==== Front Ann Saudi MedAnn Saudi MedAnnals of Saudi Medicine0256-49470975-4466King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre 2640979710.5144/0256-4947.2015.222asm-3-222Original ArticleGestational diabetes among Saudi women: prevalence, risk factors and pregnancy outcomes Alfadhli Eman Mohammed aOsman Eman Naguib bBasri Taghreed Hamza cMansuri Nazneen Sameer dYoussef Magda Hassanein eAssaaedi Somayah Ahmed fAljohani Bushra Awad c a Department of Medicine, Taibha University, Madinah, Saudi Arabia b Department of Internal Medicine Taibha University, Madinah, Saudi Arabia c Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Madinah Maternity and Children Hospital, Madinah, Saudi Arabia d Department of Pediatrics, Taibha University, Madinah, Saudi Arabia e Department of Physiology, Taibha University, Madinah, Saudi Arabia f Diabetic Center, Ministry of Health, Madinah, Saudi ArabiaCorrespondence: Dr. Eman Alfadhli, Department of Medicine, Taibha University, PO Box 420 Madinah, Saudi Arabia, T: 966-44-844-3195, F: 966-44-844-3195, alfadhli2005@yahoo.comMay-Jun 2015 35 3 222 230 Copyright © 2015, Annals of Saudi Medicine2015This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES The prevalence of gestational diabetes (GDM) has increased recently worldwide, mainly due to adoption of the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Group (IADPSG) criteria. The objectives of this study were to determine the prevalence of GDM in Saudi women and to assess risk factors and pregnancy outcomes using the IADPSG criteria. DESIGN AND SETTING A prospective descriptive study of pregnant Saudi women presenting at the Maternity and Children Hospital, Medina, Saudi Arabia, between October 2011 and June 2014. METHODS Fasting plasma glucose, glycated hemoglobin, and random plasma glucose concentrations were obtained for all participants at the first antenatal visit. In women with normal results, screening for GDM was performed at 24 to 28 weeks of gestation, with a 75-g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). Women who had GDM were treated with diet, exercise, and insulin as needed. Pregnancy outcomes were recorded after delivery. Multiple logistic regression was used to assess possible risk factors for GDM. RESULTS Early screenings showed abnormal glucose in 211 of 954 women (22.1%). In 445 women, the OGTT showed GDM in 183 women (39.4%). GDM cases identified by OGTT and by early screening increased the rate of GDM to 51% (292 women). Older maternal age, higher body mass index, higher blood pressure, past GDM, history of delivering a malformed child, and family history of diabetes were the main risk factors for GDM. GDM increased the risk of neonatal hypoglycemia (OR 9.353), low Apgar score (OR 5.546), and induction of labor (OR 2.33). The newborns of GDM mothers had a higher birth weight: 3043 g vs. 2890 g in the non-GDM group (P=.004). Other maternal and neonatal outcomes were not significantly different between the two groups. CONCLUSION The prevalence of GDM is high among Saudi women. Timely and effective treatment reduces perinatal morbidity and improves outcomes. ==== Body Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is defined as any degree of glucose intolerance with the onset or first recognition during pregnancy.1,2 Previously, the prevalence of GDM was reported to range from 1 to 14%, depending on the population studied and the diagnostic tests employed.3,4 However, the prevalence of GDM has increased since 2010 by 2- to 3-fold, ranging from 8.9 to 53.4%.5–15 This increment is mainly due to the adoption of the new criteria proposed by the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) for the screening and diagnosis of GDM. The IADPSG recommends universal screening for GDM and requires a single glucose value above the cut-off value (instead of two) during the OGTT for diagnosis. Lower cut-off values are commended for fasting and 2-hour glucose.16 GDM has been associated with adverse maternal and neonatal sequelae.17,18 The Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes (HAPO) study found significant associations between adverse pregnancy outcomes and higher levels of maternal glucose, with no defined levels beyond which the risk increased.18 Thus, early diagnosis of GDM is essential to reduce maternal and fetal morbidity and to allow for subsequent attempts to prevent or delay the onset of type 2 diabetes. There have been no studies examining the prevalence of GDM in Saudi women, using the IADPSG recommendations. 