GDM: Abnormal Glucose Tolerance During Pregnancy (2008)

Citation:
 
Study Design:
Class:
- Click here for explanation of classification scheme.
Quality Rating:
Research Purpose:

To investigate whether different degrees of maternal glucose intolerance were associated with the risk of spontaneous preterm birth.

 

Inclusion Criteria:
  • Pregnancies between January 1, 1996 - July 31, 1998.
  • Screened by a 50-g, 1 hour oral glucose tolerance test between 24 to 28 gestation weeks at the Northern California Kaiser Permanente Medical Care program.
  • Spontaneous birth - defined as an infant born at less than 37 gestation weeks with at least 1 of the following: spontaneous labor, preterm rupture of membranes, or incompetent cervix.
  • The study was approved by the Human Subjects Committee of the Kaiser Foundation Research Institute
Exclusion Criteria:
  • The Kaiser Permanente Diabetes Registry of Northern California was searched to identity and exclude pregnancies with recognized chronic (i.e., nongestational) diabetes before the index pregnancy.
  • The Diabetes Registry is a longitudinal surveillance and systematically excludes women with GDM.
  • Women were considered to have diabetes before the index pregnancy if they were identified by the Diabetes Registry at least 9 months before the delivery date.
  • Pregnancies ending in indicated preterm birth were excluded from the analyses.

 

Description of Study Protocol:

Recruitment Method was not detailed

Design : Historical cohort

Blinding used:  not applicable 

Intervention:  not applicable

Statistical Analysis

  • X 2 tests were used to compare differences in the distribution of age and race-ethnicity groups by glucose tolerance status categories and all characteristics by spontaneous preterm birth.
  • Age-adjusted comparisons of characteristics by glucose tolerance status were performed by the Mantel-Haenszel method.
  • The age-adjusted spontaneous preterm birth incidence and 95% confidence intervals (CIS) were calculated by the direct method with the age distribution of the entire population used as the standard.
  • Relative risks (RRs) were estimated by odds ratios in multiple logistic regression to assess the association of spontaneous preterm birth with glucose tolerance status.
  • The association between level of pregnancy glycemia and spontaneous preterm birth was assessed with a test for trend for the ordered variable (glucose tolerance category) using the logistic analogue to the Mantel extension test (i.e., a test based on the significance of a single trend variable coded as the category of exposure).
  • A test for interaction in the logistic regression model was performed to assess whether the association between preterm birth and glucose category differed by preeclampsia, largeness for gestational age, smallness for gestational age, or polyhydramnios.
  • Statistical significance was defined as a P value less than .05.
  • SAS 6.11(SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) was used for all analyses.

 

Data Collection Summary:

Timing of Measurements

Dependent Variables

Diagnostic criteria

  • The laboratory database, a clinical database that captures all laboratory tests and results performed at the Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program of Northern California regional laboratory, was searched to obtain screening plasma glucose results of the 50-g, 1-hour oral glucose tolerance test and the 100-g, 3-hour oral glucose tolerance diagnostic test for GDM as well as the dates on which these test were performed.
  • Gestational age at screening was calculated by the difference between the infant’s gestational age at birth and the date when the mother performed the screening test       

Glucose tolerance status was categorized as:

 

 

Normal screening

1-hour plasma glucose less than 140 mg/dL

Abnormal screening

1-hour plasma glucose of at least 140 mg/dL with a normal diagnostic 1g ,3-hour oral glucose tolerance test result

Carpenter-Coustan

plasma glucose measurements during the diagnostic oral glucose tolerance test  met the thresholds but were lower than the National Diabetes Data Group thresholds

Gestational Diabetes Mellitus(GDM)

As defined by the National Diabetes Data Group criteria(at least 2 plasma glucose values during a 100-g, 3-hour oral glucose tolerance test at or higher than the National Diabetes Data Group plasma glucose thresholds: fasting, 105 mg/dL; 1 hour, 190 mg/dL; 2 hour, 165 mg/dL; 3 hour,145 mg/dL).

  • Spontaneous preterm birth-an infant born at least 37 gestation weeks with at least one of the following: (1) spontaneous labor; (2) preterm premature rupture of membranes, or (3) incompetent cervix

Independent Variables

  • Age-<25;25-34; > 35
  • Race-ethnicity-White, Hispanic, Asian, Black, other/unknown
  • Pregnancy-induced hypertension
  • Preeclampsia or eclampsia
  • Chronic hypertension
  • Placenta privia
  • Abruptio placentae
  • Oligohydramnios
  • Polyhydramnios
  • Infection of the amniotic cavity
  • Fetal growth restriction
  • Small for gestational age
  • Large for gestational age
  • Macrosomia (birth weight > 4000g)
  • Cesarean delivery
  • Induced labor

Control Variables

 

Description of Actual Data Sample:

Initial N: 46,230 pregnancies

Attrition (final N):  46,230 pregnancies

Age: See Table 1

Ethnicity: See Table 1

Other relevant demographics:

Anthropometrics

Location: Division of Research at Kaiser Permanente, Oakland; and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kaiser Foundation Hospital, Bellflower, California.

