Evaluation of an Alternative Screening Method for Gestational Diabetes Diagnosis During the COVID-19 Pandemic (DIABECOVID STUDY): An Observational Cohort Study.

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Diagnostics Pub Date : 2025-01-15 DOI:10.3390/diagnostics15020189
Alba Casellas, Cristina Martínez, Judit Amigó, Roser Ferrer, Laia Martí, Carme Merced, Maria Carmen Medina, Istria Molinero, Marta Calveiro, Anna Maroto, Ester Del Barco, Elena Carreras, Maria Goya
{"title":"Evaluation of an Alternative Screening Method for Gestational Diabetes Diagnosis During the COVID-19 Pandemic (DIABECOVID STUDY): An Observational Cohort Study.","authors":"Alba Casellas, Cristina Martínez, Judit Amigó, Roser Ferrer, Laia Martí, Carme Merced, Maria Carmen Medina, Istria Molinero, Marta Calveiro, Anna Maroto, Ester Del Barco, Elena Carreras, Maria Goya","doi":"10.3390/diagnostics15020189","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> To evaluate the impact of applying alternative diagnostic criteria for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) during the COVID-19 pandemic on GDM prevalence, obstetrical and perinatal outcomes, and costs, as compared to the standard diagnostic method. <b>Methods:</b> A cohort of pregnant individuals undergoing GMD screening with the alternative GDM method, which uses plasma glucose (fasting or non-fasting) and HbA1c, was compared with a cohort of pregnant individuals undergoing the standard GDM screening method. Both cohorts were obtained from six hospitals across Catalonia, Spain, from April 2020 to April 2022. The primary outcome was large for gestational age rate at birth. The secondary outcomes were composite adverse outcomes, including pregnancy complications, delivery complications, and neonatal complications. The cost differences between screening methods were also evaluated. A similar analysis was performed in the subgroup diagnosed with GDM. <b>Results:</b> Data were collected from 1543 pregnant individuals in the standard screening group and 2197 in the alternative screening group. The standard screening group had a higher GDM diagnostic rate than the alternative screening group (10.8% vs. 6.9%, respectively; <i>p</i> < 0.0001). The primary outcome (large for gestational age rate) was similar between groups: 200/1543 (13.0%) vs. 303/2197 (13.8%). The adjusted OR for this outcome was 1.74 (95% CI: 0.74-4.10). An adjusted analysis showed no differences between groups in the composite adverse outcomes for pregnancy complications (OR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.91-1.36), delivery complications (OR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.75-1.19), and neonatal complications (OR: 1.28; 95% CI: 0.94-1.75). Among individuals diagnosed with GDM, the large for gestational age rate was similar between groups: 13/166 (7.8%) vs. 15/151 (9.9%). The OR adjusted for this outcome was 1.24 (95% CI: 0.51-3.09). An adjusted analysis showed no differences in the composite adverse outcomes for pregnancy complications (OR: 1.57; 95% CI: 0.84-2.98), delivery complications (OR: 1.21; 95% CI: 0.63-2.35), and neonatal complications (OR: 1.35; 95% CI: 0.61-3.04). The mean cost (which included expenses for consumables, equipment, and personnel) of the alternative screening method was 46.0 euros (22.3 SD), as compared to 85.6 euros (67.5 SD) for the standard screening method. <b>Conclusions:</b> In this Spanish population during the COVID-19 pandemic, GDM prevalence was lower in the alternative screening group than in the standard screening group. After adjusting for GDM risk factors, outcomes related to obstetrics, delivery, and neonatal complications were comparable between both groups. Finally, the alternative screening method was cheaper than the standard screening method.</p>","PeriodicalId":11225,"journal":{"name":"Diagnostics","volume":"15 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11763759/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnostics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics15020189","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: To evaluate the impact of applying alternative diagnostic criteria for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) during the COVID-19 pandemic on GDM prevalence, obstetrical and perinatal outcomes, and costs, as compared to the standard diagnostic method. Methods: A cohort of pregnant individuals undergoing GMD screening with the alternative GDM method, which uses plasma glucose (fasting or non-fasting) and HbA1c, was compared with a cohort of pregnant individuals undergoing the standard GDM screening method. Both cohorts were obtained from six hospitals across Catalonia, Spain, from