- Review article
- Open Access
Gestational diabetes mellitus: challenges in diagnosis and management
© Mpondo et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015
- Received: 17 July 2014
- Accepted: 4 May 2015
- Published: 12 May 2015
Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a well-characterized disease affecting a significant population of pregnant women worldwide. It has been widely linked to undue weight gain associated with factors such as diet, obesity, family history, and ethnicity. Poorly controlled GDM results in maternal and fetal morbidity and mortality. Improved outcomes therefore rely on early diagnosis and tight glycaemic control. While straightforward protocols exist for screening and management of diabetes mellitus in the general population, management of GDM remains controversial with conflicting guidelines and treatment protocols. This review highlights the diagnostic and management options for GDM in light of recent advances in care.
- Gestation diabetes mellitus
- Glucose intolerance
- Glycaemic control
- Oral agents
Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), by definition, is any degree of glucose intolerance with onset or first recognition during pregnancy [1, 2]. This definition applies regardless of whether treatment involves insulin or diet modification alone; it may also apply to conditions that persist after pregnancy. GDM affects roughly 7 % of pregnancies with an incidence of more than 200,000 cases per year . The prevalence, however, varies from 1–14 %, depending on the population and the diagnostic criteria that have been used .
GDM is the most common cause of diabetes during pregnancy, accounting for up to 90 % of pregnancies complicated by diabetes . Women with GDM have a 40–60 % chance of developing diabetes mellitus over the 5–10 years after pregnancy .
Although GDM has been recognized as a disease for some time, it remains a controversial entity with conflicting guidelines and treatment protocols.
The first screening test for GDM, proposed in 1973, consisted of the 1-h 50 gm oral glucose tolerance test . While some guidelines recommend universal screening, others exempt those patients who are categorized as low-risk. Evidence suggests that universal screening improves pregnancy outcomes compared to selective screening . However, other researchers argue that screening women based on their clinical characteristics allows for more efficient selective screening for GDM .
Low-risk patients include those women with the following characteristics: <25 years of age; normal body weight; no first-degree relatives with diabetes; no history of abnormal glucose metabolism; no history of poor obstetric outcomes; and not from an ethnic group with a high diabetes prevalence (Hispanic American, Native American, Asian American, African American, and Pacific Islander) [7, 8]. Although some experts recommend against screening these low-risk patients routinely , selective screening could miss approximately 4 % of patients with GDM .
Categorizing groups at risk for gestation diabetes mellitus
• Marked obesity
• Diabetes in first degree relative
• Current glycosuria
• Previous history of GDM or glucose intolerance
• Previous poor obstetric outcome (e.g. an infant with marosomia)
• Neither high nor low risk
• Age <25 years
• No history of poor obstetric outcomes
• Belongs to low risk ethnic groups (ethnic groups other than Hispanic, African American, Native American, South Asian, East Asian, Pacific Islander, or Indigenous Australian)
• No diabetes in first degree relative
• No history of abnormal glucose tolerance
• Normal pre-pregnancy weight and pregnancy weight gain
In general, there are two approaches to the evaluation of women for GDM: the one-step approach and the two-step approach. In the one-step approach, a diagnostic oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) is performed without prior plasma or serum glucose screening. This approach may be cost effective in high-risk patients. In the two-step approach, initial screening involves the glucose challenge test, which measures the plasma or serum glucose concentration 1 h after a 50-gm oral glucose load. The diagnostic oral glucose challenge test is performed only in the subset of women found to have plasma or serum glucose concentration values exceeding the threshold for the glucose challenge test.
When the threshold for glucose challenge test is >140 mg/dl (7.8 mmol/l), the sensitivity is 80 %; when it is 130 mg/dl (7.2 mmol/l), the sensitivity becomes 90 % . Whichever approach is used, the diagnosis of GDM is established only after performing an OGTT.
Fasting serum glucose concentration of 95 mg/dl (5.3 mmol/l)
1-h serum glucose concentration of 180 mg/dl (10.0 mmol/l)
2-h serum glucose concentration of 155 mg/dl (8.6 mmol/l)
3-h serum glucose concentration of 140 mg/dl (7.8 mmol/l)
Fasting serum glucose concentration of 105 mg/dl
1-h serum glucose concentration of 190 mg/dl
2-h serum glucose concentration of 165 mg/dl
3-h serum glucose concentration of 145 mg/dl
Alternatively, the American Diabetes (ADA) criteria for GDM diagnosis rely on a 75-gm glucose load and consider fasting serum glucose concentration, 1-h glucose concentration, and 2-h glucose concentration . The glucose threshold values are, respectively, 95 mg/dl (5.3 mmol/l), 180 mg/dl (10.0 mmol/l), and 155 mg/dl (8.6 mmol/l). Again, two or more abnormal values are required for diagnosis. Although these major criteria all require two or more abnormal values for diagnosis, studies have shown that a single abnormal value is significantly associated with increased risk of perinatal morbidities .
