Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Jan 18:7:132.
doi: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.17743.2. eCollection 2022.

Risk factor-based screening compared to universal screening for gestational diabetes mellitus in marginalized Burman and Karen populations on the Thailand-Myanmar border: An observational cohort

Affiliations

Risk factor-based screening compared to universal screening for gestational diabetes mellitus in marginalized Burman and Karen populations on the Thailand-Myanmar border: An observational cohort

Janna T Prüst et al. Wellcome Open Res. .

Abstract

Background: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) contributes to maternal and neonatal morbidity. As data from marginalized populations remains scarce, this study compares risk-factor-based to universal GDM screening in a low resource setting. Methods: This is a secondary analysis of data from a prospective preterm birth cohort. Pregnant women were enrolled in the first trimester and completed a 75g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) at 24-32 weeks' gestation. To define GDM cases, Hyperglycaemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes (HAPO trial) criteria were used. All GDM positive cases were treated. Sensitivity and specificity of risk-factor-based selection for screening (criteria: age ≥30y, obesity (Body mass index (BMI) ≥27.5kg/m 2), previous GDM, 1 st degree relative with diabetes, previous macrosomia (≥4kg), previous stillbirth, or symphysis-fundal height ≥90th percentile) was compared to universal screening using the OGTT as the gold standard. Adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes were compared by GDM status. Results: GDM prevalence was 13.4% (50/374) (95% CI: 10.3-17.2). Three quarters of women had at least one risk factor (n=271 women), with 37/50 OGTT positive cases correctly identified: sensitivity 74.0% (59.7-85.4) and specificity 27.8% (3.0-33.0). Burman women (self-identified) accounted for 29.1% of the cohort population, but 38.0% of GDM cases. Percentiles for birthweight (p=0.004), head circumference (p=0.002), and weight-length ratio (p=0.030) were higher in newborns of GDM positive compared with non-GDM mothers. 21.7% (75/346) of newborns in the cohort were small-for-gestational age (≤10 th percentile). In Burman women, overweight/obese BMI was associated with a significantly increased adjusted odds ratio 5.03 (95% CI: 1.43-17.64) for GDM compared with normal weight, whereas in Karen women, the trend in association was similar but not significant (OR 2.36; 95% CI 0.95-5.89). Conclusions: Risk-factor-based screening missed one in four GDM positive women. Considering the benefits of early detection of GDM and the limited additional cost of universal screening, a two-step screening program was implemented.

Keywords: Gestational diabetes mellitus; HAPO trial; Maternal and neonatal anthropometry; Migrants; Oral glucose tolerance test; Risk-factor-based screening; Symphysis-fundal height measurements; thin-diabetic.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

No competing interests were disclosed.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.. Flow diagram of participant selection.
Abbreviations: GDM gestational diabetes mellitus, OGTT oral glucose tolerance test. * Sudden death due to mixed mitral valve disease at seven months gestation.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.. Symphysis-fundal height trajectories throughout pregnancy.
Red lines indicate women with GDM (13.4%, n=50), blue lines women without GDM (86.6%, n=324). Dashed black line indicates the 90 th centile. Heavy red and blue lines represent fractional polynomial fit from individual measurements. Abbreviations: GDM gestational diabetes mellitus.

References

    1. Nguyen CL, Pham NM, Binns CW, et al. : Prevalence of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in Eastern and Southeastern Asia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Diabetes Res. 2018;2018:6536974. 10.1155/2018/6536974 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kunasegaran T, Balasubramaniam VRMT, Arasoo VJT, et al. : Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in Southeast Asia: A Scoping Review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(3):1272. 10.3390/ijerph18031272 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Goto E: Symphysis-fundal height to identify large-for-gestational-age and macrosomia: a meta-analysis. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2020;40(7):929–935. 10.1080/01443615.2019.1673713 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Plows JF, Stanley JL, Baker PN, et al. : The Pathophysiology of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus. Int J Mol Sci. 2018;19(11):3342. 10.3390/ijms19113342 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Tieu J, McPhee AJ, Crowther CA, et al. : Screening for gestational diabetes mellitus based on different risk profiles and settings for improving maternal and infant health. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;8(8):CD007222. 10.1002/14651858.CD007222.pub4 - DOI - PMC - PubMed