GDM: Pharmacologic Therapy (2008)

Citation:
 
Study Design:
Class:
- Click here for explanation of classification scheme.
Quality Rating:
Research Purpose:

The purpose of this position statement is to convey recommendations regarding gestational diabetes mellitus.

Inclusion Criteria:
Article inclusion methods not described. The recommendations in this paper are based on the evidence reviewed in the following publications:  Diabetes Care 21 (Suppl. 1):S5-S19, 1998; and the Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop-Conference on Gestational Diabetes Mellitus. Diabetes Care 21 (Suppl. 2):B1-B167, 1998.
Exclusion Criteria:
Not described.
Description of Study Protocol:

Recruitment:

The recommendations in this paper are based on the evidence reviewed in the following publications:  Diabetes Care 21 (Suppl. 1):S5-S19, 1998; and the Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop-Conference on Gestational Diabetes Mellitus. Diabetes Care 21 (Suppl. 2):B1-B167, 1998.

Design:

Consensus Report.

Blinding Used (If applicable):

Not applicable.

Intervention (If applicable):

Not applicable.

Statistical Analysis:

Not stated

Data Collection Summary:

Timing of Measurements:

Not stated

Dependent Variables:

Not applicable

Independent Variables:

Not applicable

Control Variables:

Not applicable

Description of Actual Data Sample:

Initial N:  5 references cited.

Attrition (Final N):  5

Age:  Not applicable.

Ethnicity: Not applicable

Other Relevant Demographics:

Anthropometrics:

Location:

 

Summary of Results:

Definition:

GDM is defined as any degree of glucose intolerance with onset or first recognition during pregnancy.

Detection & diagnosis:

High Risk:

Risk assessment for GDM should be undertaken at the first prenatal visit. Women with clinical characteristics consistent with a high risk for GDM should undergo glucose testing as soon as feasible:

If GDM is not present with initial screening, they should be retested 24-28 wk gestation.

Marked obesity

Personal history of GDM

Glycosuria

Strong family history of Diabetes

Low-risk:

Women meeting ALL these characteristics:

Age <25 yr

Weight normal before

   Pregnancy

   Member of ethnic group with low prevalence of GDM

   No known diabetes in 1st  degree relatives.

   No history of abnormal glucose tolerance

   No history of poor obstetrical outcome

Diagnosis of GDM:

If confirmed on the following day precludes the need for a glucose challenge:

OGTT needed if diagnosis is not made by above method.

FPG:  >126 mg/dl (7.0 mmol/L)

Random plasma glucose:  >200 mg/dl

(11.1 mmol/L)

One-Step Approach:

Perform OGTT without prior screening.

May be cost-effective in high-risk patients or populations such as Native-Americans.

Two-Step Approach:

Screening 1-hr after 50-g glucose load  >140 gm/dl (7.8 mmol/L) identifies ~80% of women with GDM

  >130 gm/dl (7.2 mmol/L) identifies ~90% of women with GDM

Perform a diagnostic OGTT on subset of women exceeding glucose threshold value.

Diagnosis of GDM with a 100-g or 75-g glucose load:

Plasma glucose (mg/dl)
  100-g 75-g
Fasting >95  >95 
1-hr >180 >180
2-hr >155 >155
3-hr >140  

Diagnosis is made when >2 values are abnormal.

Obstetrical & Perinatal considerations:

FBG >105 mg/dl (5.8 mmol/L) is associated with an increased risk of intrauterine fetal death during the last 4-8 wk gestation. 

GDM increases the risk for:

    Fetal macrosomia

    Neonatal hypoglycemia

    Jaundice

    Polycythemia

    Hypocalcemia

    Maternal hypertensive disorders

    Need for cesarean delivery

Monitoring:

Daily SBGM superior to intermittent office monitoring of plasma glucose.

Limited evidence that postprandial monitoring is superior to preprandial monitoring.

Urine ketone monitoring is helpful to detect insufficient kcal.

Maternal surveillance of blood pressure and urine protein.

Management:

1.  Nutrition counseling by RD with adequate kcal for appropriate weight gain and to meet maternal blood glucose goals.

2.  Participate in moderate physical activity

3.  Obese women (BMI>30)

     30-33% kcal restriction (~25 kcal/kg actual weight)

     35-40% carbohydrates

4.  Insulin therapy if MNT goals are not met: 

     FBG <95 mg/dl or FPG<105 mg/dl

     1-hr postprandial blood glucose: <140 mg/dl or plasma glucose: <155 mg/dl

     2-hr postprandial blood glucose: <120 mg/dl or plasma glucose: <130 mg/dl

Long-term therapeutic considerations:

6 wk postpartum women should be reevaluated for diabetes mellitus and education on lifestyle modifications to decrease risk for developing type 2 diabetes mellitus or treated if diagnosed postpartum.

Author Conclusion:
None stated - position statement conveyed all recommendations.
Funding Source:
Not-for-profit
Reviewer Comments:

Consensus document from the American Diabetes Association. Specific reommendations given for diagnosis, interventions and follow up. None of the original research was discussed in the document.

Quality Criteria Checklist: Review Articles
Relevance Questions
  1. Will the answer if true, have a direct bearing on the health of patients? Yes
  2. Is the outcome or topic something that patients/clients/population groups would care about? Yes
  3. Is the problem addressed in the review one that is relevant to dietetics practice? Yes
  4. Will the information, if true, require a change in practice? Yes
 
Validity Questions
  1. Was the question for the review clearly focused and appropriate? Yes
  2. Was the search strategy used to locate relevant studies comprehensive? Were the databases searched and the search termsused described? ???
  3. Were explicit methods used to select studies to include in the review? Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified andappropriate? Wereselectionmethods unbiased? ???
  4. Was there an appraisal of the quality and validity of studies included in the review? Were appraisal methodsspecified,appropriate, andreproducible? ???
  5. Were specific treatments/interventions/exposures described? Were treatments similar enough to be combined? ???
  6. Was the outcome of interest clearly indicated? Were other potential harms and benefits considered? Yes
  7. Were processes for data abstraction, synthesis, and analysis described? Were they applied consistently acrossstudies and groups? Was thereappropriate use of qualitative and/or quantitative synthesis? Was variation in findings among studies analyzed? Were heterogeneity issued considered? If data from studies were aggregated for meta-analysis, was the procedure described? ???
  8. Are the results clearly presented in narrative and/or quantitative terms? If summary statistics are used, are levels ofsignificance and/or confidence intervals included? Yes
  9. Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? Are limitations ofthe review identified anddiscussed? Yes
  10. Was bias due to the review's funding or sponsorship unlikely? Yes