RESUMO
AIM: We assessed the association between ethnicity and the risk of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) in the Netherlands. METHODS: A cohort of 7815 women with known GDM status and ethnicity, including women of Sub-Saharan African ethnicity who are currently not identified as high-risk in guidelines. We compared GDM rates among participants of ethnicity to those of ethnic Dutch participants. We employed multivariable regression to correct for possible confounders, including maternal age, pre-pregnancy body mass index (BMI), and education. GDM prevalence and odds ratios based on ethnicity were the main outcome measures. RESULTS: The prevalence rates of GDM according to ethnicity were: Dutch 0.6%, South-Asian Surinamese 6.9%, African-Surinamese 3.5%, Antillean 1.0%, Turkish 1.0%, Moroccan 1.4%, Ghanaian 6.8%, Sub-Saharan African 3.5%, other Western 0.5% and other non-Western 2.8%. After adjustment for age, pre-pregnancy BMI, and education duration, compared with the reference Dutch-ethnicity population, adjusted odds ratios (aOR) for GDM were statistically significantly higher in South-Asian Surinamese (aOR 10.9; 95% Confidence Interval (CI), 4.7-25.0), African-Surinamese (4.3; 2.0-9.2), Ghanaian (6.5; 3.0-14.5), Sub-Saharan African (5.7; 2.0-16.0), and other non-Western women (4.5; 2.2-9.0). GDM was not significantly increased among Antillean (1.4; 0.2-10.3), Turkish (1.4; 0.4-4.2), Moroccan (1.8; 0.8-4.0), and other Western women (0.8; 0.3-2.2). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows for the first time in the Netherlands that women of Ghanaian or other Sub-Saharan African ethnicity have an increased risk of developing GDM than the Dutch. This calls for adaptation of the Dutch guidelines of screening high-risk groups for GDM and more awareness amongst obstetric caregivers.
Assuntos
Diabetes Gestacional/epidemiologia , Adulto , África , Estudos de Coortes , Etnicidade , Feminino , Humanos , Países Baixos , Gravidez , Estudos Prospectivos , Fatores de Risco , SurinameRESUMO
Research on and commercial development of the artificial pancreas (AP) continue to progress rapidly, and the AP promises to become a part of clinical care. In this report, members of the JDRF Artificial Pancreas Project Consortium in collaboration with the wider AP community 1) advocate for the use of continuous glucose monitoring glucose metrics as outcome measures in AP trials, in addition to HbA1c, and 2) identify a short set of basic, easily interpreted outcome measures to be reported in AP studies whenever feasible. Consensus on a broader range of measures remains challenging; therefore, reporting of additional metrics is encouraged as appropriate for individual AP studies or study groups. Greater consistency in reporting of basic outcome measures may facilitate the interpretation of study results by investigators, regulatory bodies, health care providers, payers, and patients themselves, thereby accelerating the widespread adoption of AP technology to improve the lives of people with type 1 diabetes.