Diagnostic criteria for gestation diabetes mellitus with their respective glucose values
Fasting (mg/dl [mmol/l])
1-h (mg/dl [mmol/l])
2-h (mg/dl [mmol/l])
3-h (mg/dl [mmol/l])
100-gm OGTT Carpenter/Coustan (two or more abnormal)
100-gm OGTT NDDG (two or more abnormal)
75-gm OGTT WHO (one or more abnormal)
75-gm OGTT ADA
Evidence shows that screening for and treating GDM lead to the reduction of perinatal morbidity and the improvement of post-delivery outcomes . As in other types of diabetes, the cornerstone of GDM management is glycaemic control . Glycaemic control has been shown to reduce adverse outcomes in pregnant women with GDM [20, 21].
Target glucose values
Experts recommend that women with GDM should maintain the following capillary blood glucose values: preprandial glucose <95 mg/dl (5.3 mmol/l), 1-h postprandial glucose <140 mg/dl (7.8 mmol/l), and 2-h postprandial glucose <120 mg/dl (6.7 mmol/l) . The American College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (ACOG) has similar guidelines, the only exception being that both 130 mg/dl and 140 mg/dl 1-h postprandial glucose values are considered acceptable . Other recommendations suggest maintaining fasting glucose levels of <90–99 mg/dl (5.0–5.5 mmol/l), 1-h postprandial glucose levels of <140 mg/dl (7.8 mmol/l), and 2-h postprandial glucose levels of <120–127 mg/dl (6.7–7.1 mmol/l) .
Even if it is not possible to achieve the recommended levels of glycaemic control, any improvement can be beneficial given that perinatal complications are linked to increasing serum glucose values [21, 24]. Despite the benefits of glycaemic control, however, studies have shown that very low target glucose values (<87 mg/dl) are associated with increased rates of intrauterine fetal growth retardation .
Medical nutrition therapy (MNT)
The first line of management for women with gestational diabetes mellitus is dietary modification, often called medical nutrition therapy . Evidences indicates that nutrition therapy is effective in reducing pregnancy and perinatal complications and also in attaining glycaemic control .
According to ADA recommendations, carbohydrate intake should be approximately 40 % of total calorie intake and should be selected from foods with low glycaemic index values . In pregnant women of normal body weight (BMI between 18.5–24.9), the recommendation is to consume 30–32 kcal/kg body weight, especially during the second half of pregnancy . However, those who are overweight (BMI of 25 to 29.9) should ingest approximately 25 kcal/kg body weight . Other guidelines recommend caloric intake based on BMI as follows: 30 kcal/kg for a BMI of 22–25, 24 kcal/kg for a BMI of 26–29, and 12–15 kcal/kg for a BMI of >30.
75–80 % of women with GDM become euglycaemic by following these caloric distribution guidelines. Assessing fasting ketonuria provides a method of confirming a woman’s caloric restriction, because caloric restriction of at least 50 % has been associated with ketogenesis . On the other hand, moderate caloric restriction of about 33 % has been associated with controlled glucose levels without elevation of free fatty acids and ketonaemia [28, 29]. Caloric restriction should be approached cautiously, because studies show that elevated maternal ketone levels are associated with impaired psychomotor development .
Compared to diet alone, exercise with dietary modifications has been found to lead to improved glycaemic control in one study . The proposed mechanism for such an improvement in glycaemic control is heightened sensitivity of peripheral tissues to insulin. A supervised home-based cycling program was helpful in maintaining normal postprandial glucose levels in pregnant women with diet-controlled GDM . That said, another trial using a partially home-based exercise program found no reduction in blood glucose level . This cohort did demonstrate improved cardiovascular fitness, however.
Based on the available evidence on the benefits of exercise in managing GDM, ADA recommends moderate exercise programs for women without medical or obstetrical complications . There are no specific guidelines, however, on how to employ exercise regimes to achieve glycaemic control. For the general population, experts tend to recommend exercising 3 or more times a week for about 30 min.
