • Advertising
  • Subscriptions
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions and Site Licenses
    • Access Institutional Usage Reports
    • Purchase Single Issues
  • Alerts
    • E­mail Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Podcasts
    • Diabetes Core Update
    • Special Podcast Series: Therapeutic Inertia
    • Special Podcast Series: Influenza Podcasts
    • Special Podcast Series: SGLT2 Inhibitors
    • Special Podcast Series: COVID-19
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • ADA Peer Review
Reconsidering Pregnancy With Diabetes

Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: Is It Time to Reconsider the Diagnostic Criteria?

  1. N. Wah Cheung1,2⇑ and
  2. Robert G. Moses3
  1. 1Department of Diabetes and Endocrinology, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  2. 2Faculty of Medicine, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  3. 3Diabetes Services, Illawarra Shoalhaven Local Health District, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia
  1. Corresponding author: N. Wah Cheung, wah.cheung{at}sydney.edu.au.
Diabetes Care 2018 Jul; 41(7): 1337-1338. https://doi.org/10.2337/dci18-0013
PreviousNext
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

It has been 10 years since results from the landmark Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (HAPO) study were published (1) and 8 years since the recommendations of the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) appeared in this journal (2). The HAPO study demonstrated a continuous relationship between glucose levels on a 75-g oral glucose tolerance test (GTT) and the risks for selected fetal outcomes. Potential diagnostic criteria for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) were considered by a Consensus Panel of the IADPSG, which, after a close vote, decided to select an odds ratio (OR) of 1.75, relative to the mean, for selected outcomes. This corresponded to glucose levels of ≥5.1 mmol/L at fasting, ≥10.0 mmol/L at 1 h, and ≥8.5 mmol/L at 2 h on a 75-g GTT. Although the prevalence of GDM varied markedly between the 15 study centers when applying these criteria, the relationship between glucose and outcomes was consistent, and therefore it was considered appropriate for these criteria to be applied globally (3).

The IADPSG recommendations were initially generally greeted with enthusiasm. Finally, diagnostic criteria based on fetal outcomes were available and would replace criteria in the U.S., for example, that were derived from the prediction of subsequent maternal diabetes. Furthermore, given the ethnic diversity of the HAPO participating centers, there was a realistic prospect that their universal adoption was both feasible and practical. However, in the same issue of Diabetes Care that the IADPSG recommendations appeared in there was also a commentary (4) that asked whether the new criteria represented a “problem solved or a Pandora’s box?” Where have we progressed since 2010? Has the problem been solved or have we opened a Pandora’s box—a process that, once commenced, generates many complicated problems?

Questions were asked and comments, both constructive and critical, followed and have expanded with time. Could expert opinion replace scientific evidence (5)? The greatest concern was the lack of clinical trial evidence that treatment at these glucose thresholds, using a one-step diagnostic strategy, improved pregnancy outcomes, as well as the potential for collateral harm that might be caused by an increase in obstetric and neonatal interventions (5–7). Concerns were raised about the universally anticipated increase in the prevalence of GDM, and these have been borne out by reports of GDM being diagnosed in as many as 30% of some populations under the new criteria (8,9). Finally, the cost-effectiveness remains questionable, with retrospective observational studies giving conflicting results (9,10).

Further confusion, or lack of clarity, relates to the decisions and recommendations of professional groups and societies. The World Health Organization adopted the IADPSG diagnostic criteria in 2013 with the precaution that the quality of the evidence was very low and the strength of the recommendation was weak (11). The National Institutes of Health considered the potential new criteria and decided to remain with the status quo until comparative clinical trials could be conducted (12). The American Diabetes Association’s Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2018 (13) for the diagnosis of GDM has the option of either the one-step IADPSG criteria or a two-step procedure with three different postglucose-challenge action points and two different diagnostic options!

In this issue of Diabetes Care, the observations of McIntyre et al. (14) in a Danish cohort challenge the universal suitability of the IADPSG diagnostic thresholds. In a northern European Caucasian population, who would normally be considered low risk for GDM, 40% had fasting glucose ≥5.1 mmol/L and would have been so diagnosed. There was no evidence of excessive fetal growth (on the basis of large for gestational age or neonatal anthropometry) or hypertensive disease of pregnancy in this population until the fasting glucose level was ≥5.6 mmol/L, well above the IADPSG threshold of 5.1 mmol/L, and there was no relationship between cesarean section and fasting glucose at all. These findings are similar to a recent Spanish study that only demonstrated a sharper rise in the risk of large for gestational age and gestational hypertension when fasting glucose was above 5.3–5.5 mmol/L (15). Now, this variance, compared with the continuum of risk demonstrated by the HAPO study, may be related to the numbers involved or it could reflect true ethnic variation. There also may be something hitherto unrecognizably different about the Danish population, as the GDM prevalence for women with a BMI ≥29, at more than 50%, was the highest in a group of selected European countries (16). The McIntyre et al. study also needs to be interpreted with caution as only half the women in the cohort had a fasting glucose level performed and there were some differences in characteristics between these subjects and those who did not. Nevertheless, the authors justifiably ask the question of whether it would be appropriate to treat the 40% of women who would have been diagnosed on the basis of a fasting glucose level ≥5.1 mmol/L.