19–25 This prospective study was undertaken to determine the prevalence of GDM using the IADPSG criteria and to determine risk factors for and pregnancy outcomes with GDM among Saudi women. METHODS Design and study population Consecutive pregnant women treated in the antenatal service at the Maternity and Children Hospital in Medina, Saudi Arabia, from October 2011 to June 2014, were screened for inclusion. Exclusion criteria included pre-existing diabetes, non-Saudi nationality, unwillingness to deliver at the study hospital, multiple pregnancies, and chronic diseases and drugs that might affect pregnancy outcomes. The study was approved by the ethical committees of King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and the Maternity and Children Hospital, Medina, Saudi Arabia. All of the participants provided written informed consent. Demographic data were obtained from all of the women at the first antenatal visit using a questionnaire that consisted of details on medical and obstetric history, which included: age, parity, previous diagnosis of GDM, gestational hypertension or preeclampsia, family history of diabetes, history of polycystic ovary syndrome, hirsutism, and previous histories of delivering a large baby (birth weight ≥4000 g), stillbirth, malformed babies, and unexplained neonatal death. All of the women were examined, and weight, height, body mass index (BMI) (weight in kilograms [kg] divided by height in meters squared) and blood pressure were recorded. Women were examined for the presence of acanthosis nigricans. Urine analyses were performed in all of the women. Procedures Universal screenings for GDM were performed in the participants according to IADPSG recommendations. At the first antenatal visit, measurements of fasting plasma glucose (FPG), glycated hemoglobin (HbA1C), and random plasma glucose were obtained from the participants (early screenings). Overt diabetes in pregnancy was diagnosed if one of the following was found; FPG ≥7.0 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) or A1C ≥6.5% (DCCT/UKPDS standardized) or random plasma glucose ≥11.1 mmol/L (200 mg/dL) plus confirmation. If fasting plasma glucose was <7.0 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) but ≥5.1 mmol/L (92 mg/dL), GDM was diagnosed. In women with normal results, a two hour 75-g oral glucose test (OGTT) was performed at 24 to 28 weeks of gestation. However, women with multiple risk factors were screened with the OGTT at the first antenatal visit. GDM was diagnosed if one or more the following values equaled or exceeded its threshold: FPG, 1-h plasma glucose, 2-h plasma glucose: 5.1 mmol/L (92 mg/dL), 10 mmol/L (180 mg/dL), and 8.5 mmol/L (153 mg/dL), respectively. The women who did not have GDM were followed up by obstetricians monthly until the third trimester of pregnancy and then every two weeks during the third trimester of pregnancy. For the GDM group, antenatal care occurred at visits every two weeks during the first and second trimesters (if diagnosed early) and then weekly during the third trimester. A specialist team, consisting of obstetricians, an internal medicine physician, a diabetes educator, and a dietician, followed up the GDM patients. Glucose values were evaluated weekly by self-monitoring of blood glucose. Every woman with GDM was provided with a glucometer. Glycemic targets were based on ADA recommendation: fasting glucose 5.2 mmol/L (≤95 mg/dL), 1-h post-meal 7.8 mmol/L (≤140 mg/dL) or 2-h post-meal 6.7 mmol/L (≤120 mg/dL).26 If the glucose level was not controlled, blood glucose was evaluated twice or three times weekly. If the glucose values were persistently greater than glycemic target on 3 or more occasions over a 1- to 2-week period, insulin was prescribed by a physician. All measurements of serum glucose were performed by the glucose oxidase method. Formal laboratory measurements of HbA1C were performed at study entry and were measured by standardized HPLC. Pregnancy outcomes Maternal and neonatal outcomes recorded after delivery included gestational age at delivery, polyhydramnios, premature delivery, premature rupture of membranes, type of delivery, reason for cesarean delivery (if any), induction of labor (if any), lacerations, shoulder dystocia and intensive care admission. Fetal/neonatal outcomes included abortion, stillbirth, neonatal death, birth weight, Apgar score at 5 min, neonatal hypoglycemia, hyperbilirubinemia, congenital malformation, respiratory distress syndrome, fetal injury and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission. The diagnosis of polyhydramnios was based on clinical suspicion and confirmation by findings on ultrasonography if the amniotic fluid index exceeded 24 cm, or a single deepest pocket of fluid was at least 8 cm. Preterm deliveries referred to deliveries before 37 weeks of