INTRODUCTION

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is defined as any degree of glucose intolerance with an onset or initial recognition during the present pregnancy [12]. GDM is a common medical complication of pregnancy and is associated with various perinatal morbidities, including preeclampsia, cesarean delivery, macrosomia, birth injury, and neonatal hypoglycemia [3456]. The number of women diagnosed with GDM has increased in the past decades, and this statistic is attributable to increased obesity and age among pregnant women [78]. It is also well known that treatment of GDM reduces serious perinatal morbidities [9]. Thus, an effective diagnostic method as well as optimal medical and obstetric management is crucial to reduce the adverse pregnancy outcomes of GDM.

In 2010, the International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) proposed new diagnostic criteria for GDM based on the results of the Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (HAPO) study [410]. The IADPSG criteria adopted a one-step approach using a 75-g 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). Compared to the Carpenter-Coustan (CC) criteria [11], the diagnostic threshold for glucose values was lowered, and only one abnormal value was sufficient for a diagnosis of GDM based on the IADPSG criteria. The introduction of the IADPSG criteria is estimated to increase the incidence of GDM from 5% to 6% to 15% to 20% [12]. In addition, there are concerns regarding increased healthcare cost and the impact on medical infrastructure [13]. Currently, the World Health Organization, the International Diabetes Federation, and the American Diabetes Association have endorsed the IADPSG criteria, but the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has not [1141516].

There is ongoing debate regarding the impact of adopting the IADPSG criteria. Specifically, it is not clear to what extent the incidence of GDM would increase in different populations with different healthcare systems. In addition, there are conflicting reports concerning the influence of the IADPSG criteria on maternal and neonatal outcomes [171819]. Although several studies have evaluated the utility of the IADPSG criteria in the East Asian population [2021], the IADPSG criteria have not been investigated in Koreans. In this prospective observational cohort study, we investigated (1) the influence of the IADPSG criteria on the incidence of GDM in the Korean population and (2) pregnancy outcomes in women who were diagnosed with GDM by the IADPSG criteria but not by the CC criteria.

METHODS

Study participants

This was a prospective observational cohort study involving women with singleton pregnancies at Cheil General Hospital & Women's Healthcare Center, Dankook University College of Medicine and Seoul National University Bundang Hospital. Pregnant women who had their initial prenatal visit before 24 weeks of gestation and were scheduled to receive prenatal obstetric care and deliver at Cheil General Hospital & Women's Healthcare Center or Seoul National University Bundang Hospital were recruited between August 2014 and October 2016. Women were excluded if they had multiple pregnancies, they had overt or pregestational diabetes, their delivery was planned at another hospital, their last menstrual period was not definitive and an ultrasound evaluation was not performed between 6 and 24 weeks. Each of the participants gave written informed consent regarding this study. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Dankook University, Cheil General Hospital & Women's Healthcare Center (IRB number: CGH-IRB-2013-58) and the IRB of Seoul National University Bundang Hospital (IRB number: B-1309/220-001).

Diagnosis and treatment of GDM

Between 24 and 28 weeks of gestation, all women were screened via the 50-g glucose challenge test (GCT) regardless of fasting. Those who had glucose values above 140 mg/dL underwent diagnostic 75-g 2-hour OGTTs after 10 hours of fasting on a different day. GDM was diagnosed by the CC criteria (two or more abnormal values using the following blood glucose thresholds: fasting ≥95 mg/dL; 1-hour ≥180 mg/dL; and 2-hour ≥155 mg/dL). However, 3-hour glucose was not measured and was omitted from the CC criteria. Women diagnosed with GDM by the CC criteria were managed according to the standard clinical practice guidelines [22]. Treatment consisted of medical nutritional therapy, increased physical activity, and adequate weight management with the following glucose targets: fasting ≤95 mg/dL and 2-hour ≤120 mg/dL. If these goals were not met, insulin therapy was added. The diagnostic scheme and care of patients with GDM did not change during the study period. We also identified women who would be diagnosed with GDM by the IADPSG criteria (one or more abnormal values using the following glucose thresholds: fasting ≥92 mg/dL; 1-hour ≥180 mg/dL; and 2-hour ≥153 mg/dL) but not by CC criteria. These women were not managed as GDM patients and only had routine prenatal obstetric care. We stratified participants into nonoverlapping groups of (1) women with no GDM by either the IADPSG criteria or the CC criteria (no GDM group), (2) women exclusively diagnosed with GDM by the IADPSG criteria and not by the CC criteria (IADPSG GDM group), and (3) women diagnosed with GDM by the CC criteria (CC GDM group).

During the period between August 2014 and October 2016, 8,735 women with singleton pregnancies underwent a diagnostic test for GDM in our institutions (Fig. 1). Anonymized data on the 50-g GCT screening and the 75-g OGTT were used to estimate the incidence of GDM by either the IADPSG or CC criteria. For investigation of pregnancy outcomes, a total of 2,038 women agreed to participate in the prospective cohort study. The clinical characteristics of the prospective cohort participants are shown in Table 1.

Adverse pregnancy outcomes

Maternal and neonatal outcomes were compared among the three groups. For maternal outcomes, we investigated preeclampsia, labor induction, primary cesarean delivery, and preterm delivery. Preeclampsia was defined as systolic blood pressure ≥140 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure ≥90 mm Hg on two or more occasions and proteinuria ≥1+ on a dipstick test or urine protein level ≥300 mg during a 24-hour period [23]. Preterm delivery was defined as delivery before 37 gestational weeks. For neonatal outcomes, we investigated large for gestational age (LGA) births, defined as birth weight > the 90th percentile; macrosomia, defined as birth weight >4,000 g regardless of the gestational age of the fetus [24]; small for gestational age births, defined as birth weight <10th percentile; shoulder dystocia or birth injury; neonatal hypoglycemia; requirement of phototherapy; and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission. Birth weight percentile was estimated using the baby's sex, gestational age, and maternal parity [25]; neonatal hypoglycemia was defined as glucose values ≤30 mg/dL in the first 24 hours after birth or ≤45 mg/dL after the first 24 hours after birth [10]. NICU admission included any type of unit care that was more intensive than normal newborn care and lasted 24 hours. The overall adverse pregnancy outcomes included preeclampsia, labor induction, primary cesarean delivery, LGA, macrosomia, birth weight below the 10th percentile, shoulder dystocia or birth injury, neonatal hypoglycemia, phototherapy, and NICU admission.

