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
Prüst JT., Brummaier T., Wah M., Yee HH., Win NN., Pimanpanarak M., Min AM., Gilder ME., Tun NW., Ilozumba O., Kabeer BSA., Terranegra A., Nosten F., Lee SJ., McGready R.
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/m2), previous GDM, 1st 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 (≤10th 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.