IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i21p7725-d433125.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Estimated Treatment Effects of Tight Glycaemic Targets in Mild Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Multiple Cut-Off Regression Discontinuity Study Design

Author

Listed:
  • David Song

    (Internal Medicine Service, Ballarat Base Hospital, Ballarat, Victoria 3350, Australia
    Dorevitch Pathology, Chemical Pathology, Melbourne, Victoria 3084, Australia
    School of Medicine, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria 3217, Australia)

  • James C Hurley

    (Internal Medicine Service, Ballarat Base Hospital, Ballarat, Victoria 3350, Australia
    Department of Rural Health|Melbourne Medical School, University of Melbourne, Ballarat, Victoria 3350, Australia)

  • Maryanne Lia

    (Peninsula Health, Melbourne, Victoria 3199, Australia)

Abstract

Background : We investigated the treatment effects of tight glycaemic targets in a population universally screened according to the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnant Study Groups (IADPSG)/World Health Organisation (WHO) gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) guidelines. As yet there, have been no randomized control trials evaluating the effectiveness of treatment of mild GDM diagnosed under the IADPSG/WHO diagnostic thresholds. We hypothesize that tight glycaemic control in pregnant women diagnosed with GDM will result in similar clinical outcomes to women just below the diagnostic thresholds. Methods : A multiple cut-off regression discontinuity study design in a retrospective observational cohort undergoing oral glucose tolerance tests (OGTT) ( n = 1178). Treatment targets for women with GDM were: fasting capillary blood glucose (CBG) of ≤5.0 mmol/L and the 2-h post-prandial CBG of ≤6.7 mmol/L. Regression discontinuity study designs estimate treatment effects by comparing outcomes between a treated group to a counterfactual group just below the diagnostic thresholds with the assumption that covariates are similar. The counterfactual group was selected based on a composite score based on OGTT plasma glucose categories. Results : Women treated for GDM had lower rates of newborns large for gestational age (LGA), 4.6% versus those just below diagnostic thresholds 12.6%, relative risk 0.37 (95% CI, 0.16–0.85); and reduced caesarean section rates, 32.2% versus 43.0%, relative risk 0.75 (95% CI, 0.56–1.01). This was at the expense of increases in induced deliveries, 61.8% versus 39.3%, relative risk 1.57 (95% CI, 1.18–1.9); notations of neonatal hypoglycaemia, 15.8% versus 5.9%, relative risk 2.66 (95% CI, 1.23–5.73); and high insulin usage 61.1%. The subgroup analysis suggested that treatment of women with GDM with BMI ≥30 kg/m 2 drove the reduction in caesarean section rates: 32.9% versus 55.9%, relative risk 0.59 (95%CI, 0.4–0.87). Linear regression interaction term effects between non-GDM and treated GDM were significant for LGA newborns ( p = 0.001) and caesarean sections ( p = 0.015). Conclusions : Tight glycaemic targets reduced rates of LGA newborns and caesarean sections compared to a counterfactual group just below the diagnostic thresholds albeit at the expense of increased rates of neonatal hypoglycaemia, induced deliveries, and high insulin usage.

Suggested Citation

  • David Song & James C Hurley & Maryanne Lia, 2020. "Estimated Treatment Effects of Tight Glycaemic Targets in Mild Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Multiple Cut-Off Regression Discontinuity Study Design," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(21), pages 1-14, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:21:p:7725-:d:433125
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/21/7725/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/21/7725/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Krista Riukula, 2023. "The effects of screening for gestational diabetes," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 65(4), pages 1931-1964, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:21:p:7725-:d:433125. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.