Statistical analysis

Categorical values are reported as frequencies or percentages, and continuous variables are reported using the mean±standard deviation. Comparisons among the three groups were performed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) for continuous variables and chi-square test for categorical variables. A post hoc analysis of ANOVA was performed using Tukey's method. Multiple logistic regression was performed to estimate the odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes for both the IADPSG GDM group and the CC GDM group compared to the no GDM group. In model 1, no covariate was included for adjustment. In model 2, maternal age, parity, height, body mass index (BMI) at delivery, gestational age at delivery, and baby's sex were included for adjustment. All statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 23 (IBM Co., Armonk, NY, USA). A P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Incidence of GDM according to diagnostic criteria

During the study period, a total of 8,735 singleton pregnancies that were eligible according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria were identified. A total of 1,895 women (21.7%) had a glucose value ≥140 mg/dL in the 50-g GCT and were given a further diagnostic 75-g OGTT. Among those who participated in the 75-g OGTT, 1,356 women were not diagnosed with GDM, 359 women were diagnosed with GDM exclusively by the IADPSG criteria, and 180 women were diagnosed with GDM by the CC criteria (Fig. 1). The overall incidence of GDM based on the CC criteria was 2.1% (95% CI, 1.8 to 2.4), and an additional 4.1% (95% CI, 3.7 to 4.6) of the participants were diagnosed with GDM by the IADPSG criteria. When the IADPSG criteria were applied, the incidence of GDM increased nearly 3-fold, from 2.1% to 6.2% (95% CI, 5.7 to 6.7). Among the 131 women who participated in the prospective follow-up and were additionally diagnosed with GDM by the IADPSG criteria, 122 (93.1%) had one abnormal value, eight (6.1%) had two abnormal values, and one (0.8%) had three abnormal values during the 75-g OGTT. Out of these women, 42 (32.1%) had abnormal fasting glucose, 27 (20.6%) had abnormal 1-hour glucose, and 72 (55.0%) had abnormal 2-hour glucose values.

Maternal characteristics of GDM

Among the 8,375 pregnant women who were eligible, 2,038 (24.3%) participated in the prospective observational cohort to investigate pregnancy outcomes (Table 1). There were significant differences in age and BMI at the 50-g GCT, prepregnancy BMI, BMI at delivery, and weight gain during pregnancy among the three groups. In the post hoc analysis, women in the CC GDM group had higher prepregnancy BMI and BMI at the 50-g GCT and lower weight gain during pregnancy compared to women in the IADPSG GDM group (P<0.05). The prevalence of combined overweight and obesity was 18.8%, 30.5%, and 43.5% in the No GDM, IADPSG GDM, and CC GDM groups, respectively (P<0.001). There were also significant differences in glucose values of the 50-g GCT and 75-g OGTT (P<0.05). However, there was no significant difference in blood pressure, parity, or gestational age at the 75-g OGTT among the three groups. In the CC GDM group, 28 women (40.8%) received insulin treatment during pregnancy.

Association between GDM diagnostic criteria and pregnancy outcomes

Women in the CC GDM group were managed according to standard clinical practice guidelines. However, women in the IADPSG GDM group were not managed as GDM patients and had routine prenatal obstetric care. Regarding maternal outcomes (Table 2), there was a significant difference in the frequency of preeclampsia among the three groups (P<0.05). The frequency of labor induction, primary cesarean delivery, and preterm delivery did not differ among the three groups. Regarding neonatal outcomes (Table 2), we observed significant differences in gestational age at delivery, birth weight, LGA, macrosomia, neonatal hypoglycemia, and requirement for phototherapy (P<0.05).

In the multiple logistic regression analysis (Table 3), the IADPSG GDM group showed a significantly increased risk of preeclampsia, LGA, macrosomia, neonatal hypoglycemia, and requirement for phototherapy in both the unadjusted and adjusted models (P<0.05). The CC GDM group, in which management for glycemic control was provided, had an increased risk of LGA, macrosomia, and neonatal hypoglycemia compared to the no GDM group (P<0.05). The overall adverse pregnancy outcomes were more frequently observed in the IADPSG GDM group compared to the no GDM group, with an OR of 1.63 (95% CI, 1.08 to 2.47; P=0.021). However, there was no significant increase in overall adverse outcomes in the CC GDM group.

DISCUSSION

In this prospective observational study, we estimated that the incidence of GDM would increase by nearly 3-fold, from 2.1% using the CC criteria to 6.2% using the IADPSG criteria. There were significant differences in maternal characteristics regarding prepregnancy BMI and BMI at delivery among the three groups, with women in the CC GDM group having the highest BMI. Compared to the no GDM group, women in the IADPSG GDM group had an increased risk of preeclampsia, and neonates had an increased risk of LGA, macrosomia, and neonatal hypoglycemia. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first prospective cohort to investigate the impact of the IADPSG criteria on the incidence of GDM and pregnancy outcomes in Korea. The results of this study provide important data to discuss whether the IADPSG criteria should be applied more widely in Korea.

