NIH consensus development conference

diagnosing gestational diabetes mellitus.

James P. Vandorsten, William C. Dodson, Mark A. Espeland, William A. Grobman, Jeanne Marie Guise, Brian M. Mercer, Howard L. Minkoff, Brenda Poindexter, Lisa A. Prosser, George F. Sawaya, James R. Scott, Robert M. Silver, Lisa Smith, Alyce Thomas, Alan T N Tita

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

145 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

To provide healthcare providers, patients, and the general public with a responsible assessment of currently available data on diagnosing gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). A non-U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, nonadvocate 15-member panel representing the fields of obstetrics and gynecology, maternal-fetal medicine, pediatrics, diabetic research, biostatistics, women's health issues, health services research, decision analysis, health management and policy, health economics, epidemiology, and community engagement. In addition, 16 experts from pertinent fields presented data to the panel and conference audience. Presentations by experts and a systematic review of the literature prepared by the University of Alberta Evidence-based Practice Centre, through the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Scientific evidence was given precedence over anecdotal experience. The panel drafted its statement based on scientific evidence presented in open forum and on published scientific literature. The draft statement was posted at http://prevention.nih.gov/ for public comment and the panel released a final statement approximately 10 weeks later. The final statement is an independent report of the panel and is not a policy statement of the NIH or the Federal Government. At present, GDM is commonly diagnosed in the United States using a 1-hour screening test with a 50-gram glucose load followed by a 3-hour 100-gram glucose tolerance test (a two-step approach) for those found to be abnormal on the screen. This approach identifies approximately 5% to 6% of the population as having GDM. In contrast, newly proposed diagnostic strategies rely on the administration of a 2-hour glucose tolerance test (a one-step approach) with a fasting component and a 75-gram glucose load. These strategies differ on whether a 1-hour sample is included, whether two abnormal values are required, and the diagnostic cutoffs that are used. The International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) has proposed diagnostic thresholds based on demonstrated associations between glycemic levels and an increased risk of obstetric and perinatal morbidities. The panel considered whether a one-step approach to the diagnosis of GDM should be adopted in place of the two-step approach. The one-step approach offers certain operational advantages. The current two-step approach is used only during pregnancy and is largely restricted to the United States. There would be value in a consistent, international diagnostic standard across one's lifespan. This unification would allow better standardization of best practices in patient care and comparability of research outcomes. The one-step approach also holds potential advantages for women and their health care providers, as it would allow a diagnosis to be achieved within the context of one visit as opposed to two. However, the one-step approach, as proposed by the IADPSG, is anticipated to increase the frequency of the diagnosis of GDM by twofold to threefold, to a prevalence of approximately 15% to 20%. There are several concerns regarding the diagnosis of GDM in these additional women. It is not well understood whether the additional women identified by this approach will benefit from treatment, and if so, to what extent. Moreover, the care of these women will generate additional direct and indirect health care costs. There is also evidence that the labeling of these women may have unintended consequences, such as an increase in cesarean delivery and more intensive newborn assessments. In addition, increased patient costs, life disruptions, and psychosocial burdens have been identified. Available studies do not provide clear evidence that a one-step approach is cost-effective in comparison with the current two-step approach. After much deliberation, the panel believes that there are clear benefits to international standardization with regard to the one-step approach. Nevertheless, at present, the panel believes that there is not sufficient evidence to adopt a one-step approach. The panel is particularly concerned about the adoption of new criteria that would increase the prevalence of GDM, and the corresponding costs and interventions, without clear demonstration of improvements in the most clinically important health and patient-centered outcomes. Thus, the panel recommends that the two-step approach be continued. However, given the potential benefits of a one-step approach, resolution of the uncertainties associated with its use would warrant revision of this conclusion.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1-31
Number of pages31
JournalNIH consensus and state-of-the-science statements
Volume29
Issue number1
StatePublished - Mar 4 2013
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

NIH Consensus Development Conferences
Gestational Diabetes
Health Services Research
Women's Health
Glucose Tolerance Test
Costs and Cost Analysis
Health Personnel
Pregnancy
Obstetrics
Biostatistics
United States Dept. of Health and Human Services
Literature
Glucose
Alberta
Federal Government
Decision Support Techniques
Evidence-Based Practice
Health
Health Policy
Gynecology

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Vandorsten, J. P., Dodson, W. C., Espeland, M. A., Grobman, W. A., Guise, J. M., Mercer, B. M., ... Tita, A. T. N. (2013). NIH consensus development conference: diagnosing gestational diabetes mellitus. NIH consensus and state-of-the-science statements, 29(1), 1-31.

