Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Screening, Diagnosis, and Prevention

Gestational diabetes mellitus: Screening, diagnosis, and prevention
Official reprint from UpToDate® www.uptodate.com

©2024 UpToDate®
Gestational diabetes mellitus: Screening, diagnosis, and

prevention
Author: Celeste Durnwald, MD
Section Editors: David M Nathan, MD, Erika F Werner, MD, MS
Deputy Editor: Vanessa A Barss, MD, FACOG
Contributor Disclosures
All topics are updated as new evidence becomes available and our peer review process is complete.
Literature review current through: Jan 2024. | This topic last updated: Jul 05, 2023.
INTRODUCTION
Pregnancy is generally a state of both enhanced beta-cell function and insulin resistance,
mediated primarily by placental secretion of diabetogenic hormones including growth
hormone, corticotropin-releasing hormone, placental lactogen (chorionic
somatomammotropin), prolactin, and progesterone. These and other metabolic changes,
which are most prominent in the third trimester, ensure that the fetus has an ample supply of
nutrients.
Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) develops in pregnant people whose pancreatic beta-cell
function is insufficient to overcome the insulin resistance associated with the pregnant state.
Among the main consequences of GDM are increased risks of preeclampsia, large for
gestational age (LGA) newborns, and cesarean birth, and their associated morbidities.
Patients with GDM are at high risk of developing type 2 diabetes later in life, which is not
surprising since both disorders are characterized by inadequate insulin secretion in the
setting of insulin resistance. In contrast to diabetes that develops pregestationally, GDM is
not generally associated with an increased risk for congenital anomalies since hyperglycemia
develops after organ formation is complete.
There is no universally accepted standard regarding screening for or diagnosis of GDM.
- Page 1 of 37 -
Practitioners tend to follow the guidance of their national medical organizations. Approaches
to screening and diagnosis will be reviewed here. Medical and obstetric management and
prognosis are discussed separately:
● (See "Gestational diabetes mellitus: Glucose management and maternal prognosis".)
● (See "Gestational diabetes mellitus: Obstetric issues and management".)
TERMINOLOGY
● Gestational diabetes traditionally referred to any pregnant person in whom abnormal

glucose tolerance was first recognized at any time during pregnancy [1]. A more
contemporary definition, and that used by the American Diabetes Association (ADA), is
diabetes diagnosed in the second or third trimester that was not clearly overt diabetes
prior to conception [2]. This definition excludes patients diagnosed in the first trimester
because they likely have previously undiagnosed type 2 diabetes. The term "overt
diabetes" is sometimes used to describe the diabetes status of these individuals during
pregnancy; a formal diagnosis of type 2 diabetes can be made when the diagnosis is
confirmed in the nonpregnant state.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) continues to define

GDM as "a condition in which carbohydrate intolerance develops during pregnancy" [3].
● Preexisting or pregestational diabetes refers to type 1 or 2 diabetes diagnosed before
pregnancy.
BACKGROUND
Prevalence — The prevalence of GDM by the traditional Carpenter and Coustan criteria (
table 3B) [4] was 7.8 percent of births in the United States in 2020 [5] and ranged from 2 to
38 percent of pregnant people in other countries [6]. Worldwide prevalence varies because of
differences in population characteristics (eg, average maternal age and body mass index
[BMI]) and choice of screening and diagnostic criteria. Using the 2010 International
Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) screening and diagnostic
- Page 2 of 37 -
criteria for diabetes in pregnancy ( table 3C) [7], the global prevalence of GDM has been
estimated to be 17 percent, with regional estimates of 10 percent in North America and 25
percent in Southeast Asia [8].
Prevalence has been increasing over time, likely due to increases in mean maternal age and
BMI, particularly increasing obesity, and changes in screening practices and methods [9-16].
Significance — GDM has been associated with increased risks of several adverse outcomes.
(See "Gestational diabetes mellitus: Obstetric issues and management", section on
'Consequences of GDM'.)
Although treatment of GDM can reduce the risk of some short-term outcomes (eg,
preeclampsia, macrosomia), a favorable effect on the long-term outcomes described below is
unclear. (See "Gestational diabetes mellitus: Glucose management and maternal prognosis",
section on 'Rationale for treatment'.)
● Short-term – GDM has been associated with increased risks of the following problems,
some of which are interdependent [17-21]:
• Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (preeclampsia, gestational hypertension)

• Large for gestational age (LGA) or macrosomic newborn
• Polyhydramnios
• Medically-indicated preterm birth
• Operative birth (cesarean, forceps- or vacuum-assisted vaginal)
• Shoulder dystocia
• Maternal and/or newborn birth trauma
• Fetal/neonatal cardiomyopathy
• Neonatal respiratory problems and metabolic complications (eg, hypoglycemia,
hyperbilirubinemia, hypocalcemia, hypomagnesemia, polycythemia and
hyperviscosity syndrome)
• Stillbirth
Importantly, the risks of these outcomes increase as maternal fasting plasma glucose
levels increase above 75 mg/dL (4.2 mmol/L) and as the one- and two-hour oral glucose
tolerance test (GTT) values increase from the lowest septile to the highest. This is a
continuous effect; there is no clear threshold that defines patients at increased risk of
- Page 3 of 37 -
adverse obstetric outcome [19-22].
The small increase in congenital anomalies observed in some population-based studies

of GDM (odds ratio [OR] 1.18 [23]) is likely related to undiagnosed preexisting type 2
diabetes mellitus or maternal obesity [24,25]. (See "Obesity in pregnancy: Complications
and maternal management", section on 'Congenital anomalies'.)
● Long-term – GDM has also been associated with increased long-term risks:
• Maternal – Development of diabetes mellitus (primarily type 2), metabolic syndrome,

and cardiovascular disease. (See "Gestational diabetes mellitus: Glucose
management and maternal prognosis", section on 'Long-term risk'.)
• Adolescent and adult offspring – Obesity, abnormal glucose tolerance, hypertension,

and metabolic syndrome. An increased risk of adverse neurodevelopmental
outcomes has also been reported and may be related to shared environmental and
genetic factors; however, evidence is circumstantial and requires further study [26-
31]. (See "Infants of mothers with diabetes (IMD)", section on 'Long-term outcome'.)
Risk factors
Individuals at increased risk of GDM — Pregnant people with any of the following
characteristics appear to be at increased risk of developing GDM. The risk varies across these
characteristics and is additive when multiple risk factors are present [3,32-39]:
● Personal history of any of the following:
• GDM in a previous pregnancy (associated with a 40 percent risk of recurrence [40])

