OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of glyburide versus metformin and their combination for the treatment of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this prospective randomized controlled study, we randomly assigned patients with GDM at 13–33 weeks gestation and whose blood glucose was poorly controlled by diet to receive either glyburide or metformin. If optimal glycemic control was not achieved, the other drug was added. If adverse effects occurred, the drug was replaced. If both failed, insulin was given. The primary outcomes were the rate of treatment failure and glycemic control after the first-line medication according to mean daily glucose charts. RESULTS: Glyburide was started in 53 patients and metformin in 51. In the glyburide group, the drug failed in 18 (34%) patients due to adverse effects (hypoglycemia) in 6 (11%) and lack of glycemic control in 12 (23%). In the metformin group, the drug failed in 15 (29%) patients, due to adverse effects (gastrointestinal) in 1 (2%) and lack of glycemic control in 14 (28%). Treatment success after second-line therapy was higher in the metformin group than in the glyburide group (13 of 15 [87%] vs. 9 of 18 [50%], respectively; P = 0.03). In the glyburide group, nine (17%) patients were eventually treated with insulin compared with two (4%) in the metformin group (P = 0.03). The combination of the drugs reduced the need for insulin from 33 (32%) to 11 (11%) patients (P = 0.0002). Mean daily blood glucose and other obstetrical and neonatal outcomes were comparable between groups, including macrosomia, neonatal hypoglycemia, and electrolyte imbalance. CONCLUSIONS: Glyburide and metformin are comparable oral treatments for GDM regarding glucose control and adverse effects. Their combination demonstrates a high efficacy rate with a significantly reduced need for insulin, with a possible advantage for metformin over glyburide as first-line therapy.

Background: The prevalence of women diagnosed with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is increasing dramatically. Mobile technologies to enhance patient self-management offer many advantages for women diagnosed with GDM. However, to our knowledge, although mobile health (mHealth) and telemedicine systems for GDM management exist, evidence on their cultural and digital health literacy appropriateness levels is limited. Objective: This review aimed to search and assess the literature on mHealth and telemedicine systems designed for women diagnosed with GDM. Our assessment of these technologies focused on their cultural and digital health literacy appropriateness as well as the systems’ effectiveness in improving glycemic control and maternal and infant outcomes. Methods: We conducted a scoping review using a framework adapted from Arksey and O’Malley. Four electronic databases were searched for relevant studies: PubMed, MEDLINE (EBSCO), Web of Science, and Scopus. The databases were searched between January 2010 and January 2022. The inclusion criteria were pregnant women diagnosed with GDM, use of telemedicine for monitoring and management, and vulnerable or disadvantaged patients. We used terms related to mobile apps and telemedicine: GDM, vulnerable populations, periphery, cultural appropriateness, and digital health literacy. Studies were screened and selected independently by 2 authors. We extracted the study data on a Microsoft Excel charting table and categorized them into final themes. The results were categorized according to the cultural and digital health literacy features presented. Results: We identified 17 studies that reported on 12 telemedicine and mHealth app interventions. We assessed the studies in three domains: cultural appropriateness, digital health literacy, and maternal and infant outcomes. In the literature, we found that existing digital technologies may improve glycemic control and diabetes self-management. However, there is a lack of assessment of cultural and digital health literacy appropriateness for pregnant women diagnosed with GDM. Considerations in app design regarding cultural appropriateness were found in only 12% (2/17) of the studies, and only 25% (3/12) of the interventions scored ≥3 out of 5 in our assessment of digital health literacy. Conclusions: mHealth and telemedicine can be an effective platform to improve the clinical management of women with GDM. Although studies published on the use of mHealth and telemedicine systems exist, there is a limited body of knowledge on the digital health literacy and cultural appropriateness of the systems designed for women diagnosed with GDM. In addition, as our study was restricted to the English language, relevant studies may have been excluded. Further research is needed to evaluate, design, and implement better tailored apps regarding cultural and digital literacy appropriateness for enhancing pregnant women’s self-management as well as the effectiveness of these apps in improving maternal and infant health outcomes.

Objectives: To assess the effects of probiotic supplements on glycemic control and metabolic parameters in women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. The primary outcome was glycemic control, i.e., serum glucose and insulin levels. Secondary outcomes were maternal weight gain, neonatal birth weight, and lipid parameters. Weighted mean difference (WMD) was used. Cochrane’s Q test of heterogeneity and I² were used to assess heterogeneity. Results: Of the 843 papers retrieved, 14 (n = 854 women) met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. When compared with placebo, women receiving probiotic supplements had significantly lower mean fasting serum glucose, fasting serum insulin, homeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), triglycerides, total cholesterol, and VLDL levels. Decreased neonatal birth weight was witnessed in supplements containing Lactobacillus acidophilus. Conclusion: Probiotic supplements may improve glycemic control and lipid profile and reduce neonatal birth weight in women with GDM.

To examine whether glycemic control of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) could modify the risk for future maternal metabolic and cardiovascular morbidities. A retrospective cohort study of women with a first diagnosis of GDM who delivered between 1991 and 2011. Women were divided into groups of good and poor glycemic control, defined as a mean daily glucose of up to 95 mg/dL (N = 230) and more than 95 mg/dL (N = 216), respectively. In addition, a control group of women without GDM (N = 352) was also analyzed. The primary outcomes were the development of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), obesity, hypertension, or dyslipidemia. Mean follow-up time was 15.8 ± 5.1 years. Assessment was performed at a maternal age of 45 ± 7 years. The rates of the study outcomes in the control, GDM with good glycemic control and GDM with poor glycemic control were as follows: T2DM [19 (5.4%), 87 (38%), 127 (57%)]; hypertension [44 (13%), 42 (18%), 44 (20%)]; obesity [111 (32%), 112 (48%), 129 (58%)]; and dyslipidemia [49 (14%), 67 (29%), 106 (48%)]. Glycemic control was an independent risk factor for T2DM in multivariate Cox regression analysis (hazard ratio (HR) for poor glycemic control vs. controls 10.7 95% CI [6.0–19.0], good glycemic control vs. control HR 6.0 [3.3–10.8], and poor glycemic control vs. good glycemic control HR 1.8 [1.3–2.4]). Glycemic control was also an independent risk factor for dyslipidemia (poor glycemic control vs. controls HR 3.7 [2.3–5.8], good glycemic control vs. controls HR 2.0 [1.2–3.2], and poor glycemic control vs. good glycemic control HR 1.8 1.8 [1.3–2.6]). The fasting glucose level during oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) was also an independent risk factor for these complications. The interaction term between glycemic control and the fasting value of the OGTT was not statistically significant, suggesting that the effect of glycemic control on the rate of future T2DM and dyslipidemia was not modified by the baseline severity of GDM. GDM and especially poor glycemic control are associated with T2DM and dyslipidemia. Strict glycemic control for reducing that risk should be evaluated in prospective trials.