餐后高血糖筛查和妊娠结局——来自COVID -19的教训。

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Beenu Bastian, Lisa Gaye Smithers, Ansar Kunjunju, Alexia Pape, Monique Francois
{"title":"餐后高血糖筛查和妊娠结局——来自COVID -19的教训。","authors":"Beenu Bastian, Lisa Gaye Smithers, Ansar Kunjunju, Alexia Pape, Monique Francois","doi":"10.1111/ajo.70014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>During COVID-19, the diagnosis and treatment of GDM differed from conventional criteria. In Australia, during the alternative testing period, women with fasting glucose < 4.7 mmol/L were not diagnosed with GDM.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To describe the maternal and neonatal outcomes of pregnant women with fasting blood glucose < 4.7 mmol/L for whom the diagnosis and treatment pathways differed before and during COVID-19.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>An Australian population-based data linkage study involving 3891 women with fasting blood glucose < 4.7 mmol/L between 24 and 32 weeks of gestation categorised into three groups: women diagnosed with GDM by postprandial hyperglycaemia (PPGDM; n = 226); normal glucose tolerance group (NGT; n = 3125) and women not tested for postprandial hyperglycaemia, mostly during COVID-19 (LFBG; n = 540). Perinatal outcomes were compared using generalised linear models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no differences between PPGDM and NGT groups in the risk of large for gestational age infants (RR 0.98, 95% CI: 0.63-1.52) although the mean birth weight (MD -103.43, 95% CI: -175.46 to -31.40)) was lower in the PPGDM group. The maternal and neonatal outcomes in the LFBG group were mostly comparable to the NGT group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In our study, the Australian COVID-19 GDM screening protocol, which includes initial fasting glucose testing, reduced the need for an OGTT in 67% of pregnant women. Diagnosis and treatment for postprandial hyperglycaemia in women with lower FBG should consider the benefits, as well as the financial, logistical and psychological costs involved.</p>","PeriodicalId":55429,"journal":{"name":"Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Postprandial Hyperglycaemia Screening and Pregnancy Outcomes-Lessons From COVID -19.\",\"authors\":\"Beenu Bastian, Lisa Gaye Smithers, Ansar Kunjunju, Alexia Pape, Monique Francois\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ajo.70014\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>During COVID-19, the diagnosis and treatment of GDM differed from conventional criteria. In Australia, during the alternative testing period, women with fasting glucose < 4.7 mmol/L were not diagnosed with GDM.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To describe the maternal and neonatal outcomes of pregnant women with fasting blood glucose < 4.7 mmol/L for whom the diagnosis and treatment pathways differed before and during COVID-19.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>An Australian population-based data linkage study involving 3891 women with fasting blood glucose < 4.7 mmol/L between 24 and 32 weeks of gestation categorised into three groups: women diagnosed with GDM by postprandial hyperglycaemia (PPGDM; n = 226); normal glucose tolerance group (NGT; n = 3125) and women not tested for postprandial hyperglycaemia, mostly during COVID-19 (LFBG; n = 540). Perinatal outcomes were compared using generalised linear models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no differences between PPGDM and NGT groups in the risk of large for gestational age infants (RR 0.98, 95% CI: 0.63-1.52) although the mean birth weight (MD -103.43, 95% CI: -175.46 to -31.40)) was lower in the PPGDM group. The maternal and neonatal outcomes in the LFBG group were mostly comparable to the NGT group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In our study, the Australian COVID-19 GDM screening protocol, which includes initial fasting glucose testing, reduced the need for an OGTT in 67% of pregnant women. Diagnosis and treatment for postprandial hyperglycaemia in women with lower FBG should consider the benefits, as well as the financial, logistical and psychological costs involved.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55429,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/ajo.70014\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ajo.70014","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在COVID-19期间,GDM的诊断和治疗与常规标准不同。目的:描述空腹血糖孕妇的孕产妇和新生儿结局材料和方法:澳大利亚一项基于人群的数据链接研究,涉及3891名空腹血糖妇女结果:PPGDM组和NGT组在胎龄大的婴儿的风险方面没有差异(RR 0.98, 95% CI: 0.63-1.52),尽管平均出生体重(MD -103.43, 95% CI:(-175.46 ~ -31.40)) PPGDM组较低。LFBG组的产妇和新生儿结局与NGT组基本相当。结论:在我们的研究中,澳大利亚的COVID-19 GDM筛查方案,包括初始空腹血糖检测,减少了67%的孕妇对OGTT的需求。低血糖妇女餐后高血糖的诊断和治疗应考虑其益处,以及所涉及的经济、后勤和心理成本。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Postprandial Hyperglycaemia Screening and Pregnancy Outcomes-Lessons From COVID -19.

Background: During COVID-19, the diagnosis and treatment of GDM differed from conventional criteria. In Australia, during the alternative testing period, women with fasting glucose < 4.7 mmol/L were not diagnosed with GDM.

Aim: To describe the maternal and neonatal outcomes of pregnant women with fasting blood glucose < 4.7 mmol/L for whom the diagnosis and treatment pathways differed before and during COVID-19.

Materials and methods: An Australian population-based data linkage study involving 3891 women with fasting blood glucose < 4.7 mmol/L between 24 and 32 weeks of gestation categorised into three groups: women diagnosed with GDM by postprandial hyperglycaemia (PPGDM; n = 226); normal glucose tolerance group (NGT; n = 3125) and women not tested for postprandial hyperglycaemia, mostly during COVID-19 (LFBG; n = 540). Perinatal outcomes were compared using generalised linear models.

Results: There were no differences between PPGDM and NGT groups in the risk of large for gestational age infants (RR 0.98, 95% CI: 0.63-1.52) although the mean birth weight (MD -103.43, 95% CI: -175.46 to -31.40)) was lower in the PPGDM group. The maternal and neonatal outcomes in the LFBG group were mostly comparable to the NGT group.

Conclusion: In our study, the Australian COVID-19 GDM screening protocol, which includes initial fasting glucose testing, reduced the need for an OGTT in 67% of pregnant women. Diagnosis and treatment for postprandial hyperglycaemia in women with lower FBG should consider the benefits, as well as the financial, logistical and psychological costs involved.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
11.80%
发文量
165
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (ANZJOG) is an editorially independent publication owned by the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RANZCOG) and the RANZCOG Research foundation. ANZJOG aims to provide a medium for the publication of original contributions to clinical practice and/or research in all fields of obstetrics and gynaecology and related disciplines. Articles are peer reviewed by clinicians or researchers expert in the field of the submitted work. From time to time the journal will also publish printed abstracts from the RANZCOG Annual Scientific Meeting and meetings of relevant special interest groups, where the accepted abstracts have undergone the journals peer review acceptance process.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信