gestation. Stillbirth was defined as delivery of a dead baby at or after 22 weeks of pregnancy, while abortion referred to delivery of a dead baby before 22 weeks. Premature rupture of the membranes was defined as a rupture of the membranes prior to the beginning of the labor and before 37 weeks of pregnancy. Neonatal hypoglycemia was defined as a blood glucose level less than 2.2 mmol/L (40 mg/dL) on 2 or more occasions during the first 24 hours after birth. Apgar scores at 5 min >7 were considered acceptable. Macrosomia was defined as a birth weight of 4000 g or more. Low birth weight was defined as a birth weight less than 2500 g. Hyperbilirubinemia was defined as at least 1 laboratory report of a bilirubin level of 220 μmol/L or greater or neonatal treatment with phototherapy. Respiratory distress syndrome was defined as the need for supplemental oxygen in the nursery at 4 hours after birth. The presence of major congenital malformations was defined as an abnormality that required surgery and/or resulted in permanent injury. Statistics Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software (version 16.0; SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Fisher’s exact test and chi-square analysis were performed to test for differences in the proportions of categorical variables between the two groups. The t test (two-tailed) was used to determine the significance of differences between two continuous variables. Logistic regression analysis was used to assess the relationships between variables and to adjust for potential confounders. The level P<.05 was used as the cut-off value for significance. RESULTS From October 2011 to June 2014, 1250 pregnant women were screened, of whom only 1124 women met the inclusion criteria. The mean age of the participants was 30.5 (6.1) years old (range 16–49 years), and mean weight and BMI at the first antenatal visit were 70.5 (16.6) kg and 29.3 (6.6) kg/m2, respectively. Multiparity was present in 56.8% of the participants and a family history of diabetes in 60.8%. GDM prevalence Early screenings for GDM completed in 954 women found abnormal glucose levels in 211 women (22.1%). OGTT completed in 465 women revealed GDM in 183 (39.4%). Of those who completed the OGTT, 103 of the 465 (22.2%) were positive at the early screening. Notably, 20 patients with negative OGTT had high fasting glucose on early screening that was diagnostic of GDM, and two patients with negative OGTT ultimately developed GDM later on based on high blood glucose levels on self-monitoring. Of the total of 573 women who completed the required screening, early screening and OGTT, 292 women (51%) were diagnosed with hyperglycemia in pregnancy (Figure 1). Overt diabetes constituted 8.9% (26 women), early GDM, i.e., GDM diagnosed at or before 20 weeks of gestation constituted 34.8% (101), and late GDM constituted 56.4% (165). The prevalence of GDM was recalculated based on the previous ADA criteria, before adoption of the IADPSG criteria,4 and was found to be 16.2% vs. 51% by the IADPSG criteria. The increase in GDM prevalence when applying the IADPSG criteria was mainly a consequence of a single abnormal glucose value in 89.7% of the cases. The percentages of GDM cases diagnosed by each glucose measurement during OGTT when fasting, 1-h, and 2-h values were considered sequentially, were 48%, 25% and 27%, respectively. Thirty-seven women with GDM (13%) required insulin therapy to control their blood glucose. The mean insulin dose was 21.93 units per day. Risk factors for GDM The prevalence of GDM increased with older maternal age, weight, BMI, and blood pressure. In addition, GDM in previous pregnancies, multiparity, previous recurrent abortions, previous preterm deliveries, a history of delivering a malformed child, and a family history of diabetes were more common in the GDM group than in the non-GDM group. The presence of acanthosis nigricans and glycosuria was associated with an increased prevalence of GDM (Table 1). However, in the multiple logistic regression analysis, only age, BMI, prior GDM, a history of delivering a malformed child, diastolic BP elevation and a family history of diabetes were found to affect GDM prevalence significantly (Table 2). As expected, the means of fasting glucose, 1 hour and 2 hour glucose levels post-OGTT and mean HbA1c were significantly higher in the GDM group than in the non-GDM group (Table 1). There were no differences between the two groups in history of delivering a large baby, stillbirth, or neonatal death. Similarly, there were no differences in histories of gestational hypertension, preeclampsia, history of PCO, or hirsutism. Pregnancy outcomes Pregnancy outcomes