• Impaired glucose tolerance
• A1C ≥5.7 percent
• Elevated fasting glucose
● Family history of diabetes, especially in a first-degree relative.
● Prepregnancy BMI ≥30 kg/m2, significant weight gain in early adulthood or between
pregnancies, or excessive gestational weight gain during the first 18 to 24 weeks of
pregnancy.
● Medical condition/setting associated with development of diabetes (eg, polycystic ovary
syndrome [PCOS]).
- Page 4 of 37 -
● Older maternal age (≥35 years of age).
● Member of one of the following groups, which have a high prevalence of type 2
diabetes: Hispanic American; Native American, Alaska native, or Native Hawaiian; South
or East Asian, Pacific Islander. The prevalence is less in non-Hispanic White and non-
Hispanic Black people [5].
● Previous birth of an infant ≥4000 g (approximately 9 pounds).
Individuals at low risk of GDM — By comparison, the risk of developing GDM is low in
younger (<25 years of age) non-Hispanic White people, with normal BMI (<25 kg/m2 [<23
kg/m2 in Asian people]), no history of previous glucose intolerance or adverse pregnancy
outcomes associated with GDM, and no first-degree relative with diabetes [41]. Only 10
percent of the general obstetric population in the United States meets all of these criteria for
low risk of developing GDM, which is the basis for universal rather than selective screening
[42]. (See 'Candidates' below.)
Lifestyle interventions for risk reduction — Lifestyle interventions (eg, diet modification,
exercise) are targeted at individuals at increased risk for developing GDM, particularly those
who are overweight or obese and those with a history of GDM in a previous pregnancy. The
primary target of lifestyle interventions is weight loss leading to less insulin resistance and
impaired insulin secretion.
● Diet modification and increased exercise – In a meta-analysis of randomized trials,
lifestyle interventions targeted at individuals with a higher baseline risk of GDM (eg, 20
percent incidence of GDM) reduced the risk of GDM by approximately 20 percent
compared with standard care [43]. The interventions included diet modification,
increased exercise, or both, ideally initiated before pregnancy and continuing across
gestation; exercising at the proper intensity and frequency (eg, moderate intensity for
50 to 60 minutes at least twice a week throughout pregnancy); and managing
gestational weight gain so as to not exceed standard recommendations ( table 1).
Individuals who are overweight or obese appear to benefit from weight loss before
conception [44,45], whereas beginning a modest unsupervised exercise program in the
second trimester appears to be inadequate to impact the risk of GDM [46-48]. (See
"Exercise during pregnancy and the postpartum period".)
- Page 5 of 37 -
● Type of diet – The optimum diet is unclear. There is limited evidence (none from
randomized trials) that a diet favoring fruit, vegetables, whole grains, and fish and low in
red and processed meat, refined grains, and high-fat dairy reduces the risk of
developing GDM [49,50]. The effect of a low glycemic index diet on risk of GDM is
unclear as only a few small randomized trials have been performed. A meta-analysis of
these trials did not demonstrate a clear benefit, but the confidence interval was wide
(risk ratio [RR] 0.91, 95% CI 0.61-1.31; four trials, 912 participants) [51].
● Smoking cessation – Smoking cessation should be encouraged in all patients. The
association between smoking and GDM is uncertain [32,52] and cessation is often
associated with weight gain; cessation has multiple maternal and fetal benefits and may
reduce GDM. (See "Tobacco and nicotine use in pregnancy: Cessation strategies and
treatment options".)
These interventions overlap with those utilized for prevention of type 2 diabetes and are
discussed in detail separately. (See "Prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus".)
Investigational risk reduction measures of uncertain benefit

● Metformin has not reduced the risk for GDM in randomized trials. Metformin has been
proposed as a medication to "prevent" GDM, based in part on evidence of its
effectiveness in reducing the risk for type 2 diabetes in nonpregnant individuals with
prior GDM [53] and observations that it reduced the risk for GDM in patients with PCOS
[54,55]. However, in a randomized trial of 273 pregnancies among 257 patients with
PCOS who were assigned to receive metformin (2000 mg/day) or placebo from the first
trimester until delivery, the prevalence of GDM was similar in both groups (metformin:
17.6 percent versus placebo: 16.9 percent) [56]. Two randomized trials comparing
metformin with placebo in pregnant people with obesity also showed no significant
reduction in the rate of GDM [57,58]. In most other metformin trials, patients in the
metformin group gained less weight during pregnancy than those in the placebo group.
● Probiotics do not appear to be useful and may be harmful. In a meta-analysis of
randomized trials, probiotics did not clearly reduce the risk of GDM compared with
placebo (mean RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.54-1.20; 6 trials, 1440 participants) but increased the
risk of preeclampsia (RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.04-3.29; 4 studies, 955 participants) [59].
- Page 6 of 37 -
● Myoinositol is a naturally occurring sugar in fruits, beans, grains, and nuts that can
improve insulin resistance. A meta-analysis reported a reduction in GDM with
supplementation (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.31-0.90; 6 trials, 1140 participants), but limitations
include individual small studies, lack of generalizability, and inconsistency, which may be
related to different doses, timing, and combinations of myoinositol supplementation
[60]. Before this intervention can be recommended, a large multicenter, blinded,
randomized trial is needed to confirm safety and demonstrate improvement in clinically
important maternal and/or neonatal outcomes.
BENEFITS AND HARMS OF SCREENING
● Potential benefits – A 2021 systematic review by the United States Preventive Services
Task Force (USPSTF) found that screening for GDM at 24 weeks of gestation or after was
associated with some favorable maternal and fetal/newborn outcomes (eg, reduction in
cesarean births, birth injuries, neonatal intensive care unit admissions, stillbirth)
compared with historical unscreened controls [61,62]. These findings were largely
derived from two observational studies [63,64]. In addition, randomized trials have
shown that treatment of GDM can reduce some fetal, neonatal, and maternal
morbidities, particularly macrosomia and shoulder dystocia, and possibly preeclampsia
[61,62]. These data are described separately. (See "Gestational diabetes mellitus:
Glucose management and maternal prognosis", section on 'Rationale for treatment'.)
● Potential harms – The commonly used screening and diagnostic tests for diabetes
involve drinking a glucose-containing beverage followed by blood glucose
measurement. None of the screening or diagnostic tests are associated with serious
harmful maternal or fetal effects, but the hyperosmolar drinks are poorly tolerated by
some individuals since they may cause nausea and vomiting.
If GDM is diagnosed, management involves medical nutrition therapy; an increased

frequency of prenatal visits; frequent blood glucose monitoring; and the possibility of
pharmacologic therapy, antenatal fetal monitoring, and induction because of diabetes
status. Most of these interventions are not associated with serious harm, but
antihyperglycemic drugs can be costly and can have side effects, which vary by drug and
- Page 7 of 37 -
dose. Screening and diagnosis of GDM may lead to over- or undertreatment (treatment
without a favorable effect on outcome) and heighten maternal anxiety, but long-term
psychological harm is unlikely.
The cost implications of screening versus not screening are not clear [65-67].
SCREENING FOR OVERT DIABETES IN EARLY PREGNANCY
Diabetes diagnosed early in pregnancy has been called overt diabetes and is assumed to be
previously undiagnosed type 2 diabetes.
Rationale — An increasing proportion of pregnant patients have unrecognized type 2

diabetes due to the increasing prevalence of obesity and lack of routine glucose/diabetes
screening in reproductive-age individuals [68]. Approximately 30 percent of females aged 18
to 44 years in the United States are estimated to have some degree of abnormal glucose
metabolism including impaired glucose tolerance and/or impaired fasting glucose (26
percent) or type 2 diabetes (4 percent) [69].
Unrecognized, untreated hyperglycemia in early pregnancy is important because it is