Pharmacological intervention in the management of GDM is usually employed when women fail to meet established goals with conventional therapy of diet and exercise. It is also indicated when elevated fasting glucose levels occur while on conventional therapy, because dietary modification has limited effect on these levels. Although most women achieve adequate glycaemic control with conventional therapy, 30–40 % do require the addition of pharmacologic therapy at some point during their pregnancies . The pharmacological options in this case include insulin or oral hypoglycaemic agents (metformin and glyburide) [35, 36].
Insulin therapy is the most commonly used pharmacotherapy once MNT fails to achieve desired outcomes. Insulin regimens often include intermediate-acting insulins such as isophane and short-acting agents such as regular recombinant insulin (Humulin R). Pharmacotherapy can also involve the insulin analogues aspart and lisipro. Insulin therapy decreases the frequency of fetal macrosomia and the risk of perinatal morbidity . Positive history of diabetes mellitus in a first-degree relative and multiple abnormal values in the OGTT were strongly found to predict the need for insulin management in women with GDM .
Glucose level cut-off points requiring insulin initiation in gestation diabetes mellitus
Fasting (mg/dl [mmol/l])
1-h postprandial (mg/dl [mmol/l])
2-h postprandial (mg/dl [mmol/l])
Oral hypoglycaemic agents used in the management of GDM should be both effective and safe for the woman and developing fetus. With the exception of glyburide and metformin, oral hypoglycaemic drugs are generally not recommended due to concerns about potential teratogenicity or prolonged neonatal hypogylcaemia from drug transport across the placenta .
Glyburide, one of the two oral hypoglycaemic drugs used for the management of GDM, acts primarily to enhance insulin secretion by the pancreas. It can be used as an alternative for women who are unable or unwilling to take insulin or, in some cases, as a first-line pharmacological therapy. Studies have shown that glyburide, unlike other sulphonylureas, does not cross the placenta in vivo or in vitro [43, 44].
Studies examining the use of glyburide and insulin for the management of GDM have found comparative maternal and neonatal outcomes [45, 46]. Regarding glyburide therapy, certain factors are associated with higher rates of success, including initiation after 30 weeks gestation or fasting blood glucose levels <110 mg/dl and 1-h postprandial glucose levels <140 mg/dl . Despite several studies supporting the efficacy and safety of glyburide for women with GDM, ACOG and ADA guidelines do not recommend its use until larger randomized controlled trials are completed on the subject [15, 22]. However, a survey conducted by ACOG found that up to 13 % of American fellows prescribe glyburide as a first-line pharmacological agent in women with GDM .
Metformin is another oral hypoglycaemic agent considered a potential substitute for insulin in GDM management. In a randomized controlled trial involving women with GDM, the use of metformin, whether alone or with supplemental insulin, was not associated with increased perinatal complications compared to insulin alone . Meanwhile, a 2013 meta-analysis found that metformin is comparable to insulin regarding glycaemic control and neonatal outcomes . In another recent study, metformin use was associated with similar desirable outcomes when compared to MNT and insulin use; its use was not associated with a higher risk of maternal or neonatal complications .
In patients requiring insulin, the ideal frequency for glucose monitoring has not been established. In common practice, the patient generally checks glucose levels four times a day : once upon waking in the morning, before meals, before bed and one or two hours postprandially to ensure adequate glycaemic control. Postprandial glucose levels are preferable to fasting glucose levels, because they are more strongly associated with macrosomia . Insulin dose adjustments based on postprandial glucose levels rather than preprandial levels were shown to be associated with improvement in glycaemic control and reduction of both maternal and fetal adverse outcomes .
In ill patient with DM and other comorbid conditions, Sliding Scale Insulin (SSI) is recommended to maintain tight gycaemic control and avoid gycaemic events (i.e. hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia) . The sliding scale insulin regimen consists of short acting insulin 4 to 6 times a day based on regularly obtained capillary blood glucose measurements. However, studies have noted that use of SSI regimen is not improving glucose control in hospitalized patient [55-58]. In addition there is no standard SSI regimen and dosage vary widely between patients, providers and institutions .
For women with diet-controlled GDM, there are no clinical guidelines or controlled trials addressing the issue of monitoring frequency. In this case, the general practice involves checking levels four times per day at least two days per week ; when two values exceed the limits over the course of a week, pharmacotherapy is recommended.
Urine glucose monitoring is not useful in patients with GDM. However, urine ketone monitoring can be used in patients who are restricting calories to detect insufficient caloric or carbohydrate intake .