were obtained from the 573 women who completed the required screening. Gestational diabetes was found to increase the risk of neonatal hypoglycemia (OR 9.353 [95% CI 2.79–31.25, P=.000]), a low Apgar score at 5 minutes, (OR 5.546 [95% CI 1.579–19.482, P=.003]), induction of labor (OR 2.33 (95% CI 1.102–4.962, P=.025]) and CS delivery (OR 1.571 [95% CI 1.062– 2.326, P=.029]). In addition, the newborns of the GDM mothers had heavier birth weights: 3043 g vs. 2890 g in the non-GDM group (P=.004). The number of infants requiring NICU admission was higher among those born to GDM mothers than among those born to non-GDM mothers; however, the differences did not reach statistical significance. Other maternal and neonatal outcomes were not significantly different between the two groups (Table 3). DISCUSSION To our knowledge, this study was the first prospective study examining the prevalence of GDM and its outcomes in Saudi Arabia using the new proposed IADPSG criteria. The main finding was a very high prevalence of GDM among Saudi women. Increases in the GDM prevalence by 2- to 3-fold have been reported worldwide when applying the IADPSG criteria5–15 (Table 4) because the IADPSG recommends universal screening, requires only a single abnormal glucose value during OGTT to diagnose GDM and uses lower cutoff values for fasting and 2-hour glucose. The other reasons for the high prevalence of GDM in Saudi women could likely be attributed to the rising incidence of obesity, the high prevalence of type 2 diabetes and the custom of Saudi women to conceive at an older age. In the women who completed the OGTT, the prevalence of GDM when recalculated using the previous ADA criteria4 was 16.2% (vs. 51% by the IADPSG criteria). This finding indicated a 3.17-fold increase in the GDM prevalence when applying the IADPSG criteria. The prevalence of GDM in Saudi women was reported previously as 12.5%.20,22 Recently, Al-Rubeaan et al25 reported a higher prevalence of GDM among Saudi women of 36.6%, when applying partial IADPSG criteria. The latter study was a community household-based study, and screening for GDM was based on fasting glucose levels only, without performing OGTT, which explains the lower prevalence of GDM in the latter study than in the current study.25 In our study, fasting glucose was diagnostic in approximately half of the GDM cases (48%), and 1-h and 2-h OGTT contributed to the remaining cases of GDM, in 25% and 27%, respectively. Thus, although performing an FPG is a good choice as an initial step to screen for GDM in our population, to decrease the economic burden of universal screening, as suggested by Agarwal et al,6 the 1-h and 2-h glucose concentrations during the OGTT are important for GDM diagnosis because they were diagnostic in more than half of the GDM cases. In accordance with previous studies,5,27 we found an increase in GDM prevalence by the IADPSG criteria that was mainly the result of a single abnormal glucose value during the OGTT in nearly 90% of the cases. The increase in GDM prevalence by the IADPSG criteria will be a major burden on the health care system. In addition, labelling a large number of women with GDM raises concerns about the consequences of the increased “medicalization” of pregnancies previously classified as normal, which could increase the likelihood of interventions. In contrast, the expected benefits to these pregnancies and offspring include reduced rates of large-for-gestational-age births, and they could provide an opportunity to help more pregnant women to avoid diabetes in the future. For these reasons, there remains much controversy on the adoption of the IADPSG criteria worldwide. In January 2011, the ADA standards of care endorsed the IADPSG recommendations.28 Recently, the Endocrine Society and the WHO endorsed the IADPSG recommendations. 29,30 In contrast, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists31 and the National Institutes of Health (NIH)32 have not endorsed these recommendations. In the 2014 Standards of Care, ADA readdressed the NIH consensus along with the IADPSG guidelines because there were insufficient data to demonstrate strongly the superiority of one strategy over the other.33 The prevalence of GDM increased significantly with increasing age, BMI, and diastolic blood pressure. In addition, a history of GDM in previous pregnancies, a history of delivering a malformed child, and a family history of diabetes were other risk factors for GDM. Multiparity, previous recurrent abortions, previous preterm deliveries, the presence of acanthosis nigricans and glycosuria were associated with an increased risk of GDM; however, these factors were no longer significant