April 2020 to April 2022. The primary outcome was large for gestational age rate at birth. The secondary outcomes were composite adverse outcomes, including pregnancy complications, delivery complications, and neonatal complications. The cost differences between screening methods were also evaluated. A similar analysis was performed in the subgroup diagnosed with GDM. Results: Data were collected from 1543 pregnant individuals in the standard screening group and 2197 in the alternative screening group. The standard screening group had a higher GDM diagnostic rate than the alternative screening group (10.8% vs. 6.9%, respectively; p < 0.0001). The primary outcome (large for gestational age rate) was similar between groups: 200/1543 (13.0%) vs. 303/2197 (13.8%). The adjusted OR for this outcome was 1.74 (95% CI: 0.74-4.10). An adjusted analysis showed no differences between groups in the composite adverse outcomes for pregnancy complications (OR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.91-1.36), delivery complications (OR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.75-1.19), and neonatal complications (OR: 1.28; 95% CI: 0.94-1.75). Among individuals diagnosed with GDM, the large for gestational age rate was similar between groups: 13/166 (7.8%) vs. 15/151 (9.9%). The OR adjusted for this outcome was 1.24 (95% CI: 0.51-3.09). An adjusted analysis showed no differences in the composite adverse outcomes for pregnancy complications (OR: 1.57; 95% CI: 0.84-2.98), delivery complications (OR: 1.21; 95% CI: 0.63-2.35), and neonatal complications (OR: 1.35; 95% CI: 0.61-3.04). The mean cost (which included expenses for consumables, equipment, and personnel) of the alternative screening method was 46.0 euros (22.3 SD), as compared to 85.6 euros (67.5 SD) for the standard screening method. Conclusions: In this Spanish population during the COVID-19 pandemic, GDM prevalence was lower in the alternative screening group than in the standard screening group. After adjusting for GDM risk factors, outcomes related to obstetrics, delivery, and neonatal complications were comparable between both groups. Finally, the alternative screening method was cheaper than the standard screening method.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估COVID-19大流行期间妊娠糖尿病诊断的替代筛查方法(DIABECOVID研究):一项观察性队列研究
背景:评估在COVID-19大流行期间应用妊娠糖尿病(GDM)替代诊断标准与标准诊断方法相比,对GDM患病率、产科和围产期结局以及成本的影响。方法:将采用替代GDM方法(使用空腹或非空腹血糖和HbA1c)进行GMD筛查的孕妇队列与采用标准GDM筛查方法的孕妇队列进行比较。这两个队列均来自西班牙加泰罗尼亚的六家医院,时间为2020年4月至2022年4月。主要结局是大胎龄出生率。次要结局为综合不良结局,包括妊娠并发症、分娩并发症和新生儿并发症。评估了不同筛查方法的成本差异。在诊断为GDM的亚组中进行了类似的分析。结果:收集了标准筛查组1543名孕妇和替代筛查组2197名孕妇的数据。标准筛查组的GDM诊断率高于替代筛查组(分别为10.8% vs. 6.9%;P < 0.0001)。主要结局(胎龄率大)组间相似:200/1543 (13.0%)vs 303/2197(13.8%)。该结果的校正OR为1.74 (95% CI: 0.74-4.10)。校正分析显示,妊娠并发症的综合不良结局组间无差异(OR: 1.11;95% CI: 0.91-1.36),分娩并发症(OR: 0.95;95% CI: 0.75-1.19)和新生儿并发症(OR: 1.28;95% ci: 0.94-1.75)。在诊断为GDM的个体中,两组之间的胎龄差异相似:13/166(7.8%)和15/151(9.9%)。调整后的OR为1.24 (95% CI: 0.51-3.09)。调整后的分析显示,妊娠并发症的综合不良结局没有差异(OR: 1.57;95% CI: 0.84-2.98),分娩并发症(OR: 1.21;95% CI: 0.63-2.35)和新生儿并发症(OR: 1.35;95% ci: 0.61-3.04)。替代筛选方法的平均成本(包括消耗品、设备和人员的费用)为46.0欧元(22.3标准差),而标准筛选方法的平均成本为85.6欧元(67.5标准差)。结论:在2019冠状病毒病大流行期间的西班牙人群中,替代筛查组的GDM患病率低于标准筛查组。在调整GDM危险因素后,两组之间的产科学、分娩和新生儿并发症相关的结果具有可比性。最后,替代筛选方法比标准筛选方法更便宜。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Diagnostics
Diagnostics Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology-Clinical Biochemistry
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
8.30%
发文量
2699
审稿时长
19.64 days
期刊介绍: Diagnostics (ISSN 2075-4418) is an international scholarly open access journal on medical diagnostics. It publishes original research articles, reviews, communications and short notes on the research and development of medical diagnostics. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical research in as much detail as possible. Full experimental and/or methodological details must be provided for research articles.
期刊最新文献
Cephalometric Assessment of Airway-Related Hyoid Position and Velar Morphology Across Skeletal Malocclusions: A Cross-Sectional Study. Comparative Diagnostic Performance of TST and IGRAs in the Diagnosis of Latent Tuberculosis Infection: A Systematic Review and Diagnostic Meta-Analysis. Uncertainty-Aware Framework for CT Radiation Dose Optimization in the Active Surveillance of Small Renal Masses: Clinical and Radiological Considerations. Digital Specimen Tracking- and ISO 15189-Oriented Risk Management in Anatomic Pathology: A Qualitative Study of Expert Perspectives in Western Austria. Intrapartum Ultrasound in Vacuum Operative Delivery: A Comprehensive Review and Proposal of the Novel Ultrasound Flexion Point Method.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1