NIH consensus development conference : diagnosing gestational diabetes mellitus. / Vandorsten, James P.; Dodson, William C.; Espeland, Mark A.; Grobman, William A.; Guise, Jeanne Marie; Mercer, Brian M.; Minkoff, Howard L.; Poindexter, Brenda; Prosser, Lisa A.; Sawaya, George F.; Scott, James R.; Silver, Robert M.; Smith, Lisa; Thomas, Alyce; Tita, Alan T N.

In: NIH consensus and state-of-the-science statements, Vol. 29, No. 1, 04.03.2013, p. 1-31.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

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, ATN 2013, 'NIH consensus development conference: diagnosing gestational diabetes mellitus.', NIH consensus and state-of-the-science statements, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 1-31.
Vandorsten JP, Dodson WC, Espeland MA, Grobman WA, Guise JM, Mercer BM et al. NIH consensus development conference: diagnosing gestational diabetes mellitus. NIH consensus and state-of-the-science statements. 2013 Mar 4;29(1):1-31.
Vandorsten, James P. ; Dodson, William C. ; Espeland, Mark A. ; Grobman, William A. ; Guise, Jeanne Marie ; Mercer, Brian M. ; Minkoff, Howard L. ; Poindexter, Brenda ; Prosser, Lisa A. ; Sawaya, George F. ; Scott, James R. ; Silver, Robert M. ; Smith, Lisa ; Thomas, Alyce ; Tita, Alan T N. / NIH consensus development conference : diagnosing gestational diabetes mellitus. In: NIH consensus and state-of-the-science statements. 2013 ; Vol. 29, No. 1. pp. 1-31.
@article{77ea72442ea74768ac9d7bcf482cf4db,
title = "NIH consensus development conference: diagnosing gestational diabetes mellitus.",
abstract = "To provide healthcare providers, patients, and the general public with a responsible assessment of currently available data on diagnosing gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). A non-U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, nonadvocate 15-member panel representing the fields of obstetrics and gynecology, maternal-fetal medicine, pediatrics, diabetic research, biostatistics, women's health issues, health services research, decision analysis, health management and policy, health economics, epidemiology, and community engagement. In addition, 16 experts from pertinent fields presented data to the panel and conference audience. Presentations by experts and a systematic review of the literature prepared by the University of Alberta Evidence-based Practice Centre, through the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Scientific evidence was given precedence over anecdotal experience. The panel drafted its statement based on scientific evidence presented in open forum and on published scientific literature. The draft statement was posted at http://prevention.nih.gov/ for public comment and the panel released a final statement approximately 10 weeks later. The final statement is an independent report of the panel and is not a policy statement of the NIH or the Federal Government. At present, GDM is commonly diagnosed in the United States using a 1-hour screening test with a 50-gram glucose load followed by a 3-hour 100-gram glucose tolerance test (a two-step approach) for those found to be abnormal on the screen. This approach identifies approximately 5{\%} to 6{\%} of the population as having GDM. In contrast, newly proposed diagnostic strategies rely on the administration of a 2-hour glucose tolerance test (a one-step approach) with a fasting component and a 75-gram glucose load. These strategies differ on whether a 1-hour sample is included, whether two abnormal values are required, and the diagnostic cutoffs that are used. The International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) has proposed diagnostic thresholds based on demonstrated associations between glycemic levels and an increased risk of obstetric and perinatal morbidities. The panel considered whether a one-step approach to the diagnosis of GDM should be adopted in place of the two-step approach. The one-step approach offers certain operational advantages. The current two-step approach is used only during pregnancy and is largely restricted to the United States. There would be value in a consistent, international diagnostic standard across one's lifespan. This unification would allow better standardization of best practices in patient care and comparability of research outcomes. The one-step approach also holds potential advantages for women and their health care providers, as it would allow a diagnosis to be achieved within the context of one visit as opposed to two. However, the one-step approach, as proposed by the IADPSG, is anticipated to increase the frequency of the diagnosis of GDM by twofold to threefold, to a prevalence of approximately 15{\%} to 20{\%}. There are several concerns regarding the diagnosis of GDM in these additional women. It is not well understood whether the additional women identified by this approach will benefit from treatment, and if so, to what extent. Moreover, the care of these women will generate additional direct and indirect health care costs. There is also evidence that the labeling of these women may have unintended consequences, such as an increase in cesarean delivery and more intensive newborn assessments. In addition, increased patient costs, life disruptions, and psychosocial burdens have been identified. Available studies do not provide clear evidence that a one-step approach is cost-effective in comparison with the current two-step approach. After much deliberation, the panel believes that there are clear benefits to international standardization with regard to the one-step approach. Nevertheless, at present, the panel believes that there is not sufficient evidence to adopt a one-step approach. The panel is particularly concerned about the adoption of new criteria that would increase the prevalence of GDM, and the corresponding costs and interventions, without clear demonstration of improvements in the most clinically important health and patient-centered outcomes. Thus, the panel recommends that the two-step approach be continued. However, given the potential benefits of a one-step approach, resolution of the uncertainties associated with its use would warrant revision of this conclusion.",
author = "Vandorsten, {James P.} and Dodson, {William C.} and Espeland, {Mark A.} and Grobman, {William A.} and Guise, {Jeanne Marie} and Mercer, {Brian M.} and Minkoff, {Howard L.} and Brenda Poindexter and Prosser, {Lisa A.} and Sawaya, {George F.} and Scott, {James R.} and Silver, {Robert M.} and Lisa Smith and Alyce Thomas and Tita, {Alan T N}",
year = "2013",
month = "3",
day = "4",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "29",
pages = "1--31",
journal = "NIH consensus and state-of-the-science statements",
issn = "1553-0957",
publisher = "US Department of Health and Human Services",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - NIH consensus development conference

