A comparative study on one-step versus two-step screening methods for gestational diabetes mellitus and their impact on maternal and fetal outcome
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20262548Keywords:
Fetomaternal outcome, Gestational diabetes mellitus, One-step screening, Oral glucose tolerance test, Two-step screeningAbstract
Background: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a common pregnancy complication associated with adverse maternal and fetal outcomes. The one-step IADPSG and two-step ACOG screening methods are widely used for diagnosis. The one-step approach detects more cases of GDM, potentially enabling earlier treatment, but concerns regarding overdiagnosis and increased healthcare costs remain. Aim and objectives were to compare the one-step and two-step screening methods for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) in terms of prevalence, maternal and fetal outcomes, and to determine which method correlates better with adverse fetomaternal outcomes.
Methods: This prospective comparative study was conducted at Midnapore Medical College and Hospital from January to December 2024 and included 1,720 pregnant women with gestational age ≤24 weeks. Participants were randomly assigned to either group A (one-step IADPSG screening, n=860) or group B (two-step ACOG screening, n=860) for GDM screening. Women diagnosed with GDM were managed according to standard protocols and followed until delivery. Maternal and fetal outcomes were assessed and compared between the two groups using statistical analysis.
Results: Among 860 pregnant women screened by each method, GDM was diagnosed in 92 (10.69%) women using the one-step method and 66 (7.67%) women using the two-step method. During follow-up, 88 and 62 women remained in groups A and B, respectively. Maternal complications such as preeclampsia and polyhydramnios were comparable between the groups (p=0.964). The caesarean section rate was significantly higher in the one-step group than in the two-step group (68.18% versus 41.93%; p=0.024). Mean APGAR scores were similar in both groups (8.41±0.92 versus 8.71±0.82; p=0.151). Fetal outcomes, including preterm birth, low birth weight, neonatal hypoglycemia, large-for-gestational-age, hyperbilirubinemia, and NICU admission, were comparable between the groups (p=0.938).
Conclusions: One-step method detected more GDM cases than the two-step method, but maternal and fetal outcomes were similar. The one-step approach is simpler, more economical, and has better patient compliance.
References
American Diabetes Association. Diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus (position statement). Diabetes Care. 2009;32:S62-7.
Gestational Diabetes Mellitus. Clinical management guidelines for obstetricians-gynecologist. Practice Bulletin No. 137 (Replaces Practice Bulletin Number 30, September 2001, Committee opinion Number 435, June 2009, and Committee Opinion Number 504, September 2011) American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;2013(122):406-16.
Seshiah V, Sahay BK, Das AK, Shah S, Banerjee S, Rao PV, et al. Gestational diabetes mellitus-Indian guidelines. J Indian Med Assoc. 2009;107(11):799.
Wahi P, Dogra V, Jandial K, Bhagat R, Gupta R, Gupta S, et al. Prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and its outcomes in Jammu region. J Assoc Phys India. 2011;59(4):227-30.
Odar E, Wandabwa J, Kiondo P. Maternal and fetal outcome of gestational diabetes mellitus in Mulago Hospital, Uganda. Afr Health Sci. 2004;4(1):9-14.
Dahiya K, Sahu J, Dahiya A. Maternal and fetal outcome in gestational diabetes mellitus-a study at tertiary health centre in northern India. Open Access Lib J. 2014;1(3):e500-504.
Gestational Diabetes. ACOG Practice Bulletin No.30. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ObstetGynecol. 2001;98:525-38
Agarwal MM, Dhatt GS, Othman Y. Gestational diabetes: differences between the current international diagnostic criteria and implications of switching to IADPSG. J Diabetes Complicat. 2015;29(4):544-9.
Sacks DB. Diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus: it is time for international consensus. Clin Chem. 2014;60(1):141-3.
Metzger BE, Lowe LP, Dyer AR, Trimble ER, Chaovarindr U, Coustan DR, et al. Hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcomes. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(19):1991-2002.
Metzger BE, Gabbe SG, Persson B, Buchanan TA, Catalano PA, Damm P, et al. International association of diabetes and pregnancy study groups recommendations on the diagnosis and classificationof hyperglycemia in pregnancy. Diabetes Care. 2010;33(3):676-82.
Sevket O, Ates S, Uysal O, Molla T, Dansuk R, Kelekci S. To evaluate the prevalence and clinical outcomes using a one-step method versus a two-step method to screen gestational diabetes mellitus. J Matern Fet Neonat Med. 2014;27(1):36-41.
Hirst JE, Tran TS, Do MA, Morris JM, Jeffery HE. Consequences of gestational diabetes in an urban hospital in Vietnam: a prospective cohort study. PLoS Med. 2012;9(7):e1001272.
Anjana RM, Pradeepa R, Deepa M, Datta M, Sudha V, Unnikrishnan R, et al. Prevalence of diabetes and prediabetes (impaired fasting glucose and/or impaired glucose tolerance) in urban and rural India: Phase I results of the Indian Council of Medical Research-INdiaDIABetes (ICMR-INDIAB) study. Diabetologia. 2011;54:3022-7.
Waters TP, Dyer AR, Scholtens DM, Dooley SL, Herer E, Lowe LP, et al. Maternal and neonatal morbidity for women who would be added to the diagnosis of GDM using IADPSG. Diabetes care. 2016;39(12):2204-10.
Alfadhli E. Gestational diabetes in Saudi women identified by the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study groups versus the former American Diabetes Association criteria: a prospective cohort study. Ann Saudi Med. 2015;35(6):428-34.
March MI, Modest AM, Ralston SJ, Hacker MR, Gupta M, Brown FM. The effect of adopting the IADPSG screening guidelines on the risk profile and outcomes of the gestational diabetes population. J Matern Fet Neonat Med. 2016;29(7):1141-5.
Pan L, Leng J, Liu G, Zhang C, Liu H, Li M, et al. Pregnancy outcomes of Chinese women with gestational diabetes mellitus de- fined by the IADPSG’s but not by the 1999 WHO’s criteria. Clin Endocrinol. 2015;83(5):684-93.
Khalifeh A, Eckler R, Felder L, Saccone G, Caissutti C, Berghella V. One-step versus two-step diagnostic testing for gestational diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. J Matern Fet Neonat Med. 2018;33(4):612-7.
Akgol S, Obut M, Bagli İ, Kahveci B, Budak MS. An evaluation of the effect of a one or two-step gestational diabetes mellitus screening program on obstetric and neonatal outcomes in pregnancies. Gynecol Obstet Reprod Med. 2018;24(0):00-00.
Saccone G, Caissutti C, Khalifeh A, Meltzer S, Scifres C, Simhan HN, et al. One step versus two step approach for gestational diabetes screening: systematic review and meta-analysis of the randomized trials. J Matern Fet Neonat Med. 2017;3:1-9.
Moses RG, Knights SJ, Lucas EM, Moses M, Russell KG, Coleman KJ, et al. Gestational diabetes mellitus: is a higher cesarean section rate the price of achieving better pregnancy outcomes? Diabetes Care. 2000;23(1):15-7.
Reddy KM, Sailaja PL, Balmuri S, Jagarlamudi A, Betha K. Prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus and perinatal outcome: a rural tertiary teaching hospital based study. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2017;6:3594-8.
Kabade SD, Kabade DM, Wilson E, Karthik SL, Lavanya K. Study of prevalence and outcome of gestational diabetes mellitus at a tertiary care hospital in North Karnataka. Int J Contemp Med Res. 2017;4(2):2454.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
