The Need for Personalized Risk-Stratified Approaches to Treatment for Gestational Diabetes: A Narrative Review

Ray J, Geary M, Murray‐Davis B, DOH‐NET (Diabetes, Obesity and Hypertension in Pregnancy Research) and SOON (Southern Ontario Obstetrical Network) Investigators™. Exploring patients' perspectives of gestational diabetes mellitus screening and counselling in Ontario: A grounded theory study

INTRODUCTION

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is associated with adverse perinatal outcomes. Approaches to screening for GDM continue to evolve, introducing potential variability of care. This study explored the impact of these variations on GDM counselling and screening from the perspectives of pregnant individuals.

METHODS

Following a Corbin and Strauss approach to qualitative, grounded theory we recruited 28 individuals from three cities in Ontario, Canada who had a singleton pregnancy under the care of either a midwife, family physician or obstetrician. Convenience and purposive sampling techniques were used. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted and transcribed verbatim between March and December 2020. Transcripts were analysed inductively resulting in codes, categories and themes.

RESULTS

Three themes were derived from the data about GDM screening and counselling: 'informing oneself', 'deciding' and 'screening'. All participants, regardless of geographical region, or antenatal care provider, moved through these three steps during the GDM counselling and screening process. Differences in counselling approaches between pregnancy care providers were noted throughout the 'informing' and 'deciding' stages of care. Factors influencing these differences included communication, healthcare autonomy and patient motivation to engage with health services. No differences were noted within care provider groups across the three geographic regions. Participant experiences of GDM screening were influenced by logistical challenges and personal preferences towards testing.

CONCLUSION

Informing oneself about GDM may be a crucial step for facilitating decision-making and screening uptake, with an emphasis on information provision to facilitate patient autonomy and motivation.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Participants of our study included patients and service users. Participants were actively involved in the study design due to the qualitative, patient-centred nature of the research methods employed. Analysis of results was structured according to the emergent themes of the data which were grounded in patient perspectives and experiences.

Development, validation and clinical utility of a risk prediction model for adverse pregnancy outcomes in women with gestational diabetes: The PeRSonal GDM model

BACKGROUND

The ability to calculate the absolute risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes for an individual woman with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) would allow preventative and therapeutic interventions to be delivered to women at high-risk, sparing women at low-risk from unnecessary care. We aimed to develop, validate and evaluate the clinical utility of a prediction model for adverse pregnancy outcomes in women with GDM.

METHODS

A prediction model development and validation study was conducted on data from a observational cohort. Participants included all women with GDM from three metropolitan tertiary teaching hospitals in Melbourne, Australia. The development cohort comprised those who delivered between 1 July 2017 to 30 June 2018 and the validation cohort those who delivered between 1 July 2018 to 31 December 2018. The main outcome was a composite of critically important maternal and perinatal complications (hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, large-for-gestational age neonate, neonatal hypoglycaemia requiring intravenous therapy, shoulder dystocia, perinatal death, neonatal bone fracture and nerve palsy). Model performance was measured in terms of discrimination and calibration and clinical utility evaluated using decision curve analysis.

FINDINGS

The final PeRSonal (Prediction for Risk Stratified care for women with GDM) model included body mass index, maternal age, fasting and 1-hour glucose values (75-g oral glucose tolerance test), gestational age at GDM diagnosis, Southern and Central Asian ethnicity, East Asian ethnicity, nulliparity, past delivery of an large-for-gestational age neonate, past pre-eclampsia, GWG until GDM diagnosis, and family history of diabetes. The composite adverse pregnancy outcome occurred in 27% (476/1747) of women in the development (1747 women) and in 26% (244/955) in the validation (955 women) cohorts. The model showed excellent calibration with slope of 0.99 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.23) and acceptable discrimination (c-statistic 0.68; 95% CI 0.64 to 0.72) when temporally validated. Decision curve analysis demonstrated that the model was useful across a range of predicted probability thresholds between 0.15 and 0.85 for adverse pregnancy outcomes compared to the alternatives of managing all women with GDM as if they will or will not have an adverse pregnancy outcome.

INTERPRETATION

The PeRSonal GDM model comprising of routinely available clinical data shows compelling performance, is transportable across time, and has clinical utility across a range of predicted probabilities. Further external validation of the model to a more disparate population is now needed to assess the generalisability to different centres, community based care and low resource settings, other healthcare systems and to different GDM diagnostic criteria.

FUNDING

This work is supported by the Mothers and Gestational Diabetes in Australia 2 NHMRC funded project #1170847.

Pregnancy in Women With Monogenic Diabetes due to Pathogenic Variants of the Glucokinase Gene: Lessons and Challenges

Heterozygous loss-of-function variants of the glucokinase (GCK) gene are responsible for a subtype of maturity-onset diabetes of the young (MODY). GCK-MODY is characterized by a mild hyperglycemia, mainly due to a higher blood glucose threshold for insulin secretion, and an up-regulated glucose counterregulation. GCK-MODY patients are asymptomatic, are not exposed to diabetes long-term complications, and do not require treatment. The diagnosis of GCK-MODY is made on the discovery of hyperglycemia by systematic screening, or by family screening. The situation is peculiar in GCK-MODY women during pregnancy for three reasons: 1. the degree of maternal hyperglycemia is sufficient to induce pregnancy adverse outcomes, as in pregestational or gestational diabetes; 2. the probability that a fetus inherits the maternal mutation is 50% and; 3. fetal insulin secretion is a major stimulus of fetal growth. Consequently, when the fetus has not inherited the maternal mutation, maternal hyperglycemia will trigger increased fetal insulin secretion and growth, with a high risk of macrosomia. By contrast, when the fetus has inherited the maternal mutation, its insulin secretion is set at the same threshold as the mother's, and no fetal growth excess will occur. Thus, treatment of maternal hyperglycemia is necessary only in the former situation, and will lead to a risk of fetal growth restriction in the latter. It has been recommended that the management of diabetes in GCK-MODY pregnant women should be guided by assessment of fetal growth by serial ultrasounds, and institution of insulin therapy when the abdominal circumference is ≥ 75th percentile, considered as a surrogate for the fetal genotype. This strategy has not been validated in women with in GCK-MODY. Recently, the feasibility of non-invasive fetal genotyping has been demonstrated, that will improve the care of these women. Several challenges persist, including the identification of women with GCK-MODY before or early in pregnancy, and the modalities of insulin therapy. Yet, retrospective observational studies have shown that fetal genotype, not maternal treatment with insulin, is the main determinant of fetal growth and of the risk of macrosomia. Thus, further studies are needed to specify the management of GCK-MODY pregnant women during pregnancy.