associated with an increased risk of miscarriage and congenital anomalies [70-72]. In
addition, unrecognized maternal comorbidity (eg, nephropathy, retinopathy) can have serious
maternal and obstetric consequences. If these individuals are identified early in pregnancy,
they could benefit from receiving the diagnostic and therapeutic interventions routinely
provided to pregnant patients with preexisting (pregestational) diabetes mellitus. (See
"Pregestational (preexisting) diabetes: Preconception counseling, evaluation, and
management".)
Our approach to early pregnancy screening (universal screening by A1C) — Given the
increasing frequency of type 2 diabetes and evidence of a reduced risk of large for gestational
age (LGA) newborns with universal early maternal screening and treatment [73], the author of
this topic checks an A1C level to screen for diabetes as part of the routine prenatal laboratory
studies of all patients at the initial prenatal visit.
● A1C ≥6.5 percent (≥48 mmol/mol) – In nonpregnant people, an A1C ≥6.5 percent (≥48
mmol/mol) is one of the criteria used to diagnose diabetes ( table 2). Therefore, an
- Page 8 of 37 -
A1C ≥6.5 percent early in pregnancy, when A1C levels are generally slightly lower than in
the nonpregnant state [74], strongly suggests previously undiagnosed type 2 diabetes.
These patients are managed similar to those with preexisting diabetes mellitus. (See
"Pregestational (preexisting) diabetes: Preconception counseling, evaluation, and
management" and "Pregestational (preexisting) diabetes mellitus: Antenatal glycemic
control" and "Pregestational (preexisting) diabetes mellitus: Obstetric issues and
management".)
● A1C <6.5 percent (<48 mmol/mol) – This is a negative test for diabetes in nonpregnant
people. At 24 to 28 weeks of gestation, the author screens these patients for GDM with
the two-step test. Approximately one-quarter of pregnant people with A1C 5.7 to 6.4
percent (39 to 47 mmol/mol) suggestive of impaired glucose intolerance in early
pregnancy are diagnosed with GDM when screened with a two-step test later in
pregnancy compared with <10 percent of those with A1C <5.7 percent (39 mmol/mol)
[75]. (See 'One- and two-step approaches' below.)
The author acknowledges that an A1C <6.5 percent (<48 mmol/mol) is not sufficiently
sensitive to detect mildly impaired glucose tolerance, especially if the A1C is ≥5.7 (which
is above the upper limit of normal in nonpregnant individuals), but the overall value of
detecting and treating mildly impaired glucose tolerance in early pregnancy has not
been established in randomized trials [76].
Other approaches to early pregnancy screening
Targeted screening of individuals at high risk — The International Association of Diabetes

and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) [7], the American Diabetes Association (ADA) [2], and
the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) [3] suggest targeting early
pregnancy screening to individuals at increased risk of undiagnosed type 2 diabetes.
However, the ADA also suggests that clinicians consider testing all individuals for
undiagnosed diabetes at the first prenatal visit (or preconceptionally) [2]. In contrast, a United
States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guideline concluded that available evidence
was insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening asymptomatic
pregnant people for glucose intolerance before 24 weeks of gestation [61,62].
The ADA and ACOG define patients at increased risk of type 2 diabetes based on [2,3]:
- Page 9 of 37 -
● GDM in a previous pregnancy.
● Body mass index (BMI) ≥25 kg/m2 (≥23 kg/m2 in Asian Americans) plus one or more of
the following:
• First-degree relative with diabetes.

• High-risk race/ethnicity (eg, African American, Latino, Native American, Asian
American, Pacific Islander).
• History of cardiovascular disease.

• Hypertension (≥130/80 mmHg prepregnancy) or on therapy for hypertension.
• High-density lipoprotein cholesterol level <35 mg/dL (0.90 mmol/L) and/or a
triglyceride level >250 mg/dL (2.82 mmol/L).
• Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS).

• Physical inactivity.
• Other clinical condition associated with insulin resistance (eg, severe obesity,
acanthosis nigricans).
● Glycated hemoglobin ≥5.7 percent (39 mmol/mol), impaired glucose tolerance (two-hour
glucose level 140 to 199 mg/dL), or impaired fasting glucose (glucose level 100 to 125
mg/dL) on a previous 75-gram oral glucose tolerance test (GTT) in the nonpregnant
state.
● HIV infection, exposure to high-risk medicines, history of pancreatitis.
● Age ≥35 years.
In a randomized trial, early pregnancy diabetes screening because of obesity alone (BMI ≥30
kg/m2) did not demonstrate a reduction in a composite of adverse outcomes (eg,
macrosomia, primary cesarean delivery, hypertensive disease of pregnancy, shoulder
dystocia, neonatal hyperbilirubinemia, or hypoglycemia) [77]. Screening was done using a 50-
gram one-hour GTT followed by a 100-gram, three-hour GTT if the initial screen was ≥135
mg/dL. The trial findings were limited by the small number of participants diagnosed with
early GDM (n = 29) and the timing of the early screening, which was between 14 and 20
weeks.
- Page 10 of 37 -
Targeting screening to symptomatic patients is not useful because many patients are
asymptomatic or have unrecognized mild symptoms. However, those with random blood
glucose values ≥200 mg/dL (11.1 mmol/L) may have symptoms of hyperglycemia (eg,
increased thirst, polyuria, weight loss, blurry vision). (See "Clinical presentation, diagnosis,
and initial evaluation of diabetes mellitus in adults".)
Choice of screening test — No approach has been validated for diagnosis of diabetes in the
first or early second trimester. Clinical practice varies by institution and clinician preference.
Screening practice varies from a hemoglobin A1C alone, fasting glucose alone, a two-hour 75-
gram oral GTT, or two-step test (one-hour 50-gram GTT followed by a three-hour 100-gram
GTT if the 50-gram GTT is positive). (See 'One- and two-step approaches' below.)
● If a two-step test is used, ACOG criteria for diabetes are shown in the tables (
table 3A-B). These criteria are the same as those used for diagnosis of GDM later in
pregnancy.
● If a one-step test is used:
• ADA criteria for diabetes are shown in the table ( table 2). These thresholds are
the same as those used by the ADA for diagnosis of diabetes in nonpregnant people
and were chosen because they correlate with development of adverse vascular
events, such as retinopathy and coronary artery disease, in these individuals over
time [2].
ADA criteria for "early abnormal glucose metabolism" are fasting glucose 110 to 125
mg/dL (6.1 to 6.9 mmol/L) or A1C 5.9 to 6.4 percent (41 to 47 mmol/mol).
• IADPSG criteria for diabetes are similar to ADA criteria: A1C ≥6.5 percent, fasting
blood glucose ≥126 mg/dL (7.0 mmol/L), or random plasma glucose ≥200 mg/dL
(11.1 mmol/L) confirmed by fasting blood glucose or A1C at these levels.
These criteria for diagnosis of diabetes in early pregnancy are different from those used
by the ADA and IADPSG for diagnosis of GDM later in pregnancy ( table 3C).
Management of patients after an early pregnancy GTT

