This release accurately describes an observational study using second-hand data from another study which found that a relatively inexpensive blood test (HbA1c or A1C for short), commonly used to monitor diabetes, might help identify women at risk for getting gestational diabetes as early as the 10th week of pregnancy. The release does a good job of explaining that the disorder carries risks — including the development of adult type 2 diabetes long after birth — for both pregnant women and their newborns.
The release notes that the study does not scientifically demonstrate that measuring HbA1c levels in early pregnancy can in fact determine a woman’s later risk for gestational diabetes. On the down side, the release doesn’t mention what it would cost in dollars or potential over treatment to screen every women in the early weeks of pregnancy; offers no information about the overall prevalence and incidence of gestational diabetes or any details about the women whose records were studied; and waits until the last sentence to note that there also is no firm evidence that lowering HbA1c levels with diet and exercise before or in early pregnancy will actually reduce risk for gestational diabetes.
Public health and obstetrical associations estimate that 1 to 15% of all pregnant women in the U.S. develop gestational diabetes and no doubt a greater percentage worries they might. There are potentially serious health consequences to gestational diabetes for mother and child and although some mothers at higher than usual risk — for example, women with obesity — are screened early, most women have a screening blood glucose test later in pregnancy. Glucose and insulin levels are complicated to interpret later in pregnancy. The notion that earlier detection with a test that measures average glucose levels over time might lead to lowered rates of the disorder is seductive. But it’s also true that such a scenario is only speculation at this time. As a consequence, news releases about this topic are of fairly wide interest, but must be careful not to over promise.
The absence of cost information is unfortunate in this release. In general, the public has little experience of or understanding of the overall costs of routine, widespread screening. Sources put the cost of A1C screening at anywhere from $12 to $65. There are nearly 4 million live births in the U.S. each year, and many more pregnancies. Even if we use a $35 midpoint price, that’s $140 million just to screen for gestational diabetes. Worth it? Maybe. Particularly given that the glucose tolerance test given later in pregnancy has an average cost of $60 to $85, according to some sources. And the savings to be realized in potentially preventing gestational diabetes could be substantial. In any case, cost considerations are important in the overall scheme of health care delivery and limited health care dollars.
The release quantifies the results and potential benefits by noting that each 0.1 percent increase in HbA1c levels above 5.1 percent in early pregnancy was associated with a 22 percent higher risk for gestational diabetes.
The blood test itself is virtually harmless, and overall fairly reliable, but results can be skewed by a variety of unrelated diseases and lifestyle factors, resulting in false positives and negatives.
The release notes the observational nature of the data and the relatively small number of women overall in the two groups analyzed and compared. Readers don’t learn much about the population of women studied — age, race, number of pregnancies, socioeconomic status, comorbidities, etc. But given that the release makes clear more research would be needed to prove the association identified in the study, we give this a “satisfactory” rating.
No mongering, but no data about frequency of the disorder, either.
Although not explicit, it seems clear the research was funded by NIH.
There currently is no standardized screening test for identifying gestational diabetes in the first trimester. Earlier research into the usefulness of HbA1c testing for gestational diabetes in early pregnancy have been limited to high risk groups.
The release makes clear that this test is far from ready for use in clinical screening. It states:
The test is not currently recommended to diagnose gestational diabetes at any point in pregnancy.
The release is clear about the theoretical potential of the test to determine early risk, and eventually, the theoretical potential of lifestyle changes to modify that risk.
None here.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
I miss @HealthNewsRevu popping up in my feed. Loved seeing this one today.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/06/zombie-health-care-news/
#healthcare #journalism #ethics #conflictofinterest
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like