Application of One-Step IADPSG Versus Two-Step Diagnostic Criteria for Gestational Diabetes in the Real World: Impact on Health Services, Clinical Care, and Outcomes.

<bold>Purpose Of Review: </bold>This paper seeks to summarize the impact of the one-step International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) versus the two-step gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) criteria with regard to prevalence, outcomes, healthcare delivery, and long-term maternal metabolic risk.<bold>Recent Findings: </bold>Studies demonstrate a 1.03-3.78-fold rise in the prevalence of GDM with IADPSG criteria versus baseline criteria. Women with GDM by IADPSG criteria have more adverse pregnancy outcomes than women with normal glucose tolerance (NGT). Treatment of GDM by IADPSG criteria may be cost effective. Use of the fasting glucose as a screen before the 75-g oral glucose tolerance test to rule out GDM with fasting plasma glucose (FPG) < 4.4 (80 mg/dl) and rule in GDM with FPG ≥ 5.1 mmol/l (92 mg/dl) reduces the need for OGTT by 50% and its cost and inconvenience. The prevalence of postpartum abnormal glucose metabolism is higher for women with GDM diagnosed by IADPSG criteria versus that for women with NGT. Data support the use of IADPSG criteria, if the cost of diagnosis and treatment can be controlled and if lifestyle can be optimized to reduce the risk of future diabetes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]