T2 - diagnosing gestational diabetes mellitus.

AU - Vandorsten, James P.

AU - Dodson, William C.

AU - Espeland, Mark A.

AU - Grobman, William A.

AU - Guise, Jeanne Marie

AU - Mercer, Brian M.

AU - Minkoff, Howard L.

AU - Poindexter, Brenda

AU - Prosser, Lisa A.

AU - Sawaya, George F.

AU - Scott, James R.

AU - Silver, Robert M.

AU - Smith, Lisa

AU - Thomas, Alyce

AU - Tita, Alan T N

PY - 2013/3/4

Y1 - 2013/3/4

N2 - To provide healthcare providers, patients, and the general public with a responsible assessment of currently available data on diagnosing gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). A non-U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, nonadvocate 15-member panel representing the fields of obstetrics and gynecology, maternal-fetal medicine, pediatrics, diabetic research, biostatistics, women's health issues, health services research, decision analysis, health management and policy, health economics, epidemiology, and community engagement. In addition, 16 experts from pertinent fields presented data to the panel and conference audience. Presentations by experts and a systematic review of the literature prepared by the University of Alberta Evidence-based Practice Centre, through the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Scientific evidence was given precedence over anecdotal experience. The panel drafted its statement based on scientific evidence presented in open forum and on published scientific literature. The draft statement was posted at http://prevention.nih.gov/ for public comment and the panel released a final statement approximately 10 weeks later. The final statement is an independent report of the panel and is not a policy statement of the NIH or the Federal Government. At present, GDM is commonly diagnosed in the United States using a 1-hour screening test with a 50-gram glucose load followed by a 3-hour 100-gram glucose tolerance test (a two-step approach) for those found to be abnormal on the screen. This approach identifies approximately 5% to 6% of the population as having GDM. In contrast, newly proposed diagnostic strategies rely on the administration of a 2-hour glucose tolerance test (a one-step approach) with a fasting component and a 75-gram glucose load. These strategies differ on whether a 1-hour sample is included, whether two abnormal values are required, and the diagnostic cutoffs that are used. The International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) has proposed diagnostic thresholds based on demonstrated associations between glycemic levels and an increased risk of obstetric and perinatal morbidities. The panel considered whether a one-step approach to the diagnosis of GDM should be adopted in place of the two-step approach. The one-step approach offers certain operational advantages. The current two-step approach is used only during pregnancy and is largely restricted to the United States. There would be value in a consistent, international diagnostic standard across one's lifespan. This unification would allow better standardization of best practices in patient care and comparability of research outcomes. The one-step approach also holds potential advantages for women and their health care providers, as it would allow a diagnosis to be achieved within the context of one visit as opposed to two. However, the one-step approach, as proposed by the IADPSG, is anticipated to increase the frequency of the diagnosis of GDM by twofold to threefold, to a prevalence of approximately 15% to 20%. There are several concerns regarding the diagnosis of GDM in these additional women. It is not well understood whether the additional women identified by this approach will benefit from treatment, and if so, to what extent. Moreover, the care of these women will generate additional direct and indirect health care costs. There is also evidence that the labeling of these women may have unintended consequences, such as an increase in cesarean delivery and more intensive newborn assessments. In addition, increased patient costs, life disruptions, and psychosocial burdens have been identified. Available studies do not provide clear evidence that a one-step approach is cost-effective in comparison with the current two-step approach. After much deliberation, the panel believes that there are clear benefits to international standardization with regard to the one-step approach. Nevertheless, at present, the panel believes that there is not sufficient evidence to adopt a one-step approach. The panel is particularly concerned about the adoption of new criteria that would increase the prevalence of GDM, and the corresponding costs and interventions, without clear demonstration of improvements in the most clinically important health and patient-centered outcomes. Thus, the panel recommends that the two-step approach be continued. However, given the potential benefits of a one-step approach, resolution of the uncertainties associated with its use would warrant revision of this conclusion.