● Abnormal GTT – If a patient in early pregnancy (before significant insulin resistance)
meets ADA ( table 2) or IADPSG criteria for diagnosis of diabetes in the nonpregnant
- Page 11 of 37 -
state, they are assumed to have had the disorder prior to the pregnancy and their
management is similar to those with documented preexisting diabetes mellitus in
pregnancy. (See "Pregestational (preexisting) diabetes: Preconception counseling,
evaluation, and management" and "Pregestational (preexisting) diabetes mellitus:
Antenatal glycemic control" and "Pregestational (preexisting) diabetes mellitus:
Obstetric issues and management".)
The benefit of treating a patient whose early pregnancy GTT meets ADA and IADPSG
criteria for GDM ( table 3C) has not been established. A randomized trial including
over 800 pregnant participants with an abnormal two-hour 75-gram oral GTT (defined as
fasting glucose level ≥92 mg/dL [≥5.1 mmol/L], one-hour glucose level ≥180 mg/dL
[≥10.0 mmol/L], or a two-hour glucose level ≥153 mg/dL [≥8.5 mmol per liter]) before 20
weeks of gestation compared immediate treatment versus retesting at 24 to 28 weeks
and starting treatment at that time if results were abnormal [76]. Those discovered to
have overt diabetes at early testing were excluded from randomization (overt diabetes:
fasting glucose level ≥110 mg/dL [≥6.1 mmol/L] or two-hour glucose level ≥200 mg/dL
[11.1 mmol/L]) and treated.
Immediate treatment of patients who meet diagnostic criteria for GDM early in
pregnancy did not result in a clear or substantial reduction in LGA births (16.8 versus
19.6 percent; RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.51-1.17), composite adverse neonatal outcome (24.9
versus 30.5 percent; RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.68-0.98), or pregnancy-related hypertension (10.6
versus 9.9 percent; RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.85-1.38). The modest reduction in adverse neonatal
outcome was largely due to a reduction in neonatal respiratory distress, which was
unexpected. In addition, one-third of participants in the untreated early abnormal test
group had normal results when retested at 24 to 28 weeks. These findings have
prompted stakeholders to review their early pregnancy diabetes screening protocols,
but revised guidelines from major medical organizations have not been published.
● Normal GTT – Patients with normal 75- or 100-gram oral GTT in early pregnancy are
screened for GDM at 24 to 28 weeks of gestation.
• Those who were screened early in pregnancy by the one-step approach are
rescreened using the 75-gram oral GTT.
• Those who were screened early in pregnancy by the two-step approach can omit the
- Page 12 of 37 -
first step (50-gram oral glucose solution with glucose testing after one hour) at 24 to
28 weeks as it is likely to be abnormal; these patients can be rescreened using the
three-hour 100-gram oral GTT alone [78,79] .
SCREENING FOR GDM AT 24 TO 28 WEEKS
Candidates — In the United States, universal screening appears to be the most practical
approach because:
● 90 percent of pregnant people have at least one risk factor for glucose impairment
during pregnancy, so limiting testing to those with risk factors would not substantially
reduce testing [42] (see 'Risk factors' above).
● 20 percent of pregnant people with GDM have no risk factors, so limiting testing to
those with risk factors would miss most cases of GDM [80-82].
One- and two-step approaches — Screening is performed at 24 to 28 weeks of gestation

since 24 weeks is the gestational age when insulin resistance is significantly increasing,
leading to hyperglycemia in those with insufficient insulin secretory capacity to maintain
euglycemia [2,3]. It can be performed as a one- or two-step process. There is no consensus
among national and international organizations for the optimal approach, and the choice
generally depends on local customs.
One-step test — The one-step approach simplifies screening by performing only a

diagnostic test, typically a fasting 75-gram oral glucose tolerance test (GTT), in all patients.
The criteria for diagnosis of GDM are shown in the table ( table 3C). The International
Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) prefers this approach, which
has been widely adopted internationally, and the American Diabetes Association (ADA)
considers it an acceptable alternative to the two-step approach [2]. The procedure is
described below. (See 'Procedures and laboratory issues' below and 'Validation of the 75-gram
GTT' below.)
Two-step test — In the United States, the two-step test is the most widely used approach for
identifying pregnant people with GDM. It is endorsed by American College of Obstetricians
and Gynecologists (ACOG) [3] and the ADA considers it an acceptable option [2]. We prefer the
- Page 13 of 37 -
two-step approach because fewer patients are diagnosed and managed as GDM, without
incurring an increase in adverse outcome (see 'Evidence for choosing the two-step versus
one-step approach' below). The first step has the practical advantages that fasting is
unnecessary and only one blood sample is required. A minority of patients need to undergo
the second step (16 percent at the ≥140 mg/dL threshold in a large series [83]).
● The first step is a one-hour 50-gram oral GTT administered without regard to time of
day/previous meals. Screen-positive individuals ( table 3A) are at increased risk for
GDM so all but those with very high (≥200 mg/dL [11.1 mmol/L]) glucose values go on to
have the more cumbersome second step. We use ≥135 mg/dL (7.5 mmol/L) as the cutoff
for a positive test because our patient population is at high risk for developing GDM.
Although there are limited data regarding the clinical benefit of this cutoff, we believe
that it offers the optimum combination of sensitivity and specificity for our population.
Some institutions use a cut-off of ≥130 based on their higher-risk population. A cut-off of
≥140 mg/dL (7.8 mmol/L) is another commonly used cut-off. The procedure and
supporting evidence are described below. (See 'Screening: 50-gram one-hour GTT'
below.)
● The second step is a three-hour 100-gram oral GTT performed after an overnight fast;
the GTT is the diagnostic test for GDM ( table 3B). We use Carpenter and Coustan
criteria for an abnormal GTT as the lower, more stringent criteria for diagnosis identifies
patients with glucose intolerance at the most risk of adverse perinatal outcomes.
Although the three-hour 100-gram oral GTT is typically performed as the second step of
the two-step approach, this is arbitrary and in some countries (eg, Canada) a two-hour
75-gram oral GTT is performed as the second step in the screening/diagnostic process
[84]. The procedure and supporting evidence are described below. (See 'Procedures and
laboratory issues' below and 'Validation of the 100-gram GTT' below.)
Evidence for choosing the two-step versus one-step approach — The body of evidence
may favor the two-step approach. In a 2022 meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing
outcomes of the one- versus the two-step approach:
● The one-step approach diagnosed twice as many patients with GDM (16.3 versus 8.3
percent; RR 2.13, 95% CI 1.61-2.82) and resulted in twice as many patients receiving
antihyperglycemic pharmacotherapy (7.1 versus 3.8 percent; RR 2.24, 95% CI 1.21-4.15),
- Page 14 of 37 -
without a clear benefit in outcome.

● Most maternal and neonatal outcomes were similar for both groups:
• Large for gestational age (LGA; 8.8 versus 9.2 percent; RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.88-1.04)
• Hypertensive disorder of pregnancy (13.6 percent versus 13.6 percent; RR 1.00, 95%
CI 0.94-1.07)
• Primary cesarean birth (24.0 versus 24.7 percent; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.93-1.02)
• Macrosomia (>4000 grams, 11.2 versus 11.3 percent; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.92-1.07)
• Shoulder dystocia (2.1 versus 2.0 percent; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.89-1.28)
• Small for gestational age (SGA; 8.6 versus 8.3 percent; RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.95-1.13)
• Stillbirth (0.5 versus 0.6 percent; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.64-1.28)
● Neonatal hypoglycemia was more common in the one-step group (9.3 versus 7.6
percent; RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.13-1.34)
Results were similar in high-quality observational studies, except for LGA (RR 0.97, 95% CI
0.95-0.98) where the confidence interval was consistent with a modest reduction.
Based on these findings, it appears that using the one-step method increases the number of
patients who receive a diagnosis of GDM and thus has the potential for increased patient and
medical system burden (eg, more prenatal visits, fetal and maternal surveillance, lifestyle
changes, and intervention) with economic, personal, and psychological consequences [85-87],
but without a clear direct benefit over the two-step approach in maternal and newborn
outcomes. Therefore, we believe it is prudent to use the two-step approach to diagnose GDM
followed by treatment of affected patients according to standard guidelines. Nevertheless,
because of limitations of the available trials, the best approach remains controversial [88].
(See 'One- and two-step approaches' above.)
The potential long-term consequences of increasing the number of patients who receive a
diagnosis of GDM is another issue. Increased identification of glucose intolerance in
pregnancy might lead to improved long-term maternal outcomes. Theoretically, if individuals
with GDM are identified and make postpartum lifestyle changes (with or without metformin),
this may prevent or delay development of type 2 diabetes later in life [53]. Data are lacking
due to the low percentage of patients with GDM who complete the recommended
postpartum follow-up. Counseling regarding long-term risk, adherence to a risk-reduction
- Page 15 of 37 -
program, and long-term glucose monitoring for diabetes would be essential to assess this
issue.
Procedures and laboratory issues
Screening: 50-gram one-hour GTT — A 50-gram oral glucose solution is given without
regard to the time elapsed since the last meal/beverage and venous plasma glucose is
measured one hour later (sometimes called a glucose challenge test [GCT] or glucose loading
test [GLT]). Glucose concentration should be measured using an accurate and precise
enzymatic method. The majority of patients (70 to 80 percent) screen negative at this step
and thus do not undergo diagnostic testing [4].
The following thresholds have been proposed to define a positive screen: ≥130 mg/dL, ≥135
mg/dL, or ≥140 mg/dL (7.2 mmol/L, 7.5 mmol/L, or 7.8 mmol/L). The original threshold for an
elevated test (equivalent to 143 mg/dL [7.9 mmol/L] with current methodology) was arbitrary,
used whole blood and a nonspecific glucose assay, and was validated by its ability to predict
an abnormal 100-gram oral GTT [89]. Using a lower threshold (≥130 mg/dL [7.2 mmol/L] with
current methodology) increases sensitivity, but results in more false positives and would
require administering a three-hour 100-gram oral GTT to more patients. In a systematic
review of cohort studies of screening tests for GDM by the USPSTF, using Carpenter and
Coustan criteria, sensitivity and specificity at the ≥130 mg/dL threshold was 100 and 25
percent, respectively, in one study; 90 and 81 percent in a second study; and 75 and 86
percent in a third study [90]. The pooled sensitivity and specificity at ≥135 mg/dL was 93 and
79 percent, respectively; at ≥140 mg/dL pooled sensitivity and specificity were both 82
percent.
The precise composition of the glucose solution (other than the 50 grams of glucose) can vary
among manufactures. No studies have compared products.
Management of patients with results ≥200 mg/dL — For patients with one-hour 50-
gram glucose concentration ≥200 mg/dL (11.1 mmol/L), the author makes a presumptive
diagnosis of GDM, unless the patient prefers to undergo a three-hour 100-gram oral GTT for
definitive diagnosis. The GTT can be performed safely, as the 100-gram glucose load would
rarely, if ever, lead to a hyperglycemic emergency or other serious adverse events in patients
with GDM or unrecognized type 2 diabetes. It has been performed in thousands of patients
with no reports of serious adverse events.
- Page 16 of 37 -
The basis for this approach is that patients who have a very high glucose level on their one-
hour 50-gram oral GTT have a high likelihood of an abnormal three-hour 100-gram oral GTT;
the positive predictive value (PPV) varies depending on the prevalence of GDM in the
population tested and the GTT criteria used for diagnosis. For example, Carpenter and
Coustan found that patients whose one-hour 50-gram oral GTT plasma glucose concentration
was >182 mg/dL (10.1 mmol/L) had >95 percent probability of an abnormal three-hour 100-
gram oral GTT [4]. At glucose levels ≥200 mg/dL (11.1 mmol/L), others have reported PPVs of
47 to 80 percent for an abnormal three-hour 100-gram oral GTT [83,91,92].
Diagnostic testing: 75- and 100-gram GTT
Pretest preparation — Fasting for 8 to 10 hours is required before the test.

Carbohydrate loading for three days before the test is unnecessary if the patient is not on a
very-low-carbohydrate diet [93-96]. (See 'Options for patients unable to tolerate hyperosmolar
oral glucose' below.)
● Role of fasting glucose level – A fasting glucose level is rarely determined before
administering the GTT. This approach would require asking the patient to have blood
drawn for their fasting glucose level and then wait for the results before going ahead
with the GTT later the same day (and remain fasting) or on another day (and fasting
again), which is cumbersome. Excluding fasting hyperglycemia before a GTT is
unnecessary to safely perform the test. However, identifying fasting hyperglycemia can
reduce testing for some patients.
• If a 75-gram oral GTT is planned and the fasting glucose level is ≥92 mg/dL (5.1
mmol/L), then the diagnosis of GDM is made and the GTT is cancelled.
• If a 100-gram oral GTT is planned, no data support a particular fasting cutoff for
diagnosing GDM and an abnormal fasting glucose level alone is not diagnostic of
GDM. However, a glucose level ≥126 mg/dL (7 mmol/L) is a reasonable threshold for
cancelling the GTT as it is diagnostic of diabetes in the general population.
Diagnostic criteria — The diagnosis of GDM is based on plasma glucose values during
the two-hour GTT using a 75-gram oral glucose load or during the three-hour GTT using a
100-gram oral glucose load. Thresholds for a positive test are shown in the tables (
table 3B-C).
- Page 17 of 37 -
The GTT is an imprecise test with poor reproducibility [97].

● In a study that performed two 100-gram oral GTTs one to two weeks apart in 64
pregnant people whose one-hour 50-gram oral GTT was ≥135 mg/dL, 48 had
normal/normal, 11 had normal/abnormal, three had abnormal/normal, and two had
abnormal/abnormal results [98]. Thus, only 50 of 64 (78 percent) had reproducible test
results.
● In a trial that performed a two-hour 75-gram oral GTT before 20 weeks and repeated the
test at 24 to 28 weeks, one-third of participants had abnormal followed by normal
results [76].
Nevertheless, the 100-gram oral GTT is a practical and widely utilized means of diagnosing
GDM, and the 75-gram oral GTT is a widely utilized means of diagnosing diabetes in both
pregnant and nonpregnant individuals. Proper handling and processing of blood samples are
important for accurate results [99].
Options for patients unable to tolerate hyperosmolar oral glucose — The highly
concentrated hyperosmolar glucose solution used for the GTT can cause gastric irritation,
delayed emptying, and gastrointestinal osmotic imbalance, leading to nausea and, in a small
percentage of patients, vomiting [100-102]. Options in these cases include:
● Serving over ice – Serving the hyperosmolar glucose drink on ice may reduce nausea
and vomiting.
● Antiemetic premedication – If the patient vomited during the oral GTT and is willing to
come back another day for repeat testing, premedication with an antiemetic drug may
allow the test to be completed. In one study, 8 percent of patients could not complete
the 100-gram oral GTT because of vomiting [100]. It is possible that fewer patients vomit
with the 75-gram oral GTT.
● Intravenous GTT – The GTT can be performed intravenously instead of orally, although
this is rarely done because it is onerous, expensive, and unvalidated in pregnancy [103].
Considering these limitations, we recommend not using it.
● Structured postprandial glucose assessment – Periodic fasting and one- or two-hour
postprandial blood glucose tests can be obtained in pregnant people at high risk for
GDM. For example, they can be asked to keep a weekly log of self-monitored glucose
- Page 18 of 37 -
values from 24 to 28 weeks (the gestational age when screening would be performed)
and at 32 weeks (the gestational age of peak insulin resistance).
This approach is also useful for pregnant people who have dumping syndrome after a
Roux-en-Y gastric bypass procedure; these individuals are unlikely to tolerate a
hyperosmolar glucose solution [104]. Monitoring glucose values will only identify those
cases of GDM that might require intervention for hyperglycemia and not all cases of
GDM. (See "Fertility and pregnancy after bariatric surgery".)
● Other – Other approaches have been tried in patients who do not tolerate or decline to
have an oral GTT, but are not recommended because they have not been validated or
they perform poorly.
• Candy, a predefined meal, or commercial soft drinks with 75 or 100 grams of glucose
have been used instead of a standard glucose monomer or polymer solution [105-
110]. These oral glucose loads are better tolerated but appear to be less sensitive
and have not been validated in large studies. None have been endorsed by the ADA
or ACOG.
• A1C – In a USPSTF systematic review, no threshold for glycated hemoglobin (A1C) in

