Diagnosis of gestational diabetes

peer reviewedGestational diabetes (GD) is a common complication of pregnancy. Its prevalence depends on the strategy used for screening and the studied population. Pregnant women with GD are at increased risk for maternal and fetal complications. The relationship between maternal blood sugar and complications is linear, without a clear threshold defining GD. Therefore, the diagnostic criteria for GD have been the subject of several controversies since many years. The choice of the one-step or two-step method, the test to be used and the cut-off levels validated to define GD are still debated. The same is true regarding a universal versus a at-risk population screening. International experts have recently proposed the use of a one-step approach with a 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test for a universal screening. The need for a better harmonization regarding the diagnosis of GD is indeed mandatory. The present article discusses both the advantages and disadvantages of the various approaches used for GD screening.Le diabète gestationnel (DG) est une complication fréquente de la grossesse. Sa prévalence varie fortement selon la stratégie de dépistage utilisée ainsi que la population étudiée. Le DG expose à un haut risque de complications, à la fois sur le plan maternel et foetal. Ces complications sont en relation directe avec l’hyperglycémie maternelle, mais cette relation est linéaire, sans valeur-seuil clairement définie. Cela explique sans doute pourquoi il est difficile d’énoncer des critères indiscutables de diagnostic du DG. De nombreuses controverses existent depuis plusieurs années dans la littérature quant aux méthodes les plus adéquates pour dépister le DG. Les questions sont relatives à l’intérêt d’une méthode en une ou deux étapes, au test à utiliser en priorité, aux valeursseuil à considérer en fonction du test retenu ainsi qu’au choix d’un dépistage universel ou uniquement ciblé sur les femmes à risque. Un groupe d’experts internationaux a proposé récemment un dépistage universel du DG avec la réalisation d’une hyperglycémie provoquée par voie orale de 2 heures. Une harmonisation des approches diagnostiques du DG est, en effet, indispensable. Cette vignette clinique discute les avantages et désavantages des différentes stratégies proposées pour dépister le DG

Controversy about the relative efficacy of dipeptidyl peptidase IV inhibitors.

peer reviewe

Long-term glycaemic control with metformin– sulphonylurea–pioglitazone triple therapy in PROactive (PROactive 17)

peer reviewedAims We assessed the long-term glycaemic effects and the safety profile of triple therapy with the addition of pioglitazone vs. placebo in patients with Type 2 diabetes treated with combined metformin–sulphonylurea therapy in the PROspective pioglitAzone Clinical Trial In macroVascular Events (PROactive). Methods In a post-hoc analysis, we identified patients treated with metformin plus sulphonylurea combination therapy and not receiving insulin at baseline (n = 1314). In those patients, we compared the effects of pioglitazone (force-titrated to 45 mg⁄ day, n = 654) vs. placebo (n = 660) on glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) reduction, concomitant changes in medications and initiation of permanent insulin use (defined as daily insulin use for a period of ‡ 90 days or ongoing use at death ⁄ final visit). Results Significantly greater reductions in HbA1c and greater proportions of patients with HbA1c at target were noted with pioglitazone vs, placebo, despite a decrease in the use of other oral glucose-lowering agents. Therewas an approximate twofold increase in progression to permanent insulin use in the placebo group vs. the pioglitazone group: 31.1 vs. 16.1%, respectively, when added to combination therapy. The overall safety of themetformin–sulphonylurea–pioglitazone triple therapy was good. Conclusions Intensifying an existing dual oral therapy regimen to a triple oral regimen by adding pioglitazone to the classical metformin–sulphonylurea combination resulted in sustained improvements in glycaemic control and reduced progression to insulin therapy. The advantages and disadvantages of adding pioglitazone instead of adding basal insulin should be assessed further

Haemodynamic changes during a squat test, pulsatile stress and indices of cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy in patients with long-duration type 1 diabetes.

AIM: Cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy (CAN) and pulsatile stress are considered to be independent cardiovascular risk factors. This study compared haemodynamic changes during an active orthostatic test in adult patients with type 1 diabetes (T1DM), using low versus high RR E/I ratios as a marker of CAN. METHODS: A total of 20 T1DM patients with low RR E/I ratios were compared with 20 T1DM patients with normal RR E/I ratios, matched for gender (1/1 ratio), age (mean: 46years) and diabetes duration (22-26years); 40 matched healthy subjects served as controls. All subjects were evaluated by continuous monitoring of arterial blood pressure (Finapres((R))) and heart rate using a standardized posture test (1-min standing, 1-min squatting, 1-min standing), thus allowing calculation of baroreflex gain. RESULTS: Compared with controls, T1DM patients showed lower RR E/I ratios, reduced baroreflex gains, higher pulsatile stress (pulse pressurexheart rate), greater squatting-induced pulse pressure rises, orthostatic hypotension and reduced reflex tachycardia. Compared with T1DM patients with preserved RR E/I ratios, T1DM patients with low RR E/I ratios showed reduced post-standing reflex tachycardia and baroreflex gain, and delayed blood pressure recovery, but no markers of increased pulsatile stress. Interestingly, decreased baroreflex gain was significantly associated with both pulsatile stress and microalbuminuria. CONCLUSION: The use of RR E/I ratios to separate T1DM patients allows the detection of other CAN markers during an orthostatic posture test, but with no significant differences in pulsatile stress or microalbuminuria. In this context, squatting-derived baroreflex gain appears to be more informative.Peer reviewe

Prevalence of diabetes, metabolic syndrome and metabolic abnormalities in schizophrenia over the course of the illness: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND: Patients with schizophrenia are at high risk of developing metabolic abnormalities. METHOD: A prospective study focusing on metabolic disturbances in patients with schizophrenia, including an oral glucose tolerance test, is currently ongoing at our University Hospital and affiliate services. The prevalence of metabolic abnormalities at baseline was assessed in a cohort of 415 patients with schizophrenia. The sample was divided into 4 groups according to duration of illness: first-episode patients (<1.5 years), recent-onset patients (between 1.5 and 10 years), subchronic patients (between 10 and 20 years) and chronic patients (>20 years). RESULTS: Metabolic abnormalities were already present in first-episode patients, and considerably increased with increasing duration of illness. When compared to the general population matched for age and gender, much higher rates of the metabolic syndrome (MetS) and diabetes were observed for patients with schizophrenia. For MetS, the increase over time was similar to that of the general population. In contrast, the difference in the prevalence of diabetes in patients with schizophrenia and the general population dramatically and linearly increased from 1.6% in the 15–25 age-band to 19.2% in the 55–65 age-band. CONCLUSION: Thus, the current data suggest that on the one hand metabolic abnormalities are an inherent part of schizophrenic illness, as they are already present in first-episode patients. On the other hand, however, our results suggest a direct effect of the illness and/or antipsychotic medication on their occurence. The data underscore the need for screening for metabolic abnormalities in patients diagnosed with schizophrenia, already starting from the onset of the illness