AB - To provide healthcare providers, patients, and the general public with a responsible assessment of currently available data on diagnosing gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). A non-U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, nonadvocate 15-member panel representing the fields of obstetrics and gynecology, maternal-fetal medicine, pediatrics, diabetic research, biostatistics, women's health issues, health services research, decision analysis, health management and policy, health economics, epidemiology, and community engagement. In addition, 16 experts from pertinent fields presented data to the panel and conference audience. Presentations by experts and a systematic review of the literature prepared by the University of Alberta Evidence-based Practice Centre, through the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Scientific evidence was given precedence over anecdotal experience. The panel drafted its statement based on scientific evidence presented in open forum and on published scientific literature. The draft statement was posted at http://prevention.nih.gov/ for public comment and the panel released a final statement approximately 10 weeks later. The final statement is an independent report of the panel and is not a policy statement of the NIH or the Federal Government. At present, GDM is commonly diagnosed in the United States using a 1-hour screening test with a 50-gram glucose load followed by a 3-hour 100-gram glucose tolerance test (a two-step approach) for those found to be abnormal on the screen. This approach identifies approximately 5% to 6% of the population as having GDM. In contrast, newly proposed diagnostic strategies rely on the administration of a 2-hour glucose tolerance test (a one-step approach) with a fasting component and a 75-gram glucose load. These strategies differ on whether a 1-hour sample is included, whether two abnormal values are required, and the diagnostic cutoffs that are used. The International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) has proposed diagnostic thresholds based on demonstrated associations between glycemic levels and an increased risk of obstetric and perinatal morbidities. The panel considered whether a one-step approach to the diagnosis of GDM should be adopted in place of the two-step approach. The one-step approach offers certain operational advantages. The current two-step approach is used only during pregnancy and is largely restricted to the United States. There would be value in a consistent, international diagnostic standard across one's lifespan. This unification would allow better standardization of best practices in patient care and comparability of research outcomes. The one-step approach also holds potential advantages for women and their health care providers, as it would allow a diagnosis to be achieved within the context of one visit as opposed to two. However, the one-step approach, as proposed by the IADPSG, is anticipated to increase the frequency of the diagnosis of GDM by twofold to threefold, to a prevalence of approximately 15% to 20%. There are several concerns regarding the diagnosis of GDM in these additional women. It is not well understood whether the additional women identified by this approach will benefit from treatment, and if so, to what extent. Moreover, the care of these women will generate additional direct and indirect health care costs. There is also evidence that the labeling of these women may have unintended consequences, such as an increase in cesarean delivery and more intensive newborn assessments. In addition, increased patient costs, life disruptions, and psychosocial burdens have been identified. Available studies do not provide clear evidence that a one-step approach is cost-effective in comparison with the current two-step approach. After much deliberation, the panel believes that there are clear benefits to international standardization with regard to the one-step approach. Nevertheless, at present, the panel believes that there is not sufficient evidence to adopt a one-step approach. The panel is particularly concerned about the adoption of new criteria that would increase the prevalence of GDM, and the corresponding costs and interventions, without clear demonstration of improvements in the most clinically important health and patient-centered outcomes. Thus, the panel recommends that the two-step approach be continued. However, given the potential benefits of a one-step approach, resolution of the uncertainties associated with its use would warrant revision of this conclusion.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84881240271&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84881240271&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 29

SP - 1

EP - 31

JO - NIH consensus and state-of-the-science statements

JF - NIH consensus and state-of-the-science statements

SN - 1553-0957

IS - 1

ER -