the second and third trimesters had both good sensitivity and specificity as a
screening test for GDM [90].
• Fasting glucose alone – The USPSTF review also found that a fasting plasma glucose
threshold of 79 mg/dL was required to achieve high (96 percent) sensitivity but
specificity was poor (35 percent) [90]. A fasting plasma glucose threshold of 95.5
mg/dL was required to achieve high specificity (98 percent) but sensitivity was 58
percent at this level.
However, in low-resource settings where universal screening with a GTT is not

feasible, use of fasting plasma glucose at 24 to 28 weeks to screen pregnant people
may be a practical approach, a reasonable trade-off between cost savings and
adverse outcomes in missed cases. In a study from 15 Chinese hospitals, if
performance of the GTT was restricted to pregnant people with fasting glucose from
79 mg/dL (4.4 mmol/L) to 90 mg/dL (5.0 mmol/L), then 50 percent of pregnant people
could avoid a GTT since 38 percent of this population had fasting glucose <79 mg/dL
- Page 19 of 37 -
(4.4 mmol/L) and 12 percent had fasting glucose >90 mg/dL (5.0 mmol/L), diagnostic
of GDM in this system; 12 percent of patients with GDM were missed [111]. These
findings may not be generalizable to other low-resource populations since Asian
females have a higher incidence of type 2 diabetes and GDM than White females,
and fasting hyperglycemia among Asian females with GDM is less prominent than in
non-Asian populations [112]. In non-Asian populations, 50 to 75 percent of patients
with GDM have fasting glucose levels ≥92 mg/dL (5.1 mmol/L) on an oral GTT [112].
• Testing for glucosuria – A positive urine dipstick for glycosuria is not very predictive
of GDM, and a negative urine dipstick for glycosuria is not very predictive of absence
of GDM, so should not be used for ruling the diagnosis in or out [113-115]. Glycosuria
with a normal blood glucose level is common in pregnant people as pregnancy is
associated with reductions in fractional reabsorption of glucose, which results in
higher rates of urinary excretion.
Validation of the 100-gram GTT — The three-hour 100-gram oral GTT is diagnostic of
GDM when two glucose values are elevated. The most commonly used thresholds for defining
elevated values were proposed by Carpenter and Coustan ( table 3B) [4], which is a
modification of thresholds proposed by O’Sullivan and Mahan [116], originally based on
venous whole blood samples. The Carpenter and Coustan values are based on newer
enzymatic assays performed on plasma samples and reflect current laboratory practices.
The requirement for two abnormal values on the GTT was an arbitrary decision made by
O’Sullivan and Mahan in 1964 [116]. Treatment of patients who meet these diagnostic criteria
for GDM improves some pregnancy outcomes (eg, pregnancy-induced hypertension,
macrosomia, shoulder dystocia) [117]. However, a 2016 systematic review including 25 studies
noted that pregnant people with one abnormal value on the 100-gram oral GTT generally had
increased risks for the same poor outcomes as those with two abnormal values (ie, GDM)
[118]. This subset of patients may warrant closer monitoring for fetal overgrowth and other
adverse outcomes of GDM, as well as closer monitoring for future development of type 2
diabetes [119]. Whether they would benefit from treatment is unknown. The author of this
topic obtains a third-trimester fetal growth scan on these patients. If fetal overgrowth or
polyhydramnios is present, she discusses the option of home glucose monitoring.
Validation of the 75-gram GTT — The two-hour 75-gram oral GTT is diagnostic of GDM
- Page 20 of 37 -
when one glucose value is elevated. The most commonly used thresholds for defining
elevated values have been proposed by the IADPSG ( table 3C). The 75-gram oral GTT is
generally more sensitive for identifying the pregnancy at risk for adverse outcome (eg,
gestational hypertension, preeclampsia, LGA) than the 100-gram oral GTT [120]. Increased
sensitivity is primarily related to the need for only one elevated glucose value for a positive
test [112], as well as slightly lower glucose thresholds.
● Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (HAPO) study – The IADPSG-
defined thresholds for the 75-gram oral GTT are primarily based on outcome data
reported in the HAPO study, a prospective observational study of more than 23,000
pregnancies in nine countries evaluated with a 75-gram oral GTT at 24 to 32 weeks of
gestation [7,19]. These thresholds represent the glucose values at which the odds of
neonatal birth weight, cord C-peptide (surrogate for fetal insulin level), and percent body
fat >90th percentile were 1.75 times the estimated odds of these outcomes at mean
glucose levels, based on fully adjusted logistic regression models. Compared with
participants in the HAPO study with all glucose values below the thresholds, those who
exceeded one or more of these thresholds had a twofold higher frequency of LGA
newborns and preeclampsia and >45 percent increase in preterm birth and primary
cesarean birth. Using an odds ratio (OR) of 2 for the thresholds defined a population
with a higher frequency of these outcomes, but the difference was modest and resulted
in failure to identify many pregnant people who were at almost similar risk of these
outcomes but had all glucose values below the thresholds. IADPSG-defined thresholds
are also predictive of a more than threefold increased long-term risk of diabetes and
metabolic syndrome [121,122]. In a post hoc analysis of data from the HAPO Study, 52
percent of pregnant people who would meet IADPSG criteria for GDM developed a
disorder of glucose metabolism by 10 to 14 years postpartum, compared with 20
percent of those without GDM (OR 3.44, 95% CI 2.85-4.14 [122]). Among pregnant
people who met IADPSG criteria for GDM, rates of type 2 diabetes and prediabetes were
10.7 and 41.5 percent, respectively, versus rates of 1.6 and 18.4 percent, respectively, in
those without GDM. The children of these individuals were more likely to be “overweight
or obese” (39.5 versus 28.6 percent in children of mothers without GDM, OR 1.21, 95% CI
1.00-1.46) after adjustment for maternal body mass index (BMI) during pregnancy, and
the difference in prevalence of obesity was statistically significant (19 versus 10 percent
- Page 21 of 37 -
in children of mothers without GDM, OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.24-2.01).