During labor, women on pharmacological therapy require hourly evaluations of their glucose values, while those with diet-controlled GDM do not require active glucose management. Patients on insulin usually have normal levels of glucose at the time of labor and also do not need active management .
There is no definitive data on the timing and mode of delivery for pregnant women with GDM. If the patient has normal or near normal glucose values, it is recommended that she should deliver at term. The general recommendation is that pregnancies complicated by GDM should not extend beyond term. Elective cesarean section has not been associated with significant reduction of birth trauma and has not been found to be cost effective . Earlier delivery was associated with reduction of macrosomia but not with reduction of other neonatal complications .
After delivery, insulin resistance usually resolves quickly, as does the need for pharmacological management. However, approximately 40–60 % of affected women will develop type 2 DM later in life. They are also at an increased risk of recurrent GDM that presents earlier in future pregnancies. In these women, regular screening for type 2 DM is strongly encouraged, beginning at 6 weeks post-delivery and annually thereafter. An OGTT should be performed postpartum, 1 year post-delivery, and every 3 years thereafter .
Despite GDM being one of the most common conditions during pregnancy, the lack of data from well-designed studies leaves some uncertainty surrounding the need for screening and management of this condition. Because the condition is associated with both maternal and fetal complications, screening and managing women at appropriate gestational age is important to minimize adverse outcomes. Glycaemic control can safely be achieved with a combination of nutritional and pharmaceutical interventions. Metformin and Glyburide have been shown to be as effective as insulin in management of GDM. Effective communication between physician, patient and primary care provider is essential, as patients experience increased rates of GDM in subsequent pregnancies and a higher lifetime risk of developing non-gestational diabetes. Further studies are required to clarify the remaining controversies surrounding diagnosis and nuanced management practices.
Authors wish to thank all the staff members of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology as well as the staff of the Department of Internal Medicine for their support in preparing this review.
- Metzger BE, Coustan DR. Summary and recommendations of the Fourth International Workshop-Conference on Gestational Diabetes Mellitus. The Organizing Committee. Diabetes Care. 1998;21 Suppl 2:B161–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Report of the expert committee on the diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care. 2003;26 Suppl 1:S5–20.Google Scholar
- National Diabetes, Information Clearinghouse (NIDC).“Diabetes Overview.” National Diabetes Information Clearinghouse. NIH Publication, Nov. 2008.Google Scholar
- O’Sullivan JB, Mahan CM, Charles D, Dandrow RV. Screening criteria for high-risk gestational diabetic patients. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1973;116(7):895–900.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Cosson E, Benchimol M, Carbillon L, Pharisien I, Pariès J, Valensi P, et al. Universal rather than selective screening for gestational diabetes mellitus may improve fetal outcomes. Diabetes Metab. 2006;32(2):140–6.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Naylor CD, Sermer M, Chen E, Farine D. Selective screening for gestational diabetes mellitus. Toronto trihospital gestational diabetes project investigators. N Engl J Med. 1997;337(22):1591–6.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Marquette GP, Klein VR, Niebyl JR. Efficacy of screening for gestational diabetes. Am J Perinatol. 1985;2(1):7–9.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Dietrich ML, Dolnicek TF, Rayburn WF. Gestational diabetes screening in a private, midwestern American population. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1987;156(6):1403–8.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Williams CB, Iqbal S, Zawacki CM, Yu D, Brown MB, Herman WH. Effect of selective screening for gestational diabetes. Diabetes Care. 1999;22(3):418–21.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Kousta E, Lawrence NJ, Penny A, Millauer BA, Robinson S, Dornhorst A, et al. Implications of new diagnostic criteria for abnormal glucose homeostasis in women with previous gestational diabetes. Diabetes Care. 1999;22(6):933–7.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Agarwal MM, Dhatt GS, Punnose J, Zayed R. Gestational diabetes: fasting and postprandial glucose as first prenatal screening tests in a high-risk population. J Reprod Med. 2007;52(4):299–305.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Carpenter MW, Coustan DR. Criteria for screening tests for gestational diabetes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1982;144(7):768–73.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Classification and diagnosis of diabetes mellitus and other categories of glucose intolerance. National Diabetes Data Group. Diabetes. 1979;28(12):1039–57.Google Scholar
