GDM: Weight Management (2001)

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

To review the available information on the mechanism of ketogenesis, the effect of diets of differing degrees of caloric restriction, the advisability of caloric restriction in GDM based on present knowledge, and directions for future research.

Inclusion Criteria:

Article inclusion methods not described.  Feeding studies included subjects who were:

  • Obese (>120% DBW)
  • 30 to 31 wk gestation
Exclusion Criteria:
None specifically mentioned.
Description of Study Protocol:

Recruitment:  12 women with gestational diabetes were followed for a 2 wk period in clinical research center of University of Washington Hospital.

Design:  Review of 2 feeding studies.

Blinding Used (if applicable):  not applicable

Intervention (if applicable):  Study 1 compared the affect of kcal restriction on glycemic control and Study 2 compared calorie restriction with insulin therapy on glycemic control.

Statistical Analysis:  not performed in review

 

 

Data Collection Summary:

Timing of Measurements

Data collected on days 6, 7, 13 and 14 of Study 1.

Dependent Variables:

  • Fasting glucose
  • 24-hr mean glucose
  • Plasma immunoreactive insulin
  • Free fatty acids
  • Plasma b-hydroxybutyrate
  • Urine ketones
  • Plasma trigylcerides

Independent Variables

  • Study 1 compared the affect of kcal restriction on glycemic control: Week 1:  Diet: 2400 kcal, 50% carbohydrate, 30% fat, 20% protein, 11 g fiber. Distribution of kcal: 25% at each meal and 12.5% each for snacks at 3 p.m. and 10 p.m.  Week 2:  Women were randomized to 2400 kcal or 1200 kcal diet..
  • Study 2 compared calorie restriction with insulin therapy on glycemic control:  Week 1:  2400 kcal, Week 2:  1655 kcal (33%)

Control Variables

Description of Actual Data Sample:

Initial N:  2 feeding studies, 12 women in both studies.  63 references included.

Attrition (Final N):  see above

Age:  see Results

Ethnicity:  not described

Other relevant demographics:

Anthropometrics:

Location:  University of Washington Hospital

Summary of Results:

Study 1:

5 women continued the 2400 kcal diet on week 2;

(mean age 36 yr, weight 88 kg)

7 women consumed a 1200 kcal diet on week 2.

(mean age 30 yr, weight 96 kg)

Effects of 50% calorie restriction on plasma fuels and insulin on obese women with gestational diabetes:

Kcalories
  2400 1200 % D
Glucose (mM)      
Fasting 5.9 4.9 -17
24-hr mean 6.8 5.4  -21
(P<0.001) for mean glucose
Insulin (pM) 265 146  -45
FFA (mg/L) 220  360 + 64
b-OHB (mM) 290 780 +269

Urine ketones (+)

1.0  2.1 +110

TG (mM) 

3.1 2.9 -7

Study 2:

9 normal weight women (24.1+4.9 yr)

7 obese                            (25.7+3.5 yr)                    

6 obese GDM.                 (28.8+5.6 yr)

(3 controlled with diet, 3 with insulin)

Significant differences in weight

Obese( 128+6%) and obese GDM (132+15%) (P<0.0005)

Comparison of insulin vs diet
  Controls Diet  Insulin
  (n=9) (n=3) (n=3)
Glucose (mM)      
Fasting  3.9 3.7 4.2
Insulin, (pM) 127  138 255
Urine ketones (+) 0.7 1.7 1.5
FFA, mg/L  100 83 157

Author Conclusion:

These observations indicate that a substantial improvement in glycemic status can be achieved with a caloric restriction of as much as 50%. However, this improvement in glycemia was achieved at the expense of a 60% increase in plasma FFA concentrations and a 2.5-fold increase in plasma b-hydroxybutyrate concentrations. 

Because the impact of this amount of caloric restriction maintained over a long period of time on fetal growth and development is unknown, a specific dietary recommendation based on these data can not be made.

In study 2, comparing diet vs insulin treatment in GDM, fasting plasma glucose and TG reductions were both greater in the diet-treated group compared to the insulin treated group.  Only 1 of the subjects in the diet treated group experienced ketonuria on the 1600 kcal diet.

Funding Source:
Not-for-profit
0
Foundation associated with industry:
Reviewer Comments:

This article is a review of several studies done by the authors and some detail is left out of the study.

Small sample size.

Some of the changes must have been significantly different with reduction in kcal, but not documented in this paper.

In study 2, the author was making the assumption that rectriction of kcal would prevent the use of insulin when insulin may be needed for adequate glycemic control regardless of the kcal level.

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? ???
  2. Was the search strategy used to locate relevant studies comprehensive? Were the databases searched and the search termsused described? No
  3. Were explicit methods used to select studies to include in the review? Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified andappropriate? Wereselectionmethods unbiased? No
  4. Was there an appraisal of the quality and validity of studies included in the review? Were appraisal methodsspecified,appropriate, andreproducible? No
  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? No
  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? ???
  10. Was bias due to the review's funding or sponsorship unlikely? Yes