The incidence of GDM depends not only on the diagnostic method but also on the ethnicity of the study population, and prevalence of obesity and diabetes. Therefore, it would be important to investigate how the IADPSG criteria would influence the incidence of GDM in different ethnic populations and different healthcare systems. According to the study design, GDM incidence might have been underestimated using both the IADPSG criteria and the CC criteria in this study. It is expected that the incidence of GDM would increase by two to three-fold if the IADPSG criteria are used [26]. In the original HAPO study, the incidence of GDM based on the IADPSG criteria was estimated to be 17.8% [12]. In a study comparing the IADPSG criteria and CC criteria in a Chinese population, it was shown that the incidence of GDM would increase to 19.9% from 7.98% [20]. In Japan, the adoption of the IADPSG criteria also increased the incidence of GDM to 6.6% compared to 2.4% based on the Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology criteria [21]. The three-fold increase in GDM incidence observed in our study is in accordance with other study results in the Asian population. It is expected that the increase in GDM incidence would have a substantial impact on medical costs, resource allocation, and medicalization of pregnancy [13]. Further investigations are warranted regarding the cost effectiveness of the IADPSG criteria in terms of reducing overall adverse pregnancy outcomes in this population.

Women who were diagnosed with GDM by the IADPSG criteria were characterized by a mild degree of metabolic deterioration. Women in the IADPSG GDM group had elevated glucose concentrations compared to the no GDM group but not as high as those of the CC GDM group. Compared to the CC GDM group, women in the IADPSG GDM group were less obese as estimated by lower prepregnancy BMI and lower BMI at the time of the 50-g GCT. The mean BMI of the IADPSG GDM group was only 22.0 kg/m². Nevertheless, it should be noted that there was a linear increase in the prevalence of combined overweight/obesity in the no GDM (18.8%), IADPSG GDM (30.5%), and CC GDM (43.5%) groups. It is well known that obesity is a major risk factor for GDM [27]. A recent study showed that prepregnancy overweight and obesity account for a significant proportion of LGA infants [28]. From these findings, it would be acceptable to state that a small increase in prepregnancy BMI or being overweight/obese is a significant risk factor for GDM and related adverse pregnancy outcomes in our study population.

Women diagnosed with GDM by the IADPSG criteria were at increased risk of several adverse pregnancy outcomes, including preeclampsia, LGA, macrosomia, neonatal hypoglycemia, and requirement of phototherapy. When the IADPSG criteria were applied to the HAPO study, the frequency of LGA increased by approximately two-fold [4]. Consistently, our results showed that those in the IADPSG GDM group had a 2.39-fold and 2.53-fold increased risk for LGA and macrosomia, respectively. Although clinical practice for glycemic control was provided according to the guidelines, there was still an increased risk of macrosomia in the CC GDM group. This suggests that further efforts are required to reduce adverse pregnancy outcomes in GDM women. Other outcomes, including preeclampsia, birth injury, and neonatal hypoglycemia, developed in only 12, 11, and 15 subjects among 2,038 participants, respectively, and the incidences were below 1%. Among these infrequent adverse outcomes, rates of preeclampsia and neonatal hypoglycemia were significantly higher in the IADPSG GDM group. However, the estimated ORs might have been overestimated due to the small number of outcomes. We also estimated overall adverse outcomes by including 11 adverse pregnancy outcomes and found that women in the IADPSG GDM group had a 1.63-fold increased risk. Interestingly, the risk of overall adverse outcomes in the CC GDM group was not significantly different from that in the No GDM group. It could be speculated that treatment of GDM by medical nutritional therapy and insulin might have reduced several adverse pregnancy outcomes, such as preeclampsia and requirement of phototherapy.

There were several limitations regarding our study. First, the IADPSG criteria were not applied as a one-step approach. Instead, 50-g GCT was used for universal screening, and only those who had glucose levels above 140 mg/dL were selected for the 75-g OGTT. Therefore, we might have missed a number of women who would have been additionally diagnosed with GDM by the IADPSG criteria. Second, regarding the CC GDM criteria, a 75-g OGTT was used instead of a 100-g OGTT, and the 3-hour glucose level was omitted. It is also likely that the incidence of GDM in the CC GDM group is underestimated. Third, we were not able to collect data on cord C-peptide level or neonate body fat percentage. These two outcomes were used to determine the diagnostic threshold of the IADPSG criteria [4]. Nevertheless, we included clinical outcomes that are associated with these measures, such as neonatal hypoglycemia, shoulder dystocia, and birth injury.

Currently, the Korean Diabetes Association endorses using both the IADPSG criteria and the CC criteria for the diagnosis of GDM. However, the IADPSG criteria are not widely used in Korea. There are certain concerns regarding the adoption of the IADPSG criteria. It is still controversial whether using the IADPSG criteria would be cost effective [1829], and this depends on various factors, including the healthcare system and the total cost to treat GDM. Furthermore, it is not clear whether treatment of these mild GDM patients will result in improved pregnancy outcomes. Previous clinical trials have shown that interventions were effective in reducing adverse outcomes in mild GDM patients [930]. Nevertheless, further investigations are required to validate this finding using the same IADPSG criteria. In summary, our study confirms that the IADPSG criteria would increase the incidence of GDM by nearly three-fold, and women diagnosed with GDM based on the IADPSG criteria would be at increased risk of overall adverse pregnancy outcomes, including preeclampsia, LGA, macrosomia, neonatal hypoglycemia, and requirement of phototherapy. Further investigation on the cost effectiveness and pregnancy outcomes in treating women diagnosed by the IADPSG criteria in Korea will be critical for deciding whether to accept the IADPSG criteria more widely.

Acknowledgements

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was supported by a grant from Seoul National University Bundang Hospital funded by SK Telecom (06-2013-098) and the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute funded by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea (HI15C3131).

NOTES

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: Funding agency, SK Telecom did not involve in not only selection of project but also research work. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS:

• Conception or design: S.H.K., M.Y.K., H.C.J.

• Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: M.H.K., S.H.K., J.S.H., H.R.C., S.H.C., M.Y.K., H.C.J.

• Drafting the work or revising: M.H.K., S.H.K., H.C.J.

• Final approval of the manuscript: M.H.K., S.H.K., S.H.K., J.S.H., H.R.C., S.H.C., M.Y.K., H.C.J.

REFERENCES

• 1. American Diabetes Association. 2. Classification and diagnosis of diabetes: standards of medical care in diabetes-2018. Diabetes Care 2018;41(Suppl 1):S13-S27. ArticlePubMedPDF
• 2. Metzger BE, Coustan DR. Summary and recommendations of the Fourth International Workshop-Conference on Gestational Diabetes Mellitus. The Organizing Committee. Diabetes Care 1998;21(Suppl 2):B161-B167. PubMed
• 3. Jang HC, Cho NH, Min YK, Han IK, Jung KB, Metzger BE. Increased macrosomia and perinatal morbidity independent of maternal obesity and advanced age in Korean women with GDM. Diabetes Care 1997;20:1582-1588. ArticlePubMedPDF
• 4. International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups Consensus Panel. Metzger BE, Gabbe SG, Persson B, Buchanan TA, Catalano PA, Damm P, Dyer AR, Leiva Ad, Hod M, Kitzmiler JL, Lowe LP, McIntyre HD, Oats JJ, Omori Y, Schmidt MI. International association of diabetes and pregnancy study groups recommendations on the diagnosis and classification of hyperglycemia in pregnancy. Diabetes Care 2010;33:676-682. ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
• 5. Pettitt DJ, Knowler WC, Baird HR, Bennett PH. Gestational diabetes: infant and maternal complications of pregnancy in relation to third-trimester glucose tolerance in the Pima Indians. Diabetes Care 1980;3:458-464. ArticlePubMedPDF
• 6. Ferrara A, Weiss NS, Hedderson MM, Quesenberry CP Jr, Selby JV, Ergas IJ, Peng T, Escobar GJ, Pettitt DJ, Sacks DA. Pregnancy plasma glucose levels exceeding the American Diabetes Association thresholds, but below the National Diabetes Data Group thresholds for gestational diabetes mellitus, are related to the risk of neonatal macrosomia, hypoglycaemia and hyperbilirubinaemia. Diabetologia 2007;50:298-306. ArticlePubMedPDF
• 7. Ferrara A. Increasing prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus: a public health perspective. Diabetes Care 2007;30(Suppl 2):S141-S146. PubMed
• 8. Kim C. Gestational diabetes mellitus in Korean women: similarities and differences from other racial/ethnic groups. Diabetes Metab J 2014;38:1-12. ArticlePubMedPMC
• 9. Crowther CA, Hiller JE, Moss JR, McPhee AJ, Jeffries WS, Robinson JS. Australian Carbohydrate Intolerance Study in Pregnant Women (ACHOIS) Trial Group. Effect of treatment of gestational diabetes mellitus on pregnancy outcomes. N Engl J Med 2005;352:2477-2486. ArticlePubMed
• 10. HAPO Study, Metzger BE, Lowe LP, Dyer AR, Trimble ER, Chaovarindr U, Coustan DR, Hadden DR, McCance DR, Hod M, McIntyre HD, Oats JJ, Persson B, Rogers MS, Sacks DA. Hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcomes. N Engl J Med 2008;358:1991-2002. ArticlePubMed
• 11. Carpenter MW, Coustan DR. Criteria for screening tests for gestational diabetes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1982;144:768-773. ArticlePubMed
• 12. Sacks DA, Hadden DR, Maresh M, Deerochanawong C, Dyer AR, Metzger BE, Lowe LP, Coustan DR, Hod M, Oats JJ, Persson B, Trimble ER. 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;35:526-528. PubMedPMC
• 13. Vandorsten JP, Dodson WC, Espeland MA, Grobman WA, Guise JM, Mercer BM, Minkoff HL, Poindexter B, Prosser LA, Sawaya GF, Scott JR, Silver RM, Smith L, Thomas A, Tita AT. NIH consensus development conference: diagnosing gestational diabetes mellitus. NIH Consens State Sci Statements 2013;29:1-31. PubMed
• 14. World Health Organization. Diagnostic criteria and classification of hyperglycaemia first detected in pregnancy. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2013.
• 15. IDF Clinical Guidelines Task Force. Global guideline for type 2 diabetes: recommendations for standard, comprehensive, and minimal care. Diabet Med 2006;23:579-593. ArticlePubMed
• 16. Committee on Practice Bulletins: Obstetrics. Obstetrics Practice bulletin no. 137: gestational diabetes mellitus. Obstet Gynecol 2013;122(2 Pt 1):406-416. PubMed
• 17. Feldman RK, Tieu RS, Yasumura L. Gestational diabetes screening: the International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups compared with Carpenter-Coustan screening. Obstet Gynecol 2016;127:10-17. PubMed
• 18. Duran A, Saenz S, Torrejon MJ, Bordiu E, Del Valle L, Galindo M, Perez N, Herraiz MA, Izquierdo N, Rubio MA, Runkle I, Perez-Ferre N, Cusihuallpa I, Jimenez S, Garcia de, Fernandez MD, Montanez C, Familiar C, Calle-Pascual 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;37:2442-2450. ArticlePubMedPDF
• 19. Waters TP, Dyer AR, Scholtens DM, Dooley SL, Herer E, Lowe LP, Oats JJ, Persson B, Sacks DA, Metzger BE, Catalano PM. HAPO Cooperative Study Research Group. Maternal and neonatal morbidity for women who would be added to the diagnosis of GDM using IADPSG criteria: a secondary analysis of the hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcome study. Diabetes Care 2016;39:2204-2210. ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
• 20. Shang M, Lin L. IADPSG criteria for diagnosing gestational diabetes mellitus and predicting adverse pregnancy outcomes. J Perinatol 2014;34:100-104. ArticlePubMedPDF
• 21. Morikawa M, Yamada T, Yamada T, Akaishi R, Nishida R, Cho K, Minakami H. Change in the number of patients after the adoption of IADPSG criteria for hyperglycemia during pregnancy in Japanese women. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2010;90:339-342. ArticlePubMed
• 22. American Diabetes Association. Standards of medical care in diabetes: 2014. Diabetes Care 2014;37(Suppl 1):S14-S80. ArticlePubMedPDF
• 23. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Task Force on Hypertension in Pregnancy. Hypertension in pregnancy. Report of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' Task Force on Hypertension in Pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 2013;122:1122-1131. PubMed
• 24. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' Committee on Practice Bulletins: Obstetrics. Practice bulletin no. 173: fetal macrosomia. Obstet Gynecol 2016;128:e195-e209. PubMed
• 25. Lee JJ. Birth weight for gestational age patterns by sex, plurality, and parity in Korean population. Korean J Pediatr 2007;50:732-739.Article
• 26. Brown FM, Wyckoff J. Application of one-step IADPSG versus two-step diagnostic criteria for gestational diabetes in the real world: impact on health services, clinical care, and outcomes. Curr Diab Rep 2017;17:85ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
• 27. Hedderson MM, Williams MA, Holt VL, Weiss NS, Ferrara A. Body mass index and weight gain prior to pregnancy and risk of gestational diabetes mellitus. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008;198:409.e1-409.e7. ArticlePubMed
• 28. Black MH, Sacks DA, Xiang AH, Lawrence JM. The relative contribution of prepregnancy overweight and obesity, gestational weight gain, and IADPSG-defined gestational diabetes mellitus to fetal overgrowth. Diabetes Care 2013;36:56-62. ArticlePubMedPDF
• 29. Agarwal MM, Dhatt GS, Othman Y. Gestational diabetes in a tertiary care hospital: implications of applying the IADPSG criteria. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2012;286:373-378. ArticlePubMedPDF
• 30. Landon MB, Spong CY, Thom E, Carpenter MW, Ramin SM, Casey B, Wapner RJ, Varner MW, Rouse DJ, Thorp JM Jr, Sciscione A, Catalano P, Harper M, Saade G, Lain KY, Sorokin Y, Peaceman AM, Tolosa JE, Anderson GB. 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;361:1339-1348. ArticlePubMedPMC