- Cheng YW, Block-Kurbisch I, Caughey AB. Carpenter-Coustan criteria compared with the national diabetes data group thresholds for gestational diabetes mellitus. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114(2 Pt 1):326–32.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- American Diabetes Association. Gestational diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care. 2003;26(supplement 1):S103–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Lindsay MK, Graves W, Klein L. The relationship of one abnormal glucose tolerance test value and pregnancy complications. Obstet Gynecol. 1989;73(1):103–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Alberti K, Zimmet P. Definition, diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus and its complications. Part 1: diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus. Provisional report of a WHO. Diabet Med [Internet]. 1998;15(7):539–53.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Pennison EH, Egerman RS. Perinatal outcomes in gestational diabetes: a comparison of criteria for diagnosis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;184(6):1118–21.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Crowther CA, Hiller JE, Moss JR, McPhee AJ, Jeffries WS RJ. Effect of treatment of gestational diabetes mellitus on pregnancy outcomes. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(24):2477–86.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Langer O, Levy J, Brustman L, Anyaegbunam A, Merkatz R, Divon M. Glycemic control in gestational diabetes mellitus–how tight is tight enough: small for gestational age versus large for gestational age? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1989;161(3):646–53.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Langer O. A spectrum of glucose thresholds may effectively prevent complications in the pregnant diabetic patient. Semin Perinatol. 2002;26(3):196–205.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- ACOG Practice Bulletin. Clinical management guidelines for obstetrician-gynecologists. Number 30, September 2001 (replaces Technical Bulletin Number 200, December 1994). Gestational diabetes. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;98(3):525–38.Google Scholar
- Metzger BE, Buchanan TA, Coustan DR, De Leiva A, Dunger DB, Hadden DR, et al. Summary and recommendations of the Fifth International Workshop-Conference on Gestational Diabetes Mellitus. Diabetes Care. 2007;30(2):S251–60.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Langer O, Conway DL. Level of glycemia and perinatal outcome in pregestational diabetes. J Matern Fetal Med. 2000;9(1):35–41. Jan-Feb.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Thomaz de Lima H, Lopes Rosado E, Ribeiro Neves PA, Corrêa Monteiro Machado R, Mello de Oliveira L, Saunders C. Systematic review; Nutritional therapy in gestational diabetes mellitus. Nutr Hosp. 2013;28(6):1806–14. Nov 1.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Clapp JF. Effect of dietary carbohydrate on the glucose and insulin response to mixed caloric intake and exercise in both nonpregnant and pregnant women. Diabetes Care. 1998;21 Suppl 2:B107–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Jovanovic-Peterson L, Peterson CM. Nutritional management of the obese gestational diabetic pregnant woman. J Am Coll Nutr. 1992;11(3):246–50.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Knopp RH, Magee MS, Raisys V, Benedetti T. Metabolic effects of hypocaloric diets in management of gestational diabetes. Diabetes. 1991;40 Suppl 2:165–71.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Knopp RH, Magee MS, Raisys V, Benedetti T, Bonet B. Hypocaloric diets and ketogenesis in the management of obese gestational diabetic women. J Am Coll Nutr. 1991;10(6):649–67.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Rizzo TA, Dooley SL, Metzger BE, Cho NH, Ogata ES, Silverman BL. Prenatal and perinatal influences on long-term psychomotor development in offspring of diabetic mothers. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995;173(6):1753–8.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Jovanovic-Peterson L, Durak EP, Peterson CM. Randomized trial of diet versus diet plus cardiovascular conditioning on glucose levels in gestational diabetes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1989;161(2):415–9.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Halse RE, Wallman KE, Newnham JP, Guelfi KJ. Home-based exercise training improves capillary glucose profile in GDM women. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2014;46(9):1702–9.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Avery MD, Leon AS, Kopher RA. Effects of a partially home-based exercise program for women with gestational diabetes. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89(1):10–5.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Durnwald C, Landon MB. Glyburide: the new alternative for treating gestational diabetes? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193(1):1–2.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Magon N, Seshiah V. Gestational diabetes mellitus: Non-insulin management. Indian J Endocrinol Metab. 2011;15(4):284–93.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Nicholson W, Bolen S, Witkop CT, Neale D, Wilson L, Bass E. Benefits and risks of oral diabetes agents compared with insulin in women with gestational diabetes: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113(1):193–205.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Magon N, Seshiah V. Gestational diabetes mellitus: insulinic management. J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2014;64(2):82–90.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Mitra S, Nayak PK, Sahoo J, Mathew A, Padma A, Kamalanathan S, et al. Predictors for antenatal insulin requirement in gestational diabetes. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2014;1–4.Google Scholar