after adjusting for confounding variables. More than two thirds (68.2%) of the women with GDM had a family history of diabetes, which was significantly different from the non-GDM women (54.9%) (P=.002). The extremely high prevalence of a family history of diabetes in the studied cohort reflected the high prevalence of type 2 diabetes in Saudi Arabia.25, 34 Acanthosis nigricans was present in one third of our GDM patients, and its presence was highly indicative of abnormal glucose tolerance because 76% of women with acanthosis nigricans were diagnosed with GDM. Consistent with this finding, Yılmaz E et al reported a higher prevalence of GDM among women with acanthosis nigricans.35 Although multiparity was more common in the GDM group than in the non-GDM group, it was found not to affect GDM prevalence significantly in multiple logistic regression analysis. This finding could be explained by increased parity often being associated with other risk factors for GDM, such as increased age, body weight and abdominal fat. Although macrosomia complicates pregnancies with GDM,17 we did not find that women with histories of macrosomia in their previous pregnancies had GDM more commonly in their current pregnancies because the occurrence of macrosomia is not attributed solely to abnormal glycemic control, and maternal age, parity, ethnicity and obesity are possible contributory risk factors for excessive fetal growth.36 It was shown earlier that untreated or undiagnosed gestational diabetes mellitus carries significant risks for perinatal morbidity, and timely and effective treatment can substantially improve outcomes.37,38 In the current study, we found a lower rate of perinatal morbidity, which could be explained by the effective treatment and follow-up of women with GDM. Another possible reason for the lower perinatal morbidity in the present study could be related to the milder form of GDM we identified using the IADPSG criteria. We found no significant differences in most of the maternal outcomes between the GDM and non-GDM groups except for the higher frequencies of induction of labor and CS delivery in the GDM group (Table 3). However, repeated cesarean deliveries were more frequent in the GDM group than in the non-GDM group. In addition, the diagnosis of GDM itself might incur unnecessary risk for interventions, as suggested by the Toronto Tri-Hospital Study.39 The rate of shoulder dystocia among the GDM group in this study was very low at 0.5%. This finding was in accordance with the HAPO study, in which shoulder dystocia was one of the least common outcomes, affecting only 1.3% of the women.18 Similarly, in our study there were no significant differences in most of the neonatal outcomes between the GDM and non-GDM groups, except for a higher rate of neonatal hypoglycemia, a low Apgar score at 5 minutes and heavier mean birth weight of the infants born to GDM mothers (Table 3). The infants of GDM mothers were 9 times more likely to experience hypoglycemia than the infants of non GDM mothers. The basis for neonatal hypoglycemia is maternal hyperglycemia, which leads to excess fetal glucose exposure and fetal hyperinsulinemia. Subsequently, neonatal hypoglycemia can develop after birth when there is insufficient glucose available in the newborn circulation to surmount the baby’s hyperinsulinemia. The reported prevalence of clinical hypoglycemia in infants born to GDM mothers is 2.1%–12%.18,37,40 Despite, the mean birth weight of the infants born to GDM mothers being significantly heavier than that of the infants born to non-GDM mothers (3043 g vs. 2890, respectively; P=.004), the frequency of macrosomia did not differ significantly between the two groups. Fetal overgrowth might have been partially controlled in the current study by effective antenatal care. As shown above, the rate of hypoglycemia was higher in the infants of GDM mothers than in those of non-GDM mothers; however, there was no difference in the rate of macrosomia between the two groups. In agreement with this finding, two clinical trials subjected pregnant women with varying degrees of abnormal glucose tolerance test results to either active management of their hyperglycemia or routine antenatal care, and both trials showed a significant reduction in the rate of macrosomia in the treatment group but no effect on the rate of hypoglycemia.37,38 In these two studies, the mean birth weight of the infants born to the treated GDM mothers was 3302 to 3335 g, which was heavier than the mean birth weight in the present study.37,38 When compared to infants born to mothers without GDM, those born to mothers with GDM had a higher risk of having a lower Apgar score at 5 