No abstract

Introduction: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a major public health problem, affecting about one in every six pregnancies globally. The guidelines provided by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) on diagnosis and management of hyperglycemia in pregnancy are widely followed. We aim to provide a critical appraisal of the recently published ADA guidance document, highlighting its strength and limitations with regard to the diagnosis of GDM. Methods and Results: We reviewed the recent ADA recommendations for the diagnosis and management of hyperglycemia in pregnancy. A periodic update in keeping with the emerging evidence, an inclusive diagnostic approach which increases generalizability, and a clear proposed approach for prenatal testing and postpartum follow-up are strengths of the ADA guidance document. On the other hand, its limitations are a lack of clarity on the applicability of diagnosis of GDM during early pregnancy, use of scientifically inaccurate terms such as ''prediabetes'' in the context of pregnancy and ''overt diabetes prior to gestation'' in the definition of GDM, and inconsistent use of terminology between successive publications. Certain issues which merit attention in future publications include a need for uniform global definition of GDM, demarcation of overt diabetes in pregnancy as a distinct entity, clarity on the diagnosis of GDM during early pregnancy, and clear delineation of timelines and appropriate testing strategy for the first prenatal visit. Conclusions: This article provides a critical appraisal of the recently published ADA guidance document with regard to the diagnosis of GDM. We also share our perspective on issues warranting attention in the future publications. Experts from various professional organizations should aim for a consensus document which can resolve existing controversies in this field, and help clinicians and researchers achieve better health for women in their care.

Background and Aim: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak has rapidly crossed international boundaries and placed increasing demands on healthcare facilities worldwide. Patients with diabetes and uncontrolled blood glucose levels are at increased risk for poor clinical outcomes and in-hospital mortality related to COVID-19. Therefore, achieving good glycaemic control is of paramount importance among hospitalised patients with COVID-19. Basal-bolus insulin therapy is a safe and effective intervention for the management of hyperglycaemia in hospitalised patients. The aim of this article is to provide a practical guidance for the use of the basal-bolus insulin regimen in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 and diabetes mellitus. Methods: This guidance document was formulated based on the review of available literature and the combined personal experiences of the authors. We provide a comprehensive review on the use of the basal-bolus insulin regimen, including its principles, rationale, indications, prerequisites, initiation, and dose titration, and also suggest targets for blood glucose control and different levels of capillary blood glucose monitoring. Various case scenarios are used to illustrate how optimal glucose control can be achieved, such as through adjustments in doses of prandial and basal insulin, the use of correctional insulin dosing and changes in the timing and content of major and minor meals. Conclusion: The practical guidance for the use of the basal-bolus insulin regimen in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 and diabetes mellitus presented here can be used for patients admitted to hospital for indications other than COVID-19 and for those in ambulatory care.

No abstract

Aims/Introduction: This study aims to evaluate the prevalence of and factors associated with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) in Indian women with prior gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) diagnosed using International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study (2018)(2019) enrolled women with and without prior GDM. Study participants underwent detailed assessments, including relevant medical, obstetric and demographic details; 75-g oral glucose tolerance test with glucose and insulin estimation at 0, 30 and 120 min; and other relevant biochemical and anthropometric measurements. NAFLD status was defined by ultrasonography. Results: We evaluated a total of 309 women (201 and 108 with and without prior GDM, respectively) at a mean age of 31.9 -5.0 years and median of 16 months (interquartile range 9-38 months) following the index delivery. The prevalence of NAFLD was significantly higher in women with prior GDM (62.7% vs 50.0%, P = 0.038; grade 2 and 3 disease, 13.9% vs 6.5%). On logistic regression analysis (fully adjusted model), the odds of NAFLD were 2.11-fold higher in women with prior GDM (95% confidence interval 1.16-3.85, P = 0.014). Overweight/obesity, metabolic syndrome, prediabetes and homeostasis model of assessment of insulin resistance (a measure of insulin resistance) were positively associated with NAFLD, whereas the Matsuda index (a measure of insulin sensitivity) showed a negative association with NAFLD. Conclusions: The prevalence of NAFLD is high in women with prior GDM. Such women also have a high burden of cardiometabolic risk factors. Future studies should evaluate the intermediate and long-term hepatic and cardiovascular risk, and the impact of lifestyle interventions in reducing morbidity in such women.