Comparing IADPSG and NICE Diagnostic Criteria for GDM in Predicting Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To compare the performance of diagnostic criteria for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) proposed by the International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) with those endorsed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in predicting adverse pregnancy outcomes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We performed a secondary data analysis of the Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes (HAPO) study participants in five study centers. Logistic regression analyses were performed, and Akaike information criterion were applied for the comparison of different statistical prediction models. We further analyzed the performance by four racial/ethnic subgroups, namely, Whites, Hispanics, Asians, and Blacks. RESULTS Among all, IADPSG criteria diagnosed 267 (4.1%) more women with GDM, but predicted primary caesarean section (CS) and large for gestational age (LGA) and neonatal adiposity better than did NICE criteria after adjustment for potential confounders. Among Whites, IADPSG criteria diagnosed 65 (2.5%) more subjects with GDM and predicted LGA and neonatal adiposity better, but predicted hypertensive disorders, primary CS and clinical neonatal hypoglycemia worse. Among Hispanics, the IADPSG criteria diagnosed 203 (12.1%) more with GDM but performed better in predicting hypertensive disorders, LGA, neonatal adiposity, and hyperinsulinemia. Among Asians, the IADPSG criteria diagnosed 34 (2.0%) fewer subjects with GDM but predicted hypertensive disorders better in the unadjusted model. In Blacks, IADPSG criteria diagnosed 34 (10.5%) more women with GDM. CONCLUSIONS IADPSG criteria appear to be more favorable than NICE for identification of adverse pregnancy outcomes among Hispanic and Asian women, while they are comparable to NICE among White women.