minutes (OR 5.546 [95% CI 1.579–19.482, P=.003]). The number of infants who needed NICU admission was higher among infants born to GDM mothers than among those born to non-GDM mothers; however, the differences did not reach statistical significance. In the Australian Carbohydrate Intolerance Study in Pregnant Women (ACHOIS), the reported rate of NICU admission among the infants of GDM women was 71%, which was higher than in the present study.37 The strengths of our study included its prospective, population-based nature, the universal screening and the analysis of large amounts of data of maternal characteristics and pregnancy outcomes separately. A limitation of the study was that it was conducted in only one region of Saudi Arabia, so the high prevalence of GDM in Saudi women cannot be generalized. CONCLUSION The prevalence of GDM is high among Saudi women. Older maternal age, higher BMI, higher blood pressure, a history of GDM in previous pregnancies, a history of delivering malformed child, and a family history of diabetes were the main risk factors. Timely and effective treatment of gestational diabetes reduces perinatal morbidity and improves outcomes. In populations at high risk for GDM, as in Saudi Arabia, universal screening is recommended to reduce maternal and fetal morbidity and to allow for subsequent attempts to prevent or delay the onset of type 2 diabetes. Larger studies from different regions of Saudi Arabia are needed to confirm our results. Acknowledgments This work was supported by grant number AT-30-362 from King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The authors would like to thank Mrs. Amaal Alfadhli, Yasmin Bokhari, Khadija Almohna, Afrah Turkistani, and Fatimah Almohana for their great assistance in the research clinic and data collection. Conflict of interest The author has no conflicts of interest. Figure 1 Enrollment, screening and follow-up of the study participants. Table 1 Prevalence of GDM risk factors. Variable Non-GDM (n=281) GDM (n=292) 95% CI P value Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Age 29.37 (6.11) 32.69 (6.08) −04.35 – −2.30 .001 Weight 65.66 (15.25) 77.57 (16.93) −14.61–−9.21 .001 BMI 27.27 (6.01) 32.30 (6.66) −6.11–−3.94 .001 Height 154.90 (5.95) 154.94 (6.62) −1.10–1.03 1.953 Systolic BP 115.59 (14.01) 119.68 (13.07) −6.40 – −1.78 .001 Diastolic BP 65.90 (7.65) 68.35 (8.33) −3.82 – −1.08 .001 Fasting OGTT 4.28 (0.36) 5.05 (0.84) −0.89 – −0.66 .001 1 hour OGTT 7.16 (1.28) 9.47 (2.24) −2.64 – −1.98 .001 2 hour OGTT 6.12 (1.33) 8.63 (2.31) −2.85 – −2.17 .001 HbA1C 5.35 (0.60) 5.77 (0.82) −0.55 – −0.26 .001 Number (%) Number (%) 95% CI P value Odd ratio Multiparitya 117 (46.1) 210 (68.2) 1.77–3.54 .001 2.50 History of recurrent abortionb 99 (39.0) 178 (58.0) 1.53–3.03 .001 2.16 GDM in prior pregnancies 14 (5.9) 60 (20.5) 2.24–7.61 .001 4.139 Acanthosis nigricans 24 (10.5) 76 (27.0) 1.92–5.11 .001 3.16 Family history of DM 140 (54.9) 210 (68.2) 1.24–2.43 .002 1.76 History of preterm delivery 15 (6.4) 34 (11.6) 1.01–3.59 .043 1.90 Glycosuria 8 (4.6) 25 (11.3) 1.16–6.02 .017 2.64 History of stillbirth 9 (4) 22 (7.6) 0.89–4.38 .096 1.97 History of neonatal deaths 10 (4.3) 14 (4.8) 0.48–2.57 .83 1.12 History of large baby 15 (6.4) 30 (10.2) 0.86–3.14 .157 1.65 History of malformed baby 6 (2.6) 20 (6.8) 1.08–6.96 .027 2.75 History of gestational HTN 10 (4.3) 24 (8.2) 0.93–4.25 .076 1.99 History of preeclampsia 6 (2.6) 15 (5.1) 0.77–5.31 .180 2.03 History of medical illness 41 (16.5) 61 (20.1) 0.82–1.97 .321 1.27 History of hirsutism 12 (4.8) 15 (4.8) 0.46–2.21 1.001 1.01 History of PCO 15 (6.0) 24 (7.8) 0.67–2.58 .505 1.32 a Defined as 2 or more previous deliveries. b Defined as 2 or more previous abortions. Table 2 Risk factors for gestational diabetes (multiple logistic regression). Variables Odds Ratio 95% CI P value Age 1.07 1.02–1.12 .003 Hx of malformed child 8.39 1.00–69.94 .049 Family history of diabetes 1.88 1.07–3.30 .028 Body mass index 1.08 1.03–1.14 .000 Diastolic BP elevation 1.04 1.00–1.08 .042 History of prior gestational diabetes 2.76 1.09–6.99 .032 Table 3 Maternal and neonatal outcomes. Outcome variable Non-GDM GDM P value Odd ratio 95% CI Maternal outcomes Polyhydramnios 5.0 5.5 .051 0.627 0.603–41.441 GA at delivery-wk 38.20 (1.96) 38.15 (1.758) .834 – −0.382–0.473 Preterm delivery 13.3 9.2 .219 0.666 0.365–1.216 PROM 13.3 9.2 .219 0.666 0.365–1.216 Induction of labor 5.2 11.4 .025 2.338 1.102–4.962 SC delivery 36.8 47.8 .029 1.571 1.062–2.326 Primary SC delivery 63.9 46.5 .044 0.491 0.250–0.961 Lacerations 5.1 5.1 1.000 0.992 0.419–2.348 Shoulder dystocia 0.5 0.4 1.000 0.819 0.051–13.17 ICU admission 1 2.5 .301 2.532 0.505–12.69 Neonatal