The risk of overt diabetes mellitus among women with gestational diabetes: a population-based study

Medical Division, Maccabi Healthcare Services, 27 Ha'Mered Street, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Diabetic Medicine (Impact Factor: 3.06). 07/2010; 27(7):779-85. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2010.02995.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To determine the incidence of postpartum diabetes mellitus in the years following a diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and to determine whether the severity of GDM, represented by the magnitude of the deviation of diagnostic tests from the normal values or requirement for medications, is associated with the development of diabetes.
A retrospective cohort study was performed among 185 416 pregnant women who had glucose challenge test or 3 h oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) in a large health maintenance organization in Israel. Subsequent diagnosis of diabetes was ascertained by using an automated patient registry.
A total of 11 270 subjects were diagnosed with GDM, comprising 6.07% of the cohort. During a total follow-up period of 1 049 334 person-years there were 1067 (16.9 per 1000 person-years) and 1125 (1.1 per 1000 person-years) diagnoses of postpartum diabetes among GDM and non-GDM women, respectively. The cumulative risk of incident diabetes in GDM patients with up to 10 years of follow-up was 15.7%, compared with 1% among the non-GDM population. Gestational diabetes mellitus was associated with nearly an eightfold higher risk of postpartum diabetes after adjusting for important confounders, such as socioeconomic status and body mass index. Among women with a history of GDM, the number of abnormal OGTT values and use of insulin were associated with a substantially higher risk for developing diabetes.
Three or four abnormal OGTT values and GDM requiring insulin or oral hypoglycaemic medications are important predictors of postpartum diabetes risk in women with a history of GDM.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Health insurance in the United States is a patchwork system whereby opportunities for coverage are strongly associated with life circumstances (ie, age, income, pregnancy, parental status). For pregnant women, this situation contributes to unstable coverage before, between, and after pregnancies. The Affordable Care Act has the potential to make coverage for women of reproductive age more stable and create new opportunities to intervene on conditions associated with maternal and neonatal morbidity. In this article, we discuss the health economics of the Affordable Care Act, its implications for maternal and neonatal health, specific challenges associated with implementation, and opportunities for obstetricians to leverage the Affordable Care Act to improve the care of women.
    Obstetrics and Gynecology 06/2013; 121(6):1300-1304. DOI:10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182918d74 · 4.37 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A previous diagnosis of gestational diabetes (GDM) carries a lifetime risk of progression to type 2 diabetes of up to 60%. Identification of those women at higher risk of progression to diabetes allows the timely introduction of measures to delay or prevent diabetes onset. However, there is a large degree of variability in the literature with regard to the proportion of women with a history of GDM who go on to develop diabetes. Heterogeneity between cohorts with regard to diagnostic criteria used, duration of follow-up, and the characteristics of the study population limit the ability to make meaningful comparisons across studies. As the new International Association for Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group criteria are increasingly adopted worldwide, the prevalence of GDM is set to increase by two-to three-fold. Here, we review the literature to examine the evolution of diagnostic criteria for GDM, the implications of changing criteria on the proportion of women with previous GDM progressing to diabetes, and how the use of different diagnostic criteria may influence the development of appropriate follow-up strategies.
    03/2015; 6(2):234-44. DOI:10.4239/wjd.v6.i2.234
  • Source