- Lapolla A, Dalfrà MG, Fedele D. Insulin therapy in pregnancy complicated by diabetes: are insulin analogs a new tool? Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2005;21(3):241–52. May-Jun.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Pettitt DJ, Ospina P, Kolaczynski JW, Jovanovic L. Comparison of an insulin analog, insulin aspart, and regular human insulin with no insulin in gestational diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care. 2003;26(1):183–6.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- González C, Santoro S, Salzberg S, Di Girolamo G, Alvariñas J. Insulin analogue therapy in pregnancies complicated by diabetes mellitus. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2005;6(5):735–42.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Ziegler MH, Grafton TF, Hansen DK. The effect of tolbutamide on rat embryonic development in vitro. Teratology. 1993;48(1):45–51.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Elliott BD, Langer O, Schenker S, Johnson RF. Insignificant transfer of glyburide occurs across the human placenta. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1991;165(4 Pt 1):807–12.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Koren G. Glyburide and fetal safety; transplacental pharmacokinetic considerations. Reprod Toxicol. 2001;15(3):227–9. May-Jun.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Ramos GA, Jacobson GF, Kirby RS, Ching JY, Field DR. Comparison of glyburide and insulin for the management of gestational diabetics with markedly elevated oral glucose challenge test and fasting hyperglycemia. J Perinatol. 2007;27(5):262–7.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Langer O, Conway DL, Berkus MD, Xenakis EM, Gonzales O. A comparison of glyburide and insulin in women with gestational diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med. 2000;343(16):1134–8.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Chmait R, Dinise T, Moore T. Prospective observational study to establish predictors of glyburide success in women with gestational diabetes mellitus. J Perinatol. 2004;24(10):617–22.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Gabbe SG, Gregory RP, Power ML, Williams SB, Schulkin J. Management of diabetes mellitus by obstetrician-gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;103(6):1229–34.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Rowan JA, Hague WM, Gao W, Battin MR, Moore MP. Metformin versus insulin for the treatment of gestational diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(19):2003–15.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Gui J, Liu Q, Feng L. Metformin vs insulin in the management of gestational diabetes: a meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2013;8(5):e64585.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Marques P, Carvalho MR, Pinto L, Guerra S. Metformin safety in the management of gestational diabetes. Endocr Pract. 2014;1–21.Google Scholar
- Jovanovic-Peterson L, Peterson CM, Reed GF, Metzger BE, Mills JL, Knopp RH, et al. Maternal postprandial glucose levels and infant birth weight: the Diabetes in Early Pregnancy Study. The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development--Diabetes in Early Pregnancy Study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1991;164(1 Pt 1):103–11.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- De Veciana M, Major CA, Morgan MA, Asrat T, Toohey JS, Lien JM, et al. Postprandial versus preprandial blood glucose monitoring in women with gestational diabetes mellitus requiring insulin therapy. N Engl J Med. 1995;333(19):1237–41.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Dailey AD, LDM. Effectiveness of sliding-scale insulin in inpatients with Diabetes. J Pharm Technol. 2003;19:203–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Freedman RJ, Samson SL, Edwards AL, Schaefer JP, Southern DA, Quan H, et al. Glycemic control and use of the insulin sliding scale in hospitalized patients with diabetes. J Healthc Qual Promot Excell Healthc [Internet]. 2007;29:31–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Gearhart JG, Duncan JL, Replogle WH, Forbes RC, Walley EJ. Efficacy of sliding-scale insulin therapy: a comparison with prospective regimens. Fam Pract Res J. 1994;14:313–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Katz CM. How efficient is sliding-scale insulin therapy? Problems with a “cookbook” approach in hospitalized patients. Postgrad Med. 1991;89:46–8, 51–4, 57.Google Scholar
- Trotter B, Conaway MR, Burns SM. Relationship of glucose values to sliding scale insulin (correctional insulin) dose delivery and meal time in acute care patients with diabetes mellitus. MEDSURG Nurs. 2013;22:99–104.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Dickerson LM, Ye X, Sack JL, Hueston WJ. Glycemic control in medical inpatients with type 2 diabetes mellitus receiving sliding scale insulin regimens versus routine diabetes medications: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Ann Fam Med. 2003;1:29–35.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Rouse DJ, Owen J, Goldenberg RL, Cliver SP. The effectiveness and costs of elective cesarean delivery for fetal macrosomia diagnosed by ultrasound. JAMA. 1996;276(18):1480–6.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Boulvain M, Stan C, Irion O. Elective delivery in diabetic pregnant women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001;2:CD001997.PubMedGoogle Scholar
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.