● Post-HAPO data – In 2022, the IADPSG-defined thresholds for the 75-gram oral GTT
were reassessed in a trial that randomly assigned 4061 pregnant patients undergoing
GDM screening to the standard glycemic threshold criteria for diagnosis ( table 3C) or
higher thresholds (ie, fasting plasma glucose ≥99 mg/dL [≥5.5 mmol/L] or two-hour
glucose ≥162 mg/dL [≥9.0 mmol/L]) [123]. Patients who met the threshold criteria for
GDM for their assigned group received usual care for patients with GDM (per New
Zealand Ministry of Health clinical practice guideline on GDM). Major findings were:
• Use of lower glycemic threshold criteria resulted in more patients diagnosed with
GDM (15.3 versus 6.1 percent), but this was not accompanied by a significant
reduction in birth of LGA (8.8 versus 8.9 percent) or macrosomic newborns (11.8
versus 12.3 percent).
• Use of the lower glycemic threshold criteria resulted in more inductions of labor (33.7
versus 30.2 percent), use of health services, and use of pharmacotherapy (10.9
versus 4.6 percent). The lower glycemic threshold group also had a higher rate of
neonatal hypoglycemia warranting treatment (10.7 versus 8.4 percent), which was
likely related to hospital protocols requiring screening for hypoglycemia in infants of
diabetic mothers.
• Rates of preeclampsia, preterm birth, shoulder dystocia, cesarean birth, and SGA
newborn were similar in the two trial groups.
Interestingly, about half of the patients with glucose test results that fell between the
lower and higher glycemic threshold criteria were considered by their providers to have
a mild degree of GDM and were treated for GDM. These patients had maternal and
infant health benefits, including fewer LGA newborns, compared with those who did not
receive a diagnosis of a mild degree of GDM and therefore not treated.
The results of this trial suggest that the optimum glucose thresholds for diagnosis of
GDM by the 75-gram oral GTT still need to be determined.
SHOULD TESTING BE REPEATED LATER IN PREGNANCY?
- Page 22 of 37 -
We recommend not repeating a glucose tolerance test (GTT) later in pregnancy after an
initially normal GTT. Although some studies have reported that repeating the test after an
initially normal GTT (defined as the absence of at least two glucose values above threshold)
will identify additional cases in 4 to 29 percent of cases depending on the timing and
indication for repeat testing [124-127], the value of identifying these individuals versus
nondiagnosis of GDM is unproven. Furthermore, patients with a normal GTT and sonographic
signs of fetal overgrowth or with one abnormal value on the GTT can be given the option of
insulin therapy in an attempt to improve pregnancy outcome.
RECOMMENDATIONS OF NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL

ORGANIZATIONS
The optimum strategy for diagnosis of GDM to improve maternal and infant health is unclear
[128]. Many organizations have published recommendations for screening and diagnosis of
diabetes in pregnancy:
● American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG, two-step approach (
table 3A and table 3B)) [3]
● International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG, one-step
approach ( table 3C)) [7]
● American Diabetes Association (ADA, one- or two-step approach) [2]
● World Health Organization (WHO, one-step approach ( table 4)) [129]
● Canadian Diabetes Association (CDA, two-step [preferred] or one-step approach) [84]
● Australasian Diabetes in Pregnancy Society (WHO approach) [41]
● National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE, United Kingdom, one-step
approach)
● International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO, one-step approach) [130]
POSTDELIVERY FOLLOW-UP
- Page 23 of 37 -
Although pregnancy-related maternal insulin resistance returns to prepregnancy levels within

a few days of giving birth, individuals with GDM should be screened again 4 to 12 weeks
postpartum and periodically (at least every three years) thereafter because they are at
increased risk for developing type 2 diabetes mellitus. Postdelivery follow-up is described
separately. (See "Gestational diabetes mellitus: Glucose management and maternal
prognosis", section on 'Follow-up'.)
SOCIETY GUIDELINE LINKS
Links to society and government-sponsored guidelines from selected countries and regions
around the world are provided separately. (See "Society guideline links: Diabetes mellitus in
pregnancy".)
INFORMATION FOR PATIENTS
UpToDate offers two types of patient education materials, "The Basics" and "Beyond the
Basics." The Basics patient education pieces are written in plain language, at the 5th to 6th
grade reading level, and they answer the four or five key questions a patient might have
about a given condition. These articles are best for patients who want a general overview and
who prefer short, easy-to-read materials. Beyond the Basics patient education pieces are
longer, more sophisticated, and more detailed. These articles are written at the 10th to 12th
grade reading level and are best for patients who want in-depth information and are
comfortable with some medical jargon.
Here are the patient education articles that are relevant to this topic. We encourage you to
print or e-mail these topics to your patients. (You can also locate patient education articles on
a variety of subjects by searching on "patient info" and the keyword(s) of interest.)
● Basics topics (see "Patient education: Gestational diabetes (The Basics)")
● Beyond the Basics topics (see "Patient education: Gestational diabetes (Beyond the
Basics)")
- Page 24 of 37 -
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
● Terminology and significance – Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) typically refers to

diagnosis of diabetes at 24 to 28 weeks of gestation. Diagnosis of diabetes early in
pregnancy (sometimes called overt diabetes) is more consistent with previously
undiagnosed type 2 diabetes. (See 'Terminology' above.)
GDM has been associated with increased risks of several adverse outcomes ( table 5).
The association between hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcomes is dose-
dependent and continuous. (See 'Significance' above.)
● How to screen
• Overall approach – An overall approach to screening for diabetes in pregnancy and

after delivery is shown in the algorithm ( algorithm 1). (See 'Screening for overt
diabetes in early pregnancy' above and 'Screening for GDM at 24 to 28 weeks' above.)
• Early pregnancy screening for previously undiagnosed type 2 diabetes – There is

no standard approach to early pregnancy screening for undiagnosed type 2 diabetes.
The author obtains an A1C level at the initial prenatal visit in all patients as part of
the initial prenatal blood work; a value ≥6.5 percent (≥48 mmol/mol) is diagnostic of
diabetes and the patient is managed accordingly. If the A1C is <6.5 percent (<48
mmol/mol), the author performs standard screening for GDM at 24 to 28 weeks.
Alternatively, several national organizations have suggested a targeted approach
that limits screening to patients at high risk. (See 'Screening for overt diabetes in
early pregnancy' above.)
• Screening for GDM at 24 to 28 weeks – We suggest screening for GDM at 24 to 28

weeks of gestation (Grade 2C). In the United States, universal rather than selective
screening appears to be the most practical approach because 90 percent of pregnant
people have at least one risk factor for glucose impairment during pregnancy and 20
percent of individuals with GDM have no risk factors. In pregnant people with GDM,
treatment (medical nutritional therapy, and then pharmacotherapy if glycemic goals
are not achieved) can reduce the rate of some adverse pregnancy outcomes,
particularly macrosomia and shoulder dystocia, and possibly preeclampsia. (See
- Page 25 of 37 -
'Candidates' above and 'Significance' above and 'Benefits and harms of screening'
above and "Gestational diabetes mellitus: Glucose management and maternal
prognosis", section on 'Rationale for treatment'.)
• One- and two-step testing approaches – We use a two-step approach for

screening/diagnosis of GDM ( table 3A-B), but a one-step approach is also
acceptable ( table 3C). (See 'One- and two-step approaches' above and 'Procedures
and laboratory issues' above.)
● Postpartum follow-up – Individuals with GDM should be screened for diabetes
postpartum and periodically thereafter because they are at increased risk for developing
type 2 diabetes mellitus. (See "Gestational diabetes mellitus: Glucose management and
maternal prognosis", section on 'Follow-up'.)
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The UpToDate editorial staff acknowledges Lois Jovanovic, MD, Donald R Coustan, MD, and
Michael Greene, MD, who contributed to earlier versions of this topic review.
REFERENCES
1. Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop-Conference on Gestational Diabetes