Summary of Results:

Women with pregnancies with normal screening were younger and more likely to be white than women with pregnancies with higher degrees of glycemia (Table 1).

Table 1. Characteristics of the 46,230 Pregnancies by Glucose Tolerance Status, The Kaiser Permanente Northern California Gestational Diabetes Registry, 1996-1998.

-

Normal               screening          (n=38,515)

(%)

Abnormal screening (n=5352)

(%)

Carpenter-

Coustan (n=840)

(%)

GDM

(n=1523)

(%)

 

P

Age(y)

-

-

-

-

<.001*

<25

27.1

14.5

11.1

8.5

-

25-34

57.6

61.9

60.0

60.1

-

> 35

15.3

23.6

28.9

31.3

-

Race-ethnicity

-

-

-

-

<.001¶

White

52.1

46.2

41.3

38.1

-

Hispanic

19.5

21.4

24.1

22.9

-

Asian

15.1

22.7

25.4

27.5

-

Black

7.9

4.6

4.3

5.6

-

Other/unknown

5.3

5.1

5.0

5.9

-

Pregnancy-induced hypertension

1.9

2.2

3.6

3.4

<.001¶

Preeclampsia or eclampsia

2.9

3.8

5.6

5.8

<.001¶

Chronic hypertension

0.6

1.1

2.0

2.5

<.001¶

Placenta previa

0.1

0.5

0.8

0.6

.36¶

Abruptio placenta

0.8

1.1

0.5

1.0

.46¶

Oligohydramnios

2.9

3.0

3.6

1.5

.06¶

Polyhydramnios

0.3

0.3

0.7

0.7

<.005

Infection of the amniotic cavity

3.5

3.9

3.8

3.5

.36 ¶

Fetal growth restriction

1.3

0.9

1.3

1.3

.36¶

Small for gestational age

10.4

8.2

8.1

9.5

.005¶

Large for gestational age

9.2

12.2

19.4

15.4

<.001¶

Macrosomia (birth weight > 4000g)

13.9

15.8

23.4

16.8

<.001 ¶

Cesarean delivery

14.7

18.7

26.5

22.6

<.001

Induced labor

14.5

14.0

13.5

18.4

<.001¶

Spontaneous preterm birth

4.0

5.0

6.7

6.7

<.001

GDM=gestational diabetes mellitus

*By X 2 test.

¶ Mantel-Haenszel age-adjusted.

 

 

Women with pregnancies with spontaneous preterm birth were significantly more likely to be of nonwhite race and to have pregnancy-induced hypertension, preeclampsia-eclampsia, chronic hypertension, placenta previa, abruption placentae, oligohydramnios, polyhydraminos, infection of amniotic cavity, or fetal growth restriction and less likely to have large for gestational age and macrosomic infants (Table 2). 

Table 2. Characteristics of the 46,230 Pregnancies by Spontaneous Preterm Birth Status. The Kaiser Permanente Northern California Gestational Diabetes Registry, 1996-1998. 

-

Spontaneous preterm birth (n=1956)

(%)

Term infant (n=44.274)

(%)

 

P

Age( > 35y)

15.9

16.8

0.4

Race-ethnicity (white)

45.3

51.0

<.001

Pregnancy-induced hypertension

3.0

2.0

<.01

Preeclampsia or eclampsia

13.9

2.6

<.001

Chronic hypertension

1.9

0.7

<.001

Placenta previa

3.0

0.3

<.001

Abruptio placenta

5.8

0.6

<.001

Oligohydramnios

4.2

2.9

<.001

Polyhydramnios

0.5

0.3

.04

Infection of the amniotic cavity

6.1

3.5

<.001

Fetal growth restriction

4.6

1.1

<.001

Small for gestational age

9.0

9.9

0.19

Large for gestational age

8.3

9.9

0.02

Macrosomia (birth weight > 4000g)

0.3

14.8

<.001

Induced labor

15.4

14.6

.30

Cesarean delivery

26.2

15.2

<.001

* By X2 test

 

In a model adjusted for age and ethnicity the risk of spontaneous preterm births increased with increasing degrees of maternal glycemia and was 28% higher in abnormal screening pregnancies, 70% higher in Carpenter-Coustan pregnancies, and 61 % higher in GDM pregnancies relative to pregnancies with normal screenings (Table 3). 

