Michael J Paglia1, Donald R Coustan. 1. Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Women & Infants Hospital of Rhode Island, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a common complication of pregnancy. There has been controversy and debate about how to optimally diagnose GDM and whether treatment modifies outcomes. We review the current controversies in both the screening and diagnosis of GDM and the benefits of treating GDM. RECENT FINDINGS: Three major studies have been published in the past 2 years that have evaluated these issues. The goal of the Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes (HAPO) study was to determine the level of maternal glycemia at which adverse fetal/neonatal or maternal outcomes are impacted. Rather than a definitive cut-off, the study found that there was a continuous relationship between maternal glycemia and pregnancy outcomes. Two studies evaluated the effect of treating mild GDM on both maternal and neonatal outcomes. Each found a significant benefit with diagnosis and treatment. SUMMARY: Ideally, the results of the HAPO study will bring order to the current international confusion surrounding the diagnosis of GDM. Recently, the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups recommended new screening criteria for GDM based on the HAPO study. Professional organizations around the world are currently considering these recommendations.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a common complication of pregnancy. There has been controversy and debate about how to optimally diagnose GDM and whether treatment modifies outcomes. We review the current controversies in both the screening and diagnosis of GDM and the benefits of treating GDM. RECENT FINDINGS: Three major studies have been published in the past 2 years that have evaluated these issues. The goal of the Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes (HAPO) study was to determine the level of maternal glycemia at which adverse fetal/neonatal or maternal outcomes are impacted. Rather than a definitive cut-off, the study found that there was a continuous relationship between maternal glycemia and pregnancy outcomes. Two studies evaluated the effect of treating mild GDM on both maternal and neonatal outcomes. Each found a significant benefit with diagnosis and treatment. SUMMARY: Ideally, the results of the HAPO study will bring order to the current international confusion surrounding the diagnosis of GDM. Recently, the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups recommended new screening criteria for GDM based on the HAPO study. Professional organizations around the world are currently considering these recommendations.
Authors: Diana L Shuster; Linda J Risler; Bhagwat Prasad; Justina C Calamia; Jenna L Voellinger; Edward J Kelly; Jashvant D Unadkat; Mary F Hebert; Danny D Shen; Kenneth E Thummel; Qingcheng Mao Journal: Biochem Pharmacol Date: 2014-10-22 Impact factor: 5.858
Authors: Diana L Shuster; Linda J Risler; Chao-Kang J Liang; Kenneth M Rice; Danny D Shen; Mary F Hebert; Kenneth E Thummel; Qingcheng Mao Journal: J Pharmacol Exp Ther Date: 2014-06-04 Impact factor: 4.030
Authors: Diana L Shuster; Laura M Shireman; Xiaosu Ma; Danny D Shen; Shannon K Flood Nichols; Mahmoud S Ahmed; Shannon Clark; Steve Caritis; Raman Venkataramanan; David M Haas; Sara K Quinney; Laura S Haneline; Alan T Tita; Tracy A Manuck; Kenneth E Thummel; Linda Morris Brown; Zhaoxia Ren; Zane Brown; Thomas R Easterling; Mary F Hebert Journal: J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2019-11-19 Impact factor: 3.126
Authors: Diana L Shuster; Laura M Shireman; Xiaosu Ma; Danny D Shen; Shannon K Flood Nichols; Mahmoud S Ahmed; Shannon Clark; Steve Caritis; Raman Venkataramanan; David M Haas; Sara K Quinney; Laura S Haneline; Alan T Tita; Tracy A Manuck; Kenneth E Thummel; Linda Morris Brown; Zhaoxia Ren; Zane Brown; Thomas R Easterling; Mary F Hebert Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2020-01-25 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: José Roberto da Silva; Paulo Sérgio Borges; Karine F Agra; Isabelle Albuquerque Pontes; João Guilherme Bezerra Alves Journal: Trials Date: 2013-11-19 Impact factor: 2.279