outcomes Abortion 2.1 2.1 1.000 0.983 0.260–3.712 Stillbirth 2.9 2.3 .753 0.784 0.172–3.573 Neonatal death 0.9 4.4 .214 4.861 0.558–42.31 Fetal injury 0 0.9 .502 0.537 0.490–0.589 Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes 1.1 7.8 .003 5.546 1.579–19.482 Birth weight – g 2890 (510) 3043 (541) .004 – −0.254– −0.049 Macrosomia 2.1 3.1 .761 1.492 0.430–5.176 Low birth weight 15.9 12.9 .402 0.788 0.454–1.368 Hypoglycaemia 1.6 13.6 .000 9.353 2.79–31.25 Hyperbilirubinemia 7.1 10.8 .224 1.574 0.773–3.204 Congenital malformation 4.3 7 .282 1.667 0.690–4.025 RDS 6.1 6.6 1.000 1.093 0.483–2.471 NICU admission 18.4 26.1 .076 1.566 0.975–2.515 Results are given as the means (SD) or percentages (%). Preterm delivery refers to delivery before 37 weeks of gestation; PROM, premature ruptures of membranes; macrosomia, defined as birth weight of 4000 g or more; low birth weight defined as birth weight less than 2500 g; RDS: respiratory distress syndrome. Table 4 Prevalence of GDM using IADPSG criteria in different parts of the world. Country Prevalence of GDM Italy5 53.4 Saudi Arabiaa 51 United Arab Emirates6 37.7 Norway10b 31.5 Mexico14 30.1 Australia9 25.6 Japan12 23.6 Italy8 20 Australia13 13 Sir Lanka7 8.9 a Present study; b Used modified IADPSG criteria. ==== Refs REFERENCES 1 Metzger BE Coustan DR Summary and recommendations of the Fourth International Workshop-Conference on Gestational Diabetes Mellitus. The Organizing Committee Diabetes care 1998 21 B161 9704245 2 Bevier WC Jovanovic-Peterson L Peterson CM Pancreatic disorders of pregnancy. Diagnosis, management, and outcome of gestational diabetes Endocrinology and metabolism clinics of North America 1995 24 1 103 38 7781621 3 Jovanovic L Pettitt DJ Gestational diabetes mellitus JAMA: the journal of the American Medical Association 2001 286 20 2516 8 11722247 4 Association AAD Gestational diabetes mellitus Diabetes Care 2004 27 1 s88 s90 14693936 5 Lapolla A Dalfrà M Ragazzi E De Cata A Fedele D New International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) recommendations for diagnosing gestational diabetes compared with former criteria: a retrospective study on pregnancy outcome Diabetic Medicine 2011 28 9 1074 7 21658125 6 Agarwal MM Dhatt GS Shah SM Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Simplifying the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy diagnostic algorithm using fasting plasma glucose Diabetes Care 2010 33 9 2018 20 20519664 7 Dahanayaka N Agampodi S Ranasinghe O Jayaweera P Wickramasinghe W Adhikari A Inadequacy of the risk factor based approach to detect gestational diabetes mellitus Ceylon Medical Journal 2012 57 1 5 9 22453704 8 Lacaria ECS Ghio A Lemmi P Battini L Resi V Volpe L Di Cianni G Bertolotto A Del Prato S Epidemiologic Implications of the New Diagnostic Criteria for Gestational Diabetes IDF 2011, World Diabetes Congress 4–8 December 2011 9 Elizabeth Hutton GM Allan C Soldatos G Changing Prevalence of GDM Post Adoption of the New Proposed International Accociation of the Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Group (IADPSG) Guideline ADS-ADEA 2012 10 Jenum AK M⊘rkrid K Sletner L Vange S Torper JL Nakstad B Impact of ethnicity on gestational diabetes identified with the WHO and the modified International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups criteria: a population-based cohort study European journal of endocrinology 2012 166 2 317 24 22108914 11 Mission J Ohno M Yanit K Cheng Y Caughey A 257: Gestational diabetes screening with the new IADPSG 2 hour glucose tolerance test vs the 1 hour glucose challenge test: a cost-effectiveness analysis American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2012 206 1 S126 12 Morikawa M Yamada T Akaishi R Nishida R Cho K Minakami H Change in the number of patients after the adoption of IADPSG criteria for hyperglycemia during pregnancy in Japanese women Diabetes research and clinical practice 2010 90 3 339 20870307 13 Moses RG Morris GJ Petocz P San Gil F Garg D The impact of potential new diagnostic criteria on the prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus in Australia Medical Journal of Australia 2011 194 7 338 21470082 14 Reyes-Muñoz E Parra A Castillo-Mora A Ortega-González C Effect of the diagnostic criteria of the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups on the prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus in urban Mexican women: a cross-sectional study Endocrine Practice 2012 18 2 146 51 21856596 15 Sacks DA Hadden DR Maresh M Deerochanawong C Dyer AR Metzger BE Frequency of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus at Collaborating Centers Based on IADPSG Consensus