Table 3. Association of Maternal Glucose Tolerance Status With Spontaneous Preterm Delivery Among the 46,230 Pregnancies, The Kaiser Permanente Northern California Gestational Diabetes Registry, 1996-1998 

Glucose tolerance status

No. of cases

Model 1(RR)*

95% CI

Model 2¶

95% CI

Normal screening

1527

Reference

-

Reference

-

Abnormal screening

251

1.28

1.12, 1.46

1.23

1.08, 1.41

Carpenter-Coustan ♦

45

1.70

1.29, 2.24

1.53

1.16, 2.03

GDM §

133

1.61

1.30, 1.99

1.42

1.15, 1.77

RR= relative risk ; CI= confidence interval ; GDM= gestational diabetes mellitus.

 

*Adjusted for age and race-ethnicity

 

¶ Adjusted for age, race-ethnicity, preeclampsia-eclampsia-pregnancy-induced hypertension, chronic hypertension, polyhydramnios, and birth weight for gestational age (categorized in three levels; small for gestational age, normal, and large for gestational age, with normal as the reference group).

 

♦ Meets the Carpenter-Coustan criteria for GDM according to diagnostic 3-hour oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) but does not meet the National Diabetes Data Group(NDDG) criteria for GDM.


 § Meets the NDDG criteria for GDM according to diagnostic 3-hour OGTT.

Other Findings

 

Author Conclusion:

Conclusion:

  • The risk of spontaneous preterm birth increased with increasing levels of pregnancy glycemia. This association was independent of perinatal complications that could have triggered early delivery.  
  • The association between maternal glycemia and spontaneous preterm birth was not explained by an infant’s birth weight due to maternal glycemia because the association did not vary by birth weight by birth weight for gestational age and the association persisted after adjusting for an infant’s weight.  
  • Although maternal conditions such as preeclampsia, pregnancy-induced hypertension, chronic hypertension, and polyhydramnios were significantly associated with both maternal glycemia and spontaneous preterm birth, the direct association between maternal glycemia and spontaneous preterm birth was only slightly attenuated and remained statistically significant after adjusting for these conditions. 

 Limitations:

  • This study was limited to recorded data, and therefore we were unable to control for other potential confounding variables of the association between preterm birth and maternal glycemia such as prepregnancy weight and parity which have previously been reported to be associated with both preterm birth and GDM.
  • The Kaiser Permanente Medical Care program of Northern California membership represents approximately 30% of the surrounding population and is representative of the population living in the same geographical area demographically, ethnically, and socioeconomically, except the membership under-represents the very poor and the very wealthy.
Funding Source:
Reviewer Comments:

In a historical cohort study, data on exposure and occurrence of disease are collected after the events have taken place—the cohorts of exposed and non-exposed subjects are assembled from existing records, or health care registries. Studies of this kind provide a better opportunity than one time cross sectional studies to examine whether certain behaviors do in fact lead to (or cause) the disease.

The limitations and critique of the study, as stated by the authors appear to be very appropriate.

 

Quality Criteria Checklist: Primary Research
Relevance Questions
  1. Would implementing the studied intervention or procedure (if found successful) result in improved outcomes for the patients/clients/population group? (Not Applicable for some epidemiological studies) Yes
  2. Did the authors study an outcome (dependent variable) or topic that the patients/clients/population group would care about? Yes
  3. Is the focus of the intervention or procedure (independent variable) or topic of study a common issue of concern to dieteticspractice? Yes
  4. Is the intervention or procedure feasible? (NA for some epidemiological studies) Yes
 
