Whether treatment of gestational diabetes before 20 weeks' gestation improves maternal and infant health is unclear. Download a PDF of the Research Summary. We randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, women between 4 weeks' and 19 weeks 6 days' gestation who had a risk factor for hyperglycemia and a diagnosis of gestational diabetes (World Health Organization 2013 criteria) to receive immediate treatment for gestational diabetes or deferred or no treatment, depending on the results of a repeat oral glucose-tolerance test [OGTT] at 24 to 28 weeks' gestation (control). The trial included three primary outcomes: a composite of adverse neonatal outcomes (birth at <37 weeks' gestation, birth trauma, birth weight of ≥4500 g, respiratory distress, phototherapy, stillbirth or neonatal death, or shoulder dystocia), pregnancy-related hypertension (preeclampsia, eclampsia, or gestational hypertension), and neonatal lean body mass. A total of 802 women underwent randomization; 406 were assigned to the immediate-treatment group and 396 to the control group; follow-up data were available for 793 women (98.9%). An initial OGTT was performed at a mean (±SD) gestation of 15.6±2.5 weeks. An adverse neonatal outcome event occurred in 94 of 378 women (24.9%) in the immediate-treatment group and in 113 of 370 women (30.5%) in the control group (adjusted risk difference, −5.6 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], −10.1 to −1.2). Pregnancy-related hypertension occurred in 40 of 378 women (10.6%) in the immediate-treatment group and in 37 of 372 women (9.9%) in the control group (adjusted risk difference, 0.7 percentage points; 95% CI, −1.6 to 2.9). The mean neonatal lean body mass was 2.86 kg in the immediate-treatment group and 2.91 kg in the control group (adjusted mean difference, −0.04 kg; 95% CI, −0.09 to 0.02). No between-group differences were observed with respect to serious adverse events associated with screening and treatment. Immediate treatment of gestational diabetes before 20 weeks' gestation led to a modestly lower incidence of a composite of adverse neonatal outcomes than no immediate treatment; no material differences were observed for pregnancy-related hypertension or neonatal lean body mass. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council and others; TOBOGM Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12616000924459.) QUICK TAKE VIDEO SUMMARYTreating Gestational Diabetes Early in Pregnancy 02:12
To investigate the association of timing of commencing glucose management with glycemia, glycemic variability, and pregnancy outcomes among women with early gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM).
Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is an increasingly prevalent risk factor for the development of type 2 diabetes in the mother and is responsible for morbidity in the child. To better identify women at risk of developing GDM we examined sociodemographic correlates and changes in the prevalence of GDM among all births between 1995 and 2005 in Australia's largest state.A computerized database of all births (n = 956,738) between 1995 and 2005 in New South Wales, Australia, was used in a multivariate logistic regression that examined the association between sociodemographic characteristics and the occurrence of GDM.Between 1995 and 2005, the prevalence of GDM increased by 45%, from 3.0 to 4.4%. Women born in South Asia had the highest adjusted odds ratio (OR) of any region (4.33 [95% CI 4.12-4.55]) relative to women born in Australia. Women living in the three lowest socioeconomic quartiles had higher adjusted ORs for GDM relative to women in the highest quartile (1.54 [1.50-1.59], 1.74 [1.69-1.8], and 1.65 [1.60-1.70] for decreasing socioeconomic status quartiles). Increasing age was strongly associated with GDM, with women aged >40 years having an adjusted OR of 6.13 (95% CI 5.79-6.49) relative to women in their early 20s. Parity was associated with a small reduced risk. There was no association between smoking and GDM.Maternal age, socioeconomic position, and ethnicity are important correlates of GDM. Future culturally specific interventions should target prevention of GDM in these high-risk groups.