Panel–Recommended Criteria The Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (HAPO) Study Diabetes care 2012 35 3 526 8 22355019 16 Panel IC International association of diabetes and pregnancy study groups recommendations on the diagnosis and classification of hyperglycemia in pregnancy Diabetes Care 2010 33 3 676 82 20190296 17 Kjos SL Buchanan TA Gestational diabetes mellitus New England journal of medicine 1999 341 23 1749 56 10580075 18 Metzger B Lowe L Dyer A Trimble E Chaovarindr U Coustan D Hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcomes New England Journal of Medicine 2008 358 19 1991 2002 18463375 19 Gasim T Gestational diabetes mellitus: maternal and perinatal outcomes in 220 Saudi women Oman Medical Journal 2012 27 2 140 22496940 20 Al-Rowaily M Abolfotouh M Predictors of gestational diabetes mellitus in a high-parity community in Saudi Arabia EMHJ 2010 16 6 21 Al-Hakeem MM Pregnancy outcome of gestational diabetic mothers: Experience in a tertiary center Journal of Family and Community Medicine 2006 13 2 55 23012105 22 Ardawi M Nasrat HA Jamal HS Al-Sagaaf HM Mustafa BE Screening for gestational diabetes mellitus in pregnant females Saudi medical journal 2000 21 2 155 11533772 23 El Mallah K Narchi H Kulaylat N Shaban M Gestational and pre-gestational diabetes: comparison of maternal and fetal characteristics and outcome International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics 1997 58 2 203 9 9252256 24 Khwaja SS Al-Suleiman SA Al-Sibai MH Screening for gestational diabetes in a teaching hospital in Saudi Arabia Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1989 29 3 209 11 2604649 25 Al-Rubeaan K Al-Manaa HA Khoja TA Youssef AM Al-Sharqawi AH Siddiqui K A community-based survey for different abnormal glucose metabolism among pregnant women in a random household study (SAUDI-DM) BMJ Open 2014 4 8 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005906 26 Association AD Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2010 Diabetes Care 2010 33 Supplement 1 S11 S61 10.2337/dc10-S011 20042772 27 Benhalima K Hanssens M Devlieger R Verhaeghe J Mathieu C Analysis of pregnancy outcomes using the new IADPSG recommendation compared with the carpenter and coustan criteria in an area with a low prevalence of gestational diabetes International journal of endocrinology 2013 2013 28 Association AD Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus Diabetes Care 2011 34 Supplement 1 S62 S9 10.2337/dc11-S062 21193628 29 Blumer I Hadar E Hadden DR Jovanovič L Mestman JH Murad MH Diabetes and Pregnancy: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 2013 98 11 4227 49 10.1210/jc.2013-2465 24194617 30 Organization WH Diagnostic criteria and classification of hyperglycaemia first detected in pregnancy 2013 31 Practice Bulletin No. 137: Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Obstetrics & Gynecology 2013 122 2, PART 1 406 16 10.1097/01.AOG.0000433006.09219.f1 23969827 32 Health NIo National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference: Diagnosing Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Conference 2013 33 Association AD Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2014 Diabetes Care 2014 37 Supplement 1 S14 S80 10.2337/dc14-S014 24357209 34 Al-Nozha MM Al-Maatouq MA Al-Mazrou YY Al-Harthi SS Arafah MR Khalil MZ Diabetes mellitus in Saudi Arabia Saudi medical journal 2004 25 11 1603 10 15573186 35 Yılmaz E Kelekci K Kelekci S Skin tag and acanthosis nigricans: do they have a predictive value for gestational diabetes mellitus? Experimental and Clinical Endocrinology and Diabetes 2011 119 7 419 21472660 36 Casey BM Lucas MJ McIntire DD Leveno KJ Pregnancy outcomes in women with gestational diabetes compared with the general obstetric population Obstetrics & Gynecology 1997 90 6 869 73 9397092 37 Crowther CA Hiller JE Moss JR McPhee AJ Jeffries WS Robinson JS Australian Carbohydrate Intolerance Study in Pregnant Women (ACHOIS) Trial Group Effect of treatment of gestational diabetes mellitus on pregnancy outcomes N Engl J Med 2005 352 24 2477 86 15951574 38 Landon MB Spong CY Thom E Carpenter MW Ramin SM Casey B A multicenter, randomized trial of treatment for mild gestational diabetes New England Journal of Medicine 2009 361 14 1339 48 19797280 39 Sermer M Naylor CD Farine D Kenshole AB Ritchie J Gare DJ The Toronto Tri-Hospital Gestational Diabetes Project. A preliminary review Diabetes Care 1998 21 B33 42 9704225 40 Al-Khalifah R Al-Subaihin A Al-Kharfi T Al-Alaiyan S AlFaleh K Neonatal short-term outcomes of gestational diabetes mellitus in Saudi mothers: A retrospective cohort study Journal of Clinical Neonatology 2012 1 1 29 24027682