Fig. 1

Study scheme and number of participants in each group. GCT, glucose challenge test; OGTT, oral glucose tolerance test; GDM, gestational diabetes mellitus; IADPSG, International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups; CC, Carpenter-Coustan. ^aGDM diagnosed exclusively by the IADPSG criteria, ^bGDM diagnosed by the CC criteria.

Table 1

Maternal characteristics according to GDM diagnosis

Maternal characteristic	No GDM	IADPSG GDM	CC GDM	PANOVAa	Ppost hocb
Number	1,838	131	69
Age at 50-g GCT, yr	34.3±3.9	34.7±3.8	35.6±3.6	0.011	c
Prepregnancy BMI, kg/m2	21.0±2.8	22.0±3.1	23.5±4.2	<0.001	c,d,e
Prepregnancy overweight and obesity				<0.001
Normal weight (BMI <23 kg/m2)	1,471 (81.2)	91 (69.5)	39 (56.5)
Overweight (BMI 23–24.9 kg/m2)	190 (10.5)	22 (16.8)	11 (16.0)
Obesity (BMI ≥25 kg/m2)	150 (8.3)	18 (13.7)	19 (27.5)
BMI at 50-g GCT, kg/m2	23.5±2.8	24.3±2.9	26.1±3.9	<0.001	c,d,e
BMI at delivery, kg/m2	26.0±3.1	26.6±3.2	27.2±4.1	0.001	c
Pregnancy weight gain, kg	13.2±4.5	12.0±4.7	9.7±4.7	<0.001	c,d,e
Systolic blood pressure, mm Hg	107±12	107±11	109±13	0.329
Diastolic blood pressure, mm Hg	60±9	59±8	61±10	0.145
Parity				0.321
0	1,167 (63.5)	74 (56.5)	47 (68.1)
1	581 (31.6)	49 (37.4)	17 (24.6)
≥2	901 (4.9)	8 (6.1)	5 (7.2)
50-g GCT glucose, mg/dL	123.7±23.7	157.2±13.9	173.3±20.0	<0.001	c,d,e
Gestational age at 75-g OGTT, wkf	25.9±1.1	25.8±0.9	25.8±0.9	0.279
75-g OGTT glucose, mg/dLf
Fasting	81.0±5.1	86.6±7.1	95.3±14.9	<0.001	c,d,e
1-hr	137.6±23.4	163.6±20.1	198.6±20.2	<0.001	c,d,e
2-hr	121.0±17.8	150.4±21.2	172.9±25.1	<0.001	c,d,e
Insulin treatment	0	0	28 (40.6)

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation or number (%).

GDM, gestational diabetes mellitus; IADPSG, International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups; CC, Carpenter-Coustan; ANOVA, analysis of variance; GCT, glucose challenge test; BMI, body mass index; OGTT, oral glucose tolerance test.

^aP for ANOVA in the case of a continuous variable and chi-square test in the case of a discrete variable, ^bPost hoc analysis by Tukey's method, ^cP<0.05 for no GDM vs. CC GDM, ^dP<0.05 for no GDM vs. IADPSG GDM, ^eP<0.05 for IDPSG GDM vs. CC GDM, ^f75-g OGTT was performed for only 729 GCT-positive women.