Fever, hyperglycemia, and swallow dysfunction poststroke are associated with significantly worse outcomes. We report treatment and monitoring practices for these three items from a cohort of acute stroke patients prior to randomization in the Quality in Acute Stroke Care trial.Retrospective medical record audits were undertaken for prospective patients from 19 stroke units. For the first three-days following stroke, we recorded all temperature readings and administration of paracetamol for fever (≥37·5°C) and all glucose readings and administration of insulin for hyperglycemia (>11 mmol/L). We also recorded swallow screening and assessment during the first 24 h of admission.Data for 718 (98%) patients were available; 138 (19%) had four hourly or more temperature readings and 204 patients (29%) had a fever, with 44 (22%) receiving paracetamol. A quarter of patients (n = 102/412, 25%) had six hourly or more glucose readings and 23% (95/412) had hyperglycemia, with 31% (29/95) of these treated with insulin. The majority of patients received a swallow assessment (n = 562, 78%) by a speech pathologist in the first instance rather than a swallow screen by a nonspeech pathologist (n = 156, 22%). Of those who passed a screen (n = 108 of 156, 69%), 68% (n = 73) were reassessed by a speech pathologist and 97% (n = 71) were reconfirmed to be able to swallow safely.Our results showed that acute stroke patients were: undermonitored and undertreated for fever and hyperglycemia; and underscreened for swallowing dysfunction and unnecessarily reassessed by a speech pathologist, indicating the need for urgent behavior change.
Abstract Objective To compare clinical outcomes of patients attending diabetes clinics with different models of care. Methods Diabetes centres which participated in the Australian National Diabetes Information Audit and Benchmarking (ANDIAB) data collection were invited to nominate whether they provided (i) routine diabetes care only (model A), (ii) routine care and structured annual complications screening (model B) or (iii) annual review and complications screening in a system of shared care with general practitioners (model C). De‐identified case data were extracted from ANDIAB and outcomes according to the three clinic models were compared. Results Data on 3052 patients from 18 diabetes centres were analysed. Centres which practised annual complications screening (models B and C) had higher rates of nephropathy and lipid screening and a higher rate of attainment of recommended blood pressure and glycated haemoglobin (HbA 1c ) targets. The implementation of appropriate treatment for patients who had not attained the targets was similar for all three clinic models. Conclusions In our study, clinic models which incorporate a system of structured complications screening were more likely to have met screening guidelines. Patients in a shared‐care model were at least as likely to have met management targets as those attending diabetes clinics for their routine care. Therefore, a system of shared care by general practitioners supported by annual review at a diabetes clinic may be an acceptable model which improves the capacity to manage large numbers of people with diabetes, without loss of quality of care.
Abstract Aim Type 2 diabetes is frequently familial. Hyperglycaemia in pregnancy might act in addition to genetic factors to cause diabetes in the children of mothers with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). The first manifestation of this in female offspring is likely to be GDM in their own pregnancies. We compared the incidence of GDM in daughters of diabetic mothers and diabetic fathers to determine if in utero exposure to hyperglycaemia increased the risk of a diabetes‐prone phenotype in offspring. Methods We analysed the outcome of a GDM screening programme in women with a family history of diabetes in their mother ( n = 535), father ( n = 566), both parents ( n = 77) or neither ( n = 4672). Results GDM was twice as common in the daughters of diabetic mothers (11%) than diabetic fathers (5%, P = 0.002). Women with two diabetic parents were no more likely to have GDM than women with only a diabetic mother. Conclusions Genetic predisposition to GDM should be equally shared by daughters of diabetic mothers and fathers. An excess of maternal transmission of diabetes is consistent with an epigenetic effect of hyperglycaemia in pregnancy acting in addition to genetic factors to produce diabetes in the next generation.
Blood glucose control is central to the management of diabetes, and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) improves glycemic control. We aimed to describe the perspectives of people with diabetes using CGM.
'/%3e%3c/defs%3e%3cpath fill='%23012169' d='M0 0h10080v5040H0z'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='.6' d='m0 0 6 3m0-3L0 3' clip-path='url(%23b)' transform='scale(840)'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23e4002b' stroke-width='.4' d='m0 0 6 3m0-3L0 3' clip-path='url(%23c)' transform='scale(840)'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='840' d='M2520 0v2520M0 1260h5040'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23e4002b' stroke-width='504' d='M2520 0v2520M0 1260h5040'/%3e%3cg fill='%23fff'%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23d' x='2520' y='3780'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' x='7560' y='4200'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' x='6300' y='2205'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' x='7560' y='840'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' x='8680' y='1869'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23e' x='8064' y='2730'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)
'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' transform='rotate(23.036 .093 25.536)'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' transform='rotate(45.87 1.273 16.18)'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' transform='rotate(69.945 .996 12.078)'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' transform='rotate(20.66 -19.689 31.932)'/%3e%3c/svg%3e)
'%3e%3cpath fill='%23012169' d='M0 0v30h60V0z'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='6' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='4' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30' clip-path='url(%23b)'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='10' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='6' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)