Comparison of universal screening for gestational diabetes mellitus between one-step and two-step method among Thai pregnant women: A randomized control trial.
{"title":"Comparison of universal screening for gestational diabetes mellitus between one-step and two-step method among Thai pregnant women: A randomized control trial.","authors":"Natthaphon Phoblap, Phudit Jatavan, Theera Tongsong","doi":"10.1111/jdi.14370","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>To compare the prevalence of GDM and pregnancy outcomes between the one-step and two-step methods of universal screening among Thai pregnant women.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A randomized controlled trial was conducted on singleton Thai pregnant women at a gestational age of 24-28 weeks. They were randomly assigned to either the one-step method group (a universal 75-gm 2-h oral glucose tolerance test: OGTT) or the two-step method group (a universal 50-gm oral glucose challenge test followed by a 100-gm 3-h OGTT). The women received standard antenatal care. The prevalence of GDM and obstetric outcomes were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 143 women meeting the inclusion criteria were randomly allocated into the one-step group (72 cases) and the two-step group (71 cases). The prevalence of GDM was significantly higher in the one-step group than in the two-step group, with rates of 24/73 (33.3%) vs 8/70 (11.3%); P value 0.002; relative risk of 2.96, 95% CI: 1.43-6.14, respectively. Demographic data and maternal and neonatal outcomes were comparable between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The one-step method can markedly increase the prevalence of GDM to nearly three times that of the two-step method, leading to a substantial increase in care costs and burdens without clear benefits. Convincingly, the one-step method as a new approach may not be suitable for universal screening in a busy antenatal care setting, especially in low-resource health centers in developing countries or among populations with a high prevalence of GDM.</p>","PeriodicalId":190,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Diabetes Investigation","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Diabetes Investigation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jdi.14370","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aims: To compare the prevalence of GDM and pregnancy outcomes between the one-step and two-step methods of universal screening among Thai pregnant women.
Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted on singleton Thai pregnant women at a gestational age of 24-28 weeks. They were randomly assigned to either the one-step method group (a universal 75-gm 2-h oral glucose tolerance test: OGTT) or the two-step method group (a universal 50-gm oral glucose challenge test followed by a 100-gm 3-h OGTT). The women received standard antenatal care. The prevalence of GDM and obstetric outcomes were compared.
Results: A total of 143 women meeting the inclusion criteria were randomly allocated into the one-step group (72 cases) and the two-step group (71 cases). The prevalence of GDM was significantly higher in the one-step group than in the two-step group, with rates of 24/73 (33.3%) vs 8/70 (11.3%); P value 0.002; relative risk of 2.96, 95% CI: 1.43-6.14, respectively. Demographic data and maternal and neonatal outcomes were comparable between the two groups.
Conclusions: The one-step method can markedly increase the prevalence of GDM to nearly three times that of the two-step method, leading to a substantial increase in care costs and burdens without clear benefits. Convincingly, the one-step method as a new approach may not be suitable for universal screening in a busy antenatal care setting, especially in low-resource health centers in developing countries or among populations with a high prevalence of GDM.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Diabetes Investigation is your core diabetes journal from Asia; the official journal of the Asian Association for the Study of Diabetes (AASD). The journal publishes original research, country reports, commentaries, reviews, mini-reviews, case reports, letters, as well as editorials and news. Embracing clinical and experimental research in diabetes and related areas, the Journal of Diabetes Investigation includes aspects of prevention, treatment, as well as molecular aspects and pathophysiology. Translational research focused on the exchange of ideas between clinicians and researchers is also welcome. Journal of Diabetes Investigation is indexed by Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE).