Gestational DiabetesNCT00295659
An RCT to Evaluate Incidence, Cost and Clinical Outcomes Using 75 vs 100g. Screening Methods for Gestational Diabetes
An observational study of Gestational Diabetes, run by Canadian Diabetes Association at 1 site in Canada.
Trial summary
Diabetes in pregnancy or gestational diabetes (GDM) is a condition that, if left untreated, may lead to complications for the mother and her baby. It is still not known which is the best method to diagnosis GDM. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 50 years, women onlyHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Gestational Diabetes
- How many people
- 5,800 participants
- Where
- 1 siteCanada
- Study dates
- Jan 2001to Sep 2004
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 50 years
- Women only
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult
Who may be able to join
- all women presenting for glucose screening in pregnancy between January 2001 and June, 2004 at a tertiary care university hospital setting
Who cannot join
- insufficient knowledge of French or English; known diabetes; refusal to participate; error in protocol; not fasting when presenting for study test
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Canada1 site
Royal Victoria Hospital, McGill University Health Centre
Montreal, Quebec, H3A 1A1
About this study
Official title: What is the Optimal Method for Screening and Diagnosis of Gestational Diabetes? An RCT to Evaluate Incidence, Cost-Effectiveness and Clinical Outcomes Using Three Methods
Diabetes in pregnancy or gestational diabetes (GDM) is a condition that, if left untreated, may lead to complications for the mother and her baby. It is still not known which is the best method to diagnosis GDM. The goal of this study is to compare three well-accepted methods for diagnosis of GDM (using either 75 g or 100 g in the glucose tolerance test) and determine which method is the easiest and least expensive to use in relation to the reference method used over the last 20 years. The goal is to see if they can equally predict the healthy outcome of the pregnant mother and her newborn.
Read the detailed description
Title: What is the optimal method for screening and diagnosis of gestational diabetes? A randomised clinical trial to evaluate incidence of GDM, cost-effectiveness and clinical outcomes using three methods.
Objectives: 1) To evaluate the incidence and cost-effectiveness of screening and diagnosis of GDM by comparing three different methods. 2) To evaluate the following by each method: population characteristics; gestational age at screening, diagnosis and initiation of treatment; and maternal and neonatal outcomes.
Rationale: There is no consensus on the best method to identify cases of GDM, numerous screening and diagnostic procedures are employed worldwide. Recently the Canadian Guidelines recommended a new set of values based on normative data, yet these data have not been validated against a large population and compared with diagnostic rates and outcomes head to head against the long accepted values of O'Sullivan and Mahan. In addition, the question of cost in a Canadian healthcare setting has never been addressed yet it is a significant societal concern. The results of this study would help clarify these issues using evidence-based methodology.
Outline: Pregnant women referred as outpatients for glucose testing for GDM will be given a study information sheet by obstetrics staff. At the time of booking the test they will be reminded of the study and to arrive fasting. On the day of glucose testing, the research assistant will invite patients to participate, obtain consent and perform randomisation into one three groups:
(1) 50g screen ± 100g 3h GTT; (2) 50g screen ± 75g 2h GTT; or (3) 75g 2h GTT. During the glucose test, study participants will also be asked information on health and costs incurred for the process of glucose testing. If the screen or GTT needs to be repeated at some time during the pregnancy, patients will remain in the same study arm as originally assigned. Interpretation of results by patient's caregivers and referral to the diabetes clinic as needed will continue as usual. Data will be analysed using appropriate bivariate and multivariate methods for GDM incidence, direct and indirect costs of glucose testing, and maternal and infant outcomes.
Significance to DM: This study will evaluate the diagnostic efficacy, cost-effectiveness and clinical outcomes of three methods. A one-step procedure may be better tolerated compared to a two-step approach with respect to number of visits, amount of drink and length of testing. Furthermore, diagnosis by a single test may avoid unnecessary delay in initiation of therapy and still identify those patients at risk for type 2 DM.