Validity Questions
1. Was the research question clearly stated? Yes
  1.1. Was (were) the specific intervention(s) or procedure(s) [independent variable(s)] identified? Yes
  1.2. Was (were) the outcome(s) [dependent variable(s)] clearly indicated? Yes
  1.3. Were the target population and setting specified? Yes
2. Was the selection of study subjects/patients free from bias? ???
  2.1. Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified (e.g., risk, point in disease progression, diagnostic or prognosis criteria), and with sufficient detail and without omitting criteria critical to the study? Yes
  2.2. Were criteria applied equally to all study groups? Yes
  2.3. Were health, demographics, and other characteristics of subjects described? Yes
  2.4. Were the subjects/patients a representative sample of the relevant population? ???
3. Were study groups comparable? Yes
  3.1. Was the method of assigning subjects/patients to groups described and unbiased? (Method of randomization identified if RCT) N/A
  3.2. Were distribution of disease status, prognostic factors, and other factors (e.g., demographics) similar across study groups at baseline? Yes
  3.3. Were concurrent controls or comparisons used? (Concurrent preferred over historical control or comparison groups.) N/A
  3.4. If cohort study or cross-sectional study, were groups comparable on important confounding factors and/or were preexisting differences accounted for by using appropriate adjustments in statistical analysis? Yes
  3.5. If case control study, were potential confounding factors comparable for cases and controls? (If case series or trial with subjects serving as own control, this criterion is not applicable.) N/A
  3.6. If diagnostic test, was there an independent blind comparison with an appropriate reference standard (e.g., "gold standard")? N/A
4. Was method of handling withdrawals described? Yes
  4.1. Were follow-up methods described and the same for all groups? Yes
  4.2. Was the number, characteristics of withdrawals (i.e., dropouts, lost to follow up, attrition rate) and/or response rate (cross-sectional studies) described for each group? (Follow up goal for a strong study is 80%.) N/A
  4.3. Were all enrolled subjects/patients (in the original sample) accounted for? Yes
  4.4. Were reasons for withdrawals similar across groups? N/A
  4.5. If diagnostic test, was decision to perform reference test not dependent on results of test under study? N/A
5. Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias? Yes
  5.1. In intervention study, were subjects, clinicians/practitioners, and investigators blinded to treatment group, as appropriate? N/A
  5.2. Were data collectors blinded for outcomes assessment? (If outcome is measured using an objective test, such as a lab value, this criterion is assumed to be met.) Yes
  5.3. In cohort study or cross-sectional study, were measurements of outcomes and risk factors blinded? Yes
  5.4. In case control study, was case definition explicit and case ascertainment not influenced by exposure status? N/A
  5.5. In diagnostic study, were test results blinded to patient history and other test results? N/A
6. Were intervention/therapeutic regimens/exposure factor or procedure and any comparison(s) described in detail? Were interveningfactors described? N/A
  6.1. In RCT or other intervention trial, were protocols described for all regimens studied? N/A
  6.2. In observational study, were interventions, study settings, and clinicians/provider described? N/A
  6.3. Was the intensity and duration of the intervention or exposure factor sufficient to produce a meaningful effect? N/A
  6.4. Was the amount of exposure and, if relevant, subject/patient compliance measured? N/A
  6.5. Were co-interventions (e.g., ancillary treatments, other therapies) described? N/A
  6.6. Were extra or unplanned treatments described? N/A
  6.7. Was the information for 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6 assessed the same way for all groups? N/A
  6.8. In diagnostic study, were details of test administration and replication sufficient? N/A
7. Were outcomes clearly defined and the measurements valid and reliable? ???
  7.1. Were primary and secondary endpoints described and relevant to the question? Yes
  7.2. Were nutrition measures appropriate to question and outcomes of concern? N/A
  7.3. Was the period of follow-up long enough for important outcome(s) to occur? N/A
  7.4. Were the observations and measurements based on standard, valid, and reliable data collection instruments/tests/procedures? Yes
  7.5. Was the measurement of effect at an appropriate level of precision? Yes
  7.6. Were other factors accounted for (measured) that could affect outcomes? ???
  7.7. Were the measurements conducted consistently across groups? Yes
8. Was the statistical analysis appropriate for the study design and type of outcome indicators? Yes
  8.1. Were statistical analyses adequately described and the results reported appropriately? Yes
  8.2. Were correct statistical tests used and assumptions of test not violated? Yes
  8.3. Were statistics reported with levels of significance and/or confidence intervals? Yes
  8.4. Was "intent to treat" analysis of outcomes done (and as appropriate, was there an analysis of outcomes for those maximally exposed or a dose-response analysis)? N/A
  8.5. Were adequate adjustments made for effects of confounding factors that might have affected the outcomes (e.g., multivariate analyses)? Yes
  8.6. Was clinical significance as well as statistical significance reported? Yes
  8.7. If negative findings, was a power calculation reported to address type 2 error? N/A
9. Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? Yes
  9.1. Is there a discussion of findings? Yes
  9.2. Are biases and study limitations identified and discussed? Yes
10. Is bias due to study's funding or sponsorship unlikely? Yes
  10.1. Were sources of funding and investigators' affiliations described? Yes
  10.2. Was the study free from apparent conflict of interest? Yes