Table 2

Maternal and neonatal outcomes according to GDM diagnosis

Variable	No GDM	IADPSG GDM	CC GDM	P valuea
Number	1,838	131	69
Maternal outcome
Preeclampsia	7 (0.4)	4 (3.1)	1 (1.4)	<0.001
Labor induction	149 (8.1)	12 (9.2)	6 (8.7)	0.903
Primary Cesarean delivery	592 (32.2)	37 (28.2)	21 (30.4)	0.620
Preterm delivery	94 (5.1)	11 (8.4)	5 (7.2)	0.217
Neonatal outcome
Male sex	933 (50.8)	72 (55.0)	38 (55.1)	0.527
Gestational age, wk	39.3±1.4	39.1±1.4	39.0±1.3	0.035
Birth weight, g	3,253±419	3,362±495	3,319±545	0.010
LGA	178 (9.7)	28 (21.4)	14 (20.3)	<0.001
Macrosomia (>4.0 kg)	63 (3.4)	11 (8.4)	7 (10.1)	0.001
SGA	187 (10.2)	10 (7.6)	7 (10.1)	0.645
Shoulder dystocia or birth injury	9 (0.5)	2 (1.5)	0	0.244
Neonatal hypoglycemia	9 (0.5)	3 (2.3)	3 (4.3)	<0.001
Phototherapy	515 (28.1)	51 (38.9)	17 (24.6)	0.023
NICU admission	181 (9.9)	9 (6.9)	9 (13.0)	0.349
Overall adverse pregnancy outcome	1,149 (62.5)	94 (71.8)	48 (69.6)	0.058

Values are presented as number (%) or mean±standard deviation.

GDM, gestational diabetes mellitus; IADPSG, International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups; CC, Carpenter-Coustan; LGA, large for gestational age; SGA, small for gestational age; NICU, neonatal intensive care unit.

^aP for analysis of variance in the case of continuous variables and chi-square test in the case of discrete variables. The overall adverse pregnancy outcomes included preeclampsia, labor induction, primary cesarean delivery, birth weight above the 90th percentile, macrosomia, birth weight below the 10th percentile, shoulder dystocia or birth injury, neonatal hypoglycemia, phototherapy, and NICU admission.

Table 3

Association between GDM diagnosis and pregnancy outcomes

Variable	Model 1		Model 2
	OR (95% CI)	P value	OR (95% CI)	P value
Preeclampsia
No GDM	1.00		1.00
IADPSG GDM	8.17 (2.36–28.3)	0.001a	6.90 (1.84–25.87)	0.004a
CC GDM	3.82 (0.46–31.44)	0.213	2.47 (0.277–22.11)	0.419
Labor induction
No GDM	1.00		1.00
IADPSG GDM	1.14 (0.62–2.12)	0.671	1.31 (0.68–2.50)	0.420
CC GDM	1.08 (0.46–2.54)	0.861	1.62 (0.66–3.97)	0.289
Primary cesarean delivery
No GDM	1.00		1.00
IADPSG GDM	0.83 (0.56–1.23)	0.348	0.80 (0.50–1.26)	0.330
CC GDM	0.92 (0.55–1.55)	0.757	0.60 (0.33–1.08)	0.087
Preterm deliveryb
No GDM	1.00		1.00
IADPSG GDM	1.70 (0.89–3.26)	0.110	1.86 (0.96–3.59)	0.065
CC GDM	1.45 (0.57–3.68)	0.436	1.58 (0.62–4.08)	0.341
LGA
No GDM	1.00		1.00
IADPSG GDM	2.54 (1.62–3.96)	<0.001a	2.39 (1.50–3.81)	<0.001a
CC GDM	2.37 (1.29–4.36)	0.005a	2.07 (1.08–3.94)	0.028a
Macrosomia (>4.0 kg)
No GDM	1.00		1.00
IADPSG GDM	2.58 (1.33–5.03)	0.005a	2.53 (1.26–5.10)	0.009a
CC GDM	3.18 (1.40–7.23)	0.006a	3.34 (1.39–8.00)	0.007a
SGA
No GDM	1.00		1.00
IADPSG GDM	0.73 (0.38–1.42)	0.351	0.75 (0.38–1.47)	0.396
CC GDM	0.99 (0.45–2.21)	0.997	0.94 (0.42–2.13)	0.879
Shoulder dystocia or birth injury
No GDM	1.00		1.00
IADPSG GDM	3.14 (0.67–14.69)	0.146	3.59 (0.75–17.18)	0.109
CC GDM	NA	NA	NA	NA
Neonatal hypoglycemia
No GDM	1.00		1.00
IADPSG GDM	4.75 (1.27–17.76)	0.021a	3.84 (1.01–14.74)	0.049a
CC GDM	9.21 (2.44–34.82)	0.001a	4.98 (1.17–21.31)	0.030a
Phototherapy
No GDM	1.00		1.00
IADPSG GDM	1.63 (1.13–2.35)	0.009a	1.57 (1.07–2.31)	0.022a
CC GDM	0.84 (0.48–1.46)	0.530	0.63 (0.36–1.13)	0.122
NICU admission
No GDM	1.00		1.00
IADPSG GDM	0.68 (0.34–1.35)	0.266	0.67 (0.30–1.24)	0.169
CC GDM	1.37 (0.67–2.81)	0.388	1.15 (0.55–2.41)	0.702
Overall adverse outcomes
No GDM	1.00		1.00
IADPSG GDM	1.52 (1.03–2.25)	0.035a	1.63 (1.08–2.47)	0.021a
CC GDM	1.17 (0.90–1.52)	0.236	1.05 (0.80–1.39)	0.711

Model 1, unadjusted; Model 2, adjusted for maternal age, parity, height, body mass index at delivery, gestational age at delivery, and baby's sex; GDM, gestational diabetes mellitus; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; IADPSG, International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups; CC, Carpenter-Coustan; LGA, large for gestational age; SGA, small for gestational age; NA, not applicable; NICU, neonatal intensive care unit.