What are the implications of this study? Although international standardization of the glucose thresholds for the diagnosis of GDM is highly desirable, as McIntyre et al. (14) stated, perhaps “one size does not fit all.” Should each country undertake local studies and reach its own consensus regarding the most appropriate glucose thresholds for its population and health system? Or, perhaps, the selection by the IADPSG/World Health Organization of the OR of 1.75 should be reconsidered?

Clearly, using an OR of 1.75 for the diagnosis of GDM based on HAPO has not gained the acceptance anticipated for diverse reasons. However, it would be wise to retain the science of the HAPO study but consider shifting the diagnostic criteria up the curve to, say, an OR of 2.0. Applying an OR of 2.0 would increase the diagnostic glucose levels to ≥5.3 mmol/L at fasting, ≥10.6 mmol/L at 1 hr, and ≥9.0 mmol/L at 2 h. This increase would greatly reduce the prevalence of GDM (17) and place the critical fasting level for diagnosis in alignment with the established fasting level of the Carpenter and Coustan criteria. With a diagnostic fasting level of ≥5.3 mmol/L, the de facto treatment target would be to aim for a fasting level of <5.3 mmol/L, which would also agree with the evidence from the Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units (MFMU) Network randomized trial of treatment for GDM (18).

In the U.S., one of the key consequences of the two-step procedure is that the initial 1-h 50-g glucose challenge test effectively excludes women with fasting hyperglycemia alone from further testing, and therefore such women will not be diagnosed with GDM. By raising the fasting cutoff on the GTT to ≥5.3 mmol/L, there would be greater concordance between women diagnosed by the one-step and two-step strategies. Perhaps this will lead to greater acceptance of the one-step strategy.

With the confusion over international diagnostic criteria, the discordance between diagnostic criteria and treatment targets, and the inadequacy of economic data, we believe that it is now time for another international consensus meeting to discuss a revision to the criteria for the diagnosis of GDM. Until randomized controlled trials demonstrate improved outcomes treating GDM by a set of criteria derived from HAPO data, the decision regarding the glucose cutoffs to be applied will depend on what we now know about GDM prevalence, resource utilization and economics, and extrapolation of data from clinical trials using other criteria. The consensus in 2018 may well be that an OR of 2.0 should be applied to the diagnosis of GDM.

Article Information

Duality of Interest. No potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

Footnotes

  • See accompanying article, p. 1339.

  • See accompanying articles, pp. 1343, 1346, 1362, 1370, 1378, 1385, 1391, and e111.

  • Received March 18, 2018.
  • Accepted April 16, 2018.
  • © 2018 by the American Diabetes Association.
http://www.diabetesjournals.org/content/license

Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered. More information is available at http://www.diabetesjournals.org/content/license.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Metzger BE,
    2. Lowe LP,
    3. Dyer AR, et al.; HAPO Study Cooperative Research Group
    . Hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcomes. N Engl J Med 2008;358:1991–2002pmid:18463375
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  2. ↵
    1. Metzger BE,
    2. Gabbe SG,
    3. Persson B, et al.; International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups Consensus Panel
    . International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups recommendations on the diagnosis and classification of hyperglycemia in pregnancy. Diabetes Care 2010;33:676–682pmid:20190296
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Sacks DA,
    2. Hadden DR,
    3. Maresh M, et al.; HAPO Study Cooperative Research Group
    . Frequency of gestational diabetes mellitus at collaborating centers based on IADPSG consensus panel–recommended criteria: the Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (HAPO) Study. Diabetes Care 2012;35:526–528pmid:22355019
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Moses RG
    . New consensus criteria for GDM: problem solved or a Pandora’s box? Diabetes Care 2010;33:690–691pmid:20190298
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Long H
    . Diagnosing gestational diabetes: can expert opinions replace scientific evidence? Diabetologia 2011;54:2211–2213pmid:21710287
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Cundy T,
    2. Ackermann E,
    3. Ryan EA
    . Gestational diabetes: new criteria may triple the prevalence but effect on outcomes is unclear. BMJ 2014;348:g1567pmid:24618099
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Reece EA,
    2. Moore T
    . The diagnostic criteria for gestational diabetes: to change or not to change? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013;208:255–259pmid:23123381
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Wong VW,
    2. Lin A,
    3. Russell H
    . Adopting the new World Health Organization diagnostic criteria for gestational diabetes: how the prevalence changes in a high-risk region in Australia. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2017;129:148–153pmid:28528075
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Duran A,
    2. Sáenz S,
    3. Torrejón MJ, et al
    . Introduction of IADPSG criteria for the screening and diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus results in improved pregnancy outcomes at a lower cost in a large cohort of pregnant women: the St. Carlos Gestational Diabetes Study. Diabetes Care 2014;37:2442–2450pmid:24947793
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. Werner EF,
    2. Pettker CM,
    3. Zuckerwise L, et al
    . Screening for gestational diabetes mellitus: are the criteria proposed by the International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups cost-effective? Diabetes Care 2012;35:529–535pmid:22266735
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    World Health Organization. Diagnostic criteria and classification of hyperglycaemia first detected in pregnancy [Internet], 2013. Document WHO/NMH/MND/13.2. Available from http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/85975/1/WHO_NMH_MND_13.2_eng.pdf. Accessed 20 February 2018
  11. ↵
    National Institutes of Health. NIH Consensus Development Conference: Diagnosing Gestational Diabetes Mellitus, March 4–6, 2013, Bethesda, MD [Internet], 2013. Available from https://consensus.nih.gov/2013/gdm.htm. Accessed 5 March 2018
  12. ↵
    1. American Diabetes Association
    . 2. Classification and diagnosis of diabetes: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2018. Diabetes Care 2018;41(Suppl. 1):S13–S27pmid:29222373
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. ↵
    1. McIntyre HD,
    2. Jensen DM,
    3. Jensen RC, et al
    . Gestational diabetes mellitus: does one size fit all? A challenge to uniform worldwide diagnostic thresholds. Diabetes Care 2018;41:1339–1342
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    1. Sesmilo G,
    2. Meler E,
    3. Perea V, et al
    . Maternal fasting glycemia and adverse pregnancy outcomes in a Mediterranean population. Acta Diabetol 2017;54:293–299pmid:28044196
    OpenUrlPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Egan AM,
    2. Vellinga A,
    3. Harreiter J, et al.; DALI Core Investigator group
    . Epidemiology of gestational diabetes mellitus according to IADPSG/WHO 2013 criteria among obese pregnant women in Europe. Diabetologia 2017;60:1913–1921pmid:28702810
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Manzoor N,
    2. Moses RG
    . Diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus: a different paradigm to consider. Diabetes Care 2013;36:e187pmid:24159183
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  17. ↵
    1. Landon MB,
    2. Spong CY,
    3. Thom E, et al.; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network
    . A multicenter, randomized trial of treatment for mild gestational diabetes. N Engl J Med 2009;361:1339–1348pmid:19797280
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
PreviousNext
Back to top
Diabetes Care: 41 (7)

In this Issue

July 2018, 41(7)
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by Author
  • Masthead (PDF)
Sign up to receive current issue alerts
View Selected Citations (0)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about Diabetes Care.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: Is It Time to Reconsider the Diagnostic Criteria?
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Diabetes Care
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the Diabetes Care web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: Is It Time to Reconsider the Diagnostic Criteria?
N. Wah Cheung, Robert G. Moses
Diabetes Care Jul 2018, 41 (7) 1337-1338; DOI: 10.2337/dci18-0013

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Add to Selected Citations
Share

Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: Is It Time to Reconsider the Diagnostic Criteria?
N. Wah Cheung, Robert G. Moses
Diabetes Care Jul 2018, 41 (7) 1337-1338; DOI: 10.2337/dci18-0013
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Article Information
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • The Sensitivity and Specificity of the Glucose Challenge Test in a Universal Two-Step Screening Strategy for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Using the 2013 World Health Organization Criteria
  • A Tailored Letter Based on Electronic Health Record Data Improves Gestational Weight Gain Among Women With Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: The Gestational Diabetes’ Effects on Moms (GEM) Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial
  • Nutrition Therapy in Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: Time to Move Forward
Show more Reconsidering Pregnancy With Diabetes

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Current Issue
  • Standards of Care Guidelines
  • Online Ahead of Print
  • Archives
  • Submit
  • Subscribe
  • Email Alerts
  • RSS Feeds

More Information

  • About the Journal
  • Instructions for Authors
  • Journal Policies
  • Reprints and Permissions
  • Advertising
  • Privacy Policy: ADA Journals
  • Copyright Notice/Public Access Policy
  • Contact Us

Other ADA Resources

  • Diabetes
  • Clinical Diabetes
  • Diabetes Spectrum
  • Scientific Sessions Abstracts
  • Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes
  • BMJ Open - Diabetes Research & Care
  • Professional Books
  • Diabetes Forecast

 

  • DiabetesJournals.org
  • Diabetes Core Update
  • ADA's DiabetesPro
  • ADA Member Directory
  • Diabetes.org

© 2021 by the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care Print ISSN: 0149-5992, Online ISSN: 1935-5548.