School of Medical Education, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, U.K.
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, London, U.K.
Diabetes Care. 2021 Apr;44(4):858-864. doi: 10.2337/dc20-2941.
The diagnosis of and criteria for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) continue to divide the scientific and medical community, both between and within countries. Many argue for universal adoption of the International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria and feel that further clinical trials are unjustified and even unethical. However, there are concerns about the large increase in number of women who would be diagnosed with GDM using these criteria and the subsequent impact on health care resources and the individual. This Perspective reviews the origins of the IADPSG consensus and points out some of its less well-known limitations, particularly with respect to identifying women at risk for an adverse pregnancy outcome. It also questions the clinical and cost-effectiveness data often cited to support the IADPSG glycemic thresholds. We present the argument that adoption of diagnostic criteria defining GDM should be based on response to treatment at different diagnostic thresholds of maternal glycemia. This will likely require an international multicenter trial of treatment.
妊娠糖尿病(GDM)的诊断标准和分类在国际上和各国之间一直存在争议,这也将科学界和医学界一分为二。许多人支持采用国际妊娠合并糖尿病研究组织(IADPSG)的标准,并认为进一步的临床试验是没有必要的,甚至是不道德的。然而,人们担心使用这些标准会导致被诊断为 GDM 的妇女人数大幅增加,从而对医疗保健资源和个人产生后续影响。本观点回顾了 IADPSG 共识的起源,并指出了其一些鲜为人知的局限性,特别是在识别有不良妊娠结局风险的妇女方面。它还对经常被引用以支持 IADPSG 血糖阈值的临床和成本效益数据提出了质疑。我们提出的观点是,采用定义 GDM 的诊断标准应基于不同的母体血糖诊断阈值下的治疗反应。这可能需要一项国际性的多中心治疗试验。