- Conditions
- Gestational Diabetes
- Keywords
- Gestational Diabetes, Screening, Cost-effectiveness, obstetrical outcomes
- Medical subject headings
- Diabetes, Gestational
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted24 Feb 2006 (estimated)
- Study startJan 2001
- Study completionSep 2004
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Gestational DiabetesStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
- Time perspective
- Other
- Enrolment
- 5,800 participants
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Canadian Diabetes Association
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Investigators
- Sara J Meltzer, MD, FRCPC, Principal investigator, McGill Unversity, Faculty of Medicine, Dept. of Medicine and Obstetrics and Gynecology
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00295659
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- CDA 200665
- Status last verified
- Sep 2005
- First submitted
- 22 Feb 2006
- Last updated
- 18 Oct 2006
- Results posted
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 18 Oct 2006. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- What is the Optimal Method for Screening and Diagnosis of Gestational Diabetes? An RCT to Evaluate Incidence, Cost-Effectiveness and Clinical Outcomes Using Three Methods
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00295659
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- CDA 200665
- Conditions
- Gestational Diabetes
- Keywords
- Gestational Diabetes, Screening, Cost-effectiveness, obstetrical outcomes
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 5,800 participants
- Lead sponsor
- Canadian Diabetes AssociationUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Jan 2001
- Study completion
- Sep 2004
- First posted
- 24 Feb 2006 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Diabetes in pregnancy or gestational diabetes (GDM) is a condition that, if left untreated, may lead to complications for the mother and her baby. It is still not known which is the best method to diagnosis GDM. The goal of this study is to compare three well-accepted methods for diagnosis of GDM (using either 75 g or 100 g in the glucose tolerance test) and determine which method is the easiest and least expensive to use in relation to the reference method used over the last 20 years. The goal is to see if they can equally predict the healthy outcome of the pregnant mother and her newborn.
Detailed description
Title: What is the optimal method for screening and diagnosis of gestational diabetes? A randomised clinical trial to evaluate incidence of GDM, cost-effectiveness and clinical outcomes using three methods.
Objectives: 1) To evaluate the incidence and cost-effectiveness of screening and diagnosis of GDM by comparing three different methods. 2) To evaluate the following by each method: population characteristics; gestational age at screening, diagnosis and initiation of treatment; and maternal and neonatal outcomes.
Rationale: There is no consensus on the best method to identify cases of GDM, numerous screening and diagnostic procedures are employed worldwide. Recently the Canadian Guidelines recommended a new set of values based on normative data, yet these data have not been validated against a large population and compared with diagnostic rates and outcomes head to head against the long accepted values of O'Sullivan and Mahan. In addition, the question of cost in a Canadian healthcare setting has never been addressed yet it is a significant societal concern. The results of this study would help clarify these issues using evidence-based methodology.
Outline: Pregnant women referred as outpatients for glucose testing for GDM will be given a study information sheet by obstetrics staff. At the time of booking the test they will be reminded of the study and to arrive fasting. On the day of glucose testing, the research assistant will invite patients to participate, obtain consent and perform randomisation into one three groups:
(1) 50g screen ± 100g 3h GTT; (2) 50g screen ± 75g 2h GTT; or (3) 75g 2h GTT. During the glucose test, study participants will also be asked information on health and costs incurred for the process of glucose testing. If the screen or GTT needs to be repeated at some time during the pregnancy, patients will remain in the same study arm as originally assigned. Interpretation of results by patient's caregivers and referral to the diabetes clinic as needed will continue as usual. Data will be analysed using appropriate bivariate and multivariate methods for GDM incidence, direct and indirect costs of glucose testing, and maternal and infant outcomes.
Significance to DM: This study will evaluate the diagnostic efficacy, cost-effectiveness and clinical outcomes of three methods. A one-step procedure may be better tolerated compared to a two-step approach with respect to number of visits, amount of drink and length of testing. Furthermore, diagnosis by a single test may avoid unnecessary delay in initiation of therapy and still identify those patients at risk for type 2 DM.
Study design
- Time perspective
- Other
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 50 years
- Sex
- Female only
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- all women presenting for glucose screening in pregnancy between January 2001 and June, 2004 at a tertiary care university hospital setting
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- insufficient knowledge of French or English; known diabetes; refusal to participate; error in protocol; not fasting when presenting for study test
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Primary outcome
Not reported in the source record.
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 18 Oct 2006.
Related trials for Gestational Diabetes
Not yet recruiting
STRONG: SMART Trial
Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM)
Not yet recruiting
A Study to Lower Blood Pressure One Year After Childbirth in Women Who Had Preeclampsia
Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes, Cardiovascular Diseases
Recruiting
RIGHTEST iFree 2 CGM in Pregnant Women With Diabetes Study
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1 Diabetes, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2
RecruitingEarly Phase 1
Role of ET-1, Physical Activity, and Sedentary Behavior in Microvascular Dysfunction Following GDM
Gestational Diabetes, Endothelial Dysfunction
RecruitingEarly Phase 1
Metformin for the Treatment of Microvascular Dysfunction After Gestational Diabetes
Gestational Diabetes
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Sara J Meltzer, MD, FRCPC principal investigator
McGill Unversity, Faculty of Medicine, Dept. of Medicine and Obstetrics and Gynecology
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Gestational Diabetes, run by Canadian Diabetes Association at 1 site in Canada.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 18 Oct 2006. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Canada. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 18 Oct 2006.