^aP<0.05, ^bGestational age at delivery was not adjusted for preterm delivery in model 2.

Figure & Data

References

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  

• Risk Factors for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in Mainland China: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
  Linjuan Xia, Zehua Yang, Qincai Mu, Yulin Ji, Juncheng Lyu
  Diabetes, Metabolic Syndrome and Obesity.2025; Volume 18: 565.     CrossRef
• Impact of Bariatric Surgery on Postpartum Urinary Incontinence in Women with Gestational Diabetes: A Retrospective Case–Control Analysis
  Yajing Xiong, Guohua Wu
  Obesity Surgery.2025; 35(6): 2210.     CrossRef
• Gestational diabetes mellitus and adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes in twin and singleton pregnancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis
  Elena Greco, Maria Calanducci, Kypros H. Nicolaides, Eleanor V.H. Barry, Mohammed S.B. Huda, Stamatina Iliodromiti
  American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.2024; 230(2): 213.     CrossRef
• Neonatal outcomes according to different glucose threshold values in gestational diabetes: a register-based study
  Kaisa Kariniemi, Marja Vääräsmäki, Tuija Männistö, Sanna Mustaniemi, Eero Kajantie, Sanna Eteläinen, Elina Keikkala, Anneli Pouta, Risto Kaaja, Johan G Eriksson, Hannele Laivuori, Mika Gissler
  BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth.2024;[Epub]     CrossRef
• The problem of diabetes mellitus in obstetrics
  E.V. Popova-Petrosyan, A.A. Dovgan’, E.R. Kulieva
  Russian Bulletin of Obstetrician-Gynecologist.2024; 24(3): 25.     CrossRef
• 2023 Clinical Practice Guidelines for Diabetes Management in Korea: Full Version Recommendation of the Korean Diabetes Association
  Jun Sung Moon, Shinae Kang, Jong Han Choi, Kyung Ae Lee, Joon Ho Moon, Suk Chon, Dae Jung Kim, Hyun Jin Kim, Ji A Seo, Mee Kyoung Kim, Jeong Hyun Lim, Yoon Ju Song, Ye Seul Yang, Jae Hyeon Kim, You-Bin Lee, Junghyun Noh, Kyu Yeon Hur, Jong Suk Park, Sang
  Diabetes & Metabolism Journal.2024; 48(4): 546.     CrossRef
• Association between gestational diabetes mellitus diagnostic criteria and adverse pregnancy outcomes—a systematic review and meta-analysis of adjusted effect sizes from studies using current diagnostic criteria
  Elhassan Mahmoud, Abdalla Moustafa Elsayed, Basant Elsayed, Yasmin Elsalakawi, Aswathy Gopinath, Tawanda Chivese
  BMJ Open.2024; 14(11): e091258.     CrossRef
• Usefulness of Glycated Albumin Levels in Predicting the Maternal or Neonatal Complications of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus during Late Pregnancy in South Korea: A Retrospective Study
  Jihan Kim, Sami Lee, Jong Sung Kim
  Korean Journal of Family Medicine.2024;[Epub]     CrossRef
• Pregnancy complications in women with pregestational and gestational diabetes mellitus
  Lukas Reitzle, Christin Heidemann, Jens Baumert, Matthias Kaltheuner, Heinke Adamczewski, Andrea Icks, Christa Scheidt-Nave
  Deutsches Ärzteblatt international.2023;[Epub]     CrossRef
• Predicting the Risk of Insulin-Requiring Gestational Diabetes before Pregnancy: A Model Generated from a Nationwide Population-Based Cohort Study in Korea
  Seung-Hwan Lee, Jin Yu, Kyungdo Han, Seung Woo Lee, Sang Youn You, Hun-Sung Kim, Jae-Hyoung Cho, Kun-Ho Yoon, Mee Kyoung Kim
  Endocrinology and Metabolism.2023; 38(1): 129.     CrossRef
• Treatment of women with mild gestational diabetes mellitus decreases the risk of adverse perinatal outcomes
  Fanny Goyette, Bi Lan Wo, Marie-Hélène Iglesias, Evelyne Rey, Ariane Godbout
  Diabetes & Metabolism.2023; 49(4): 101458.     CrossRef
• Maternal and fetal outcomes of pregnancies associated with single versus double abnormal values in 100 gr glucose tolerance test
  Mohammadali Shahriari, Ali Shahriari, Maryam Khooshideh, Anahita Dehghaninezhad, Arezoo Maleki-Hajiagha, Rana Karimi
  Journal of Diabetes & Metabolic Disorders.2023; 22(2): 1347.     CrossRef
• Diagnosis and management of gestational diabetes mellitus
  Tae Jung Oh
  Journal of the Korean Medical Association.2023; 66(7): 414.     CrossRef
• Update on gestational diabetes and adverse pregnancy outcomes
  Bryan Ugwudike, ManHo Kwok
  Current Opinion in Obstetrics & Gynecology.2023; 35(5): 453.     CrossRef
• Effects of early standardized management on the growth trajectory of offspring with gestational diabetes mellitus at 0–5 years old: a preliminary longitudinal study
  Bingbing Guo, Jingjing Pei, Yin Xu, Yajie Wang, Xinye Jiang
  Scientific Reports.2023;[Epub]     CrossRef
• Can Triglyceride/Glucose Index (TyG) and Triglyceride/HDL-Cholesterol Ratio (TG/HDL-c) Predict Gestational Diabetes Mellitus?
  Seval YILMAZ ERGANİ, Tolgay Tuyan İLHAN, Betül TOKGÖZ, Burak BAYRAKTAR, Mevlüt BUCAK, Müjde Can İBANOĞLU, Kadriye YAKUT YÜCEL, Kadriye ERDOĞAN, Cantekin İSKENDER, Yaprak ÜSTÜN
  Ankara Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi Tıp Dergisi.2023; 56(2): 117.     CrossRef
• Risk factors for postpartum urinary incontinence: The impact of early-onset and late-onset Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in a nested case-control study
  Carlos I. Sartorão Filho, Fabiane A. Pinheiro, Luiz Takano, Caroline B. Prudêncio, Sthefanie K. Nunes, Hallur RLS, Iracema M.P. Calderon, Angélica M.P. Barbosa, Marilza V.C. Rudge
  European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology.2023; 290: 5.     CrossRef
• Review of the Screening Guidelines for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: How to Choose Wisely
  Ravleen Kaur Bakshi, Akshay Kumar, Vandana Gupta, A.G. Radhika, Puneet Misra, Pankaj Bhardwaj
  Indian Journal of Community Medicine.2023; 48(6): 828.     CrossRef
• Postprandial Free Fatty Acids at Mid-Pregnancy Increase the Risk of Large-for-Gestational-Age Newborns in Women with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus
  So-Yeon Kim, Young Shin Song, Soo-Kyung Kim, Yong-Wook Cho, Kyung-Soo Kim
  Diabetes & Metabolism Journal.2022; 46(1): 140.     CrossRef
• Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: Diagnostic Approaches and Maternal-Offspring Complications
  Joon Ho Moon, Hak Chul Jang
  Diabetes & Metabolism Journal.2022; 46(1): 3.     CrossRef
• Risk and Risk Factors for Postpartum Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Women with Gestational Diabetes: A Korean Nationwide Cohort Study
  Mi Jin Choi, Jimi Choi, Chae Weon Chung
  Endocrinology and Metabolism.2022; 37(1): 112.     CrossRef
• Gestational diabetes mellitus: current screening problems
  N. I. Volkova, S. O. Panenko
  Diabetes mellitus.2022; 25(1): 72.     CrossRef
• Gestational diabetes mellitus and adverse pregnancy outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis
  Wenrui Ye, Cong Luo, Jing Huang, Chenglong Li, Zhixiong Liu, Fangkun Liu
  BMJ.2022; : e067946.     CrossRef
• Effect of Different Types of Diagnostic Criteria for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus on Adverse Neonatal Outcomes: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Meta-Regression
  Fahimeh Ramezani Tehrani, Marzieh Saei Ghare Naz, Razieh Bidhendi-Yarandi, Samira Behboudi-Gandevani
  Diabetes & Metabolism Journal.2022; 46(4): 605.     CrossRef
• Triglyceride and glucose index and the risk of gestational diabetes mellitus: A nationwide population-based cohort study
  Jung A Kim, Jinsil Kim, Eun Roh, So-hyeon Hong, You-Bin Lee, Sei Hyun Baik, Kyung Mook Choi, Eunjin Noh, Soon Young Hwang, Geum Joon Cho, Hye Jin Yoo
  Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice.2021; 171: 108533.     CrossRef
• Effect of the IADPSG screening strategy for gestational diabetes on perinatal outcomes in Switzerland
  Evelyne M. Aubry, Luigi Raio, Stephan Oelhafen
  Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice.2021; 175: 108830.     CrossRef
• Estimated impact of introduction of new diagnostic criteria for gestational diabetes mellitus
  Leon de Wit, Anna B Zijlmans, Doortje Rademaker, Christiana A Naaktgeboren, J Hans DeVries, Arie Franx, Rebecca C Painter, Bas B van Rijn
  World Journal of Diabetes.2021; 12(6): 868.     CrossRef
• The Clinical Characteristics of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in Korea: A National Health Information Database Study
  Kyung-Soo Kim, Sangmo Hong, Kyungdo Han, Cheol-Young Park
  Endocrinology and Metabolism.2021; 36(3): 628.     CrossRef
• Fetal Abdominal Obesity Detected At 24 to 28 Weeks of Gestation Persists Until Delivery Despite Management of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus
  Wonjin Kim, Soo Kyung Park, Yoo Lee Kim
  Diabetes & Metabolism Journal.2021; 45(4): 547.     CrossRef
• Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and the risk of insulin-requiring gestational diabetes
  Sang Youn You, Kyungdo Han, Seung-Hawn Lee, Mee Kyoung Kim
  Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome.2021;[Epub]     CrossRef
• Maternal Hyperglycemia during Pregnancy Increases Adiposity of Offspring
  Hye Rim Chung, Joon Ho Moon, Jung Sub Lim, Young Ah Lee, Choong Ho Shin, Joon-Seok Hong, Soo Heon Kwak, Sung Hee Choi, Hak Chul Jang
  Diabetes & Metabolism Journal.2021; 45(5): 730.     CrossRef
• Prepregnancy smoking and the risk of gestational diabetes requiring insulin therapy
  Mee Kyoung Kim, Kyungdo Han, Sang Youn You, Hyuk-Sang Kwon, Kun-Ho Yoon, Seung-Hwan Lee
  Scientific Reports.2020;[Epub]     CrossRef
• Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: Diagnosis and Glycemic Control
  Tae Jung Oh, Hak Chul Jang
  The Journal of Korean Diabetes.2020; 21(2): 69.     CrossRef
• New Diagnostic Criteria for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus and Pregnancy Outcomes in Korea
  Kyu Yeon Hur
  Diabetes & Metabolism Journal.2019; 43(6): 763.     CrossRef

About this article

Kim MH, Kwak SH, Kim SH, Hong JS, Chung HR, Choi SH, Kim MY, Jang HC. Pregnancy Outcomes of Women Additionally Diagnosed as Gestational Diabetes by the International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups Criteria. Diabetes Metab J. 2019;43(6):766-775.

Received: Sep 27, 2018; Accepted: Oct 30, 2018

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4093/dmj.2018.0192.

Download citation ↓