Mellitus. Chicago, Illinois, USA. 14-16 March 1997. Diabetes Care 1998; 21 Suppl 2:B1.
2. American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee. 2. Diagnosis and

Classification of Diabetes: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2024. Diabetes Care 2024;
47:S20.
3. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 190: Gestational Diabetes Mellitus. Obstet Gynecol 2018;
131:e49.
4. Carpenter MW, Coustan DR. Criteria for screening tests for gestational diabetes. Am J
Obstet Gynecol 1982; 144:768.
5. Gregory EC, Ely DM. Trends and Characteristics in Gestational Diabetes: United States,
2016-2020. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2022; 71:1.
6. Bilous RW, Jacklin PB, Maresh MJ, Sacks DA. Resolving the Gestational Diabetes Diagnosis
- Page 26 of 37 -
Conundrum: The Need for a Randomized Controlled Trial of Treatment. Diabetes Care
2021; 44:858.
7. International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups Consensus Panel,

Metzger BE, Gabbe SG, et al. International association of diabetes and pregnancy study
groups recommendations on the diagnosis and classification of hyperglycemia in
pregnancy. Diabetes Care 2010; 33:676.
8. Guariguata L, Linnenkamp U, Beagley J, et al. Global estimates of the prevalence of

hyperglycaemia in pregnancy. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2014; 103:176.
9. Getahun D, Nath C, Ananth CV, et al. Gestational diabetes in the United States: temporal
trends 1989 through 2004. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008; 198:525.e1.
10. Albrecht SS, Kuklina EV, Bansil P, et al. Diabetes trends among delivery hospitalizations in
the U.S., 1994-2004. Diabetes Care 2010; 33:768.
11. Kim SY, Saraiva C, Curtis M, et al. Fraction of gestational diabetes mellitus attributable to
overweight and obesity by race/ethnicity, California, 2007-2009. Am J Public Health 2013;
103:e65.
12. Feig DS, Hwee J, Shah BR, et al. Trends in incidence of diabetes in pregnancy and serious
perinatal outcomes: a large, population-based study in Ontario, Canada, 1996-2010.
Diabetes Care 2014; 37:1590.
13. Abouzeid M, Versace VL, Janus ED, et al. A population-based observational study of
diabetes during pregnancy in Victoria, Australia, 1999-2008. BMJ Open 2014; 4:e005394.
14. Shah NS, Wang MC, Freaney PM, et al. Trends in Gestational Diabetes at First Live Birth by
Race and Ethnicity in the US, 2011-2019. JAMA 2021; 326:660.
15. Venkatesh KK, Harrington K, Cameron NA, et al. Trends in gestational diabetes mellitus
among nulliparous pregnant individuals with singleton live births in the United States
between 2011 to 2019: an age-period-cohort analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM 2023;
5:100785.
16. Nethery E, Law MR, Kotaska A, et al. The effect of changing screening practices and
demographics on the incidence of gestational diabetes in British Columbia, 2005-2019.
CMAJ 2023; 195:E396.
17. Venkatesh KK, Lynch CD, Powe CE, et al. Risk of Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes Among
- Page 27 of 37 -
Pregnant Individuals With Gestational Diabetes by Race and Ethnicity in the United
States, 2014-2020. JAMA 2022; 327:1356.
18. Ye W, Luo C, Huang J, et al. Gestational diabetes mellitus and adverse pregnancy
outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2022; 377:e067946.
19. HAPO Study Cooperative Research Group, Metzger BE, Lowe LP, et al. Hyperglycemia and
adverse pregnancy outcomes. N Engl J Med 2008; 358:1991.
20. Landon MB, Mele L, Spong CY, et al. The relationship between maternal glycemia and
perinatal outcome. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 117:218.
21. Farrar D, Simmonds M, Bryant M, et al. Hyperglycaemia and risk of adverse perinatal
outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2016; 354:i4694.
22. Maya J, Selen DJ, Thaweethai T, et al. Gestational Glucose Intolerance and Birth Weight-
Related Complications. Obstet Gynecol 2023; 142:594.
23. Zhang TN, Huang XM, Zhao XY, et al. Risks of specific congenital anomalies in offspring of
women with diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based
studies including over 80 million births. PLoS Med 2022; 19:e1003900.
24. Parnell AS, Correa A, Reece EA. Pre-pregnancy Obesity as a Modifier of Gestational
Diabetes and Birth Defects Associations: A Systematic Review. Matern Child Health J
2017; 21:1105.
25. Stothard KJ, Tennant PW, Bell R, Rankin J. Maternal overweight and obesity and the risk of
congenital anomalies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 2009; 301:636.
26. Xiang AH, Wang X, Martinez MP, et al. Association of maternal diabetes with autism in
offspring. JAMA 2015; 313:1425.
27. Li M, Fallin MD, Riley A, et al. The Association of Maternal Obesity and Diabetes With
Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities. Pediatrics 2016; 137:e20152206.
28. Xu G, Jing J, Bowers K, et al. Maternal diabetes and the risk of autism spectrum disorders
in the offspring: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Autism Dev Disord 2014; 44:766.
29. Ornoy A, Reece EA, Pavlinkova G, et al. Effect of maternal diabetes on the embryo, fetus,
and children: congenital anomalies, genetic and epigenetic changes and developmental
outcomes. Birth Defects Res C Embryo Today 2015; 105:53.
- Page 28 of 37 -
30. Lowe WL Jr, Scholtens DM, Kuang A, et al. Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy
Outcome Follow-up Study (HAPO FUS): Maternal Gestational Diabetes Mellitus and
Childhood Glucose Metabolism. Diabetes Care 2019; 42:372.
31. Scholtens DM, Kuang A, Lowe LP, et al. Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome
Follow-up Study (HAPO FUS): Maternal Glycemia and Childhood Glucose Metabolism.
32. Solomon CG, Willett WC, Carey VJ, et al. A prospective study of pregravid determinants of
gestational diabetes mellitus. JAMA 1997; 278:1078.
33. Kiani F, Naz MS, et al. The Risk Factors of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A. Int J Womens
Health 2017; 5:253.
34. Kim C, Liu T, Valdez R, Beckles GL. Does frank diabetes in first-degree relatives of a
pregnant woman affect the likelihood of her developing gestational diabetes mellitus or
nongestational diabetes? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 201:576.e1.
35. Hedderson MM, Williams MA, Holt VL, et al. Body mass index and weight gain prior to
pregnancy and risk of gestational diabetes mellitus. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008;
198:409.e1.
36. Hedderson MM, Gunderson EP, Ferrara A. Gestational weight gain and risk of gestational
diabetes mellitus. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 115:597.
37. Gibson KS, Waters TP, Catalano PM. Maternal weight gain in women who develop
gestational diabetes mellitus. Obstet Gynecol 2012; 119:560.
38. Carreno CA, Clifton RG, Hauth JC, et al. Excessive early gestational weight gain and risk of
gestational diabetes mellitus in nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol 2012; 119:1227.
39. Miller C, Lim E. The risk of diabetes after giving birth to a macrosomic infant: data from
the NHANES cohort. Matern Health Neonatol Perinatol 2021; 7:12.
40. Getahun D, Fassett MJ, Jacobsen SJ. Gestational diabetes: risk of recurrence in
subsequent pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 203:467.e1.
41. Hartling L, Dryden DM, Guthrie A, et al. Screening and diagnosing gestational diabetes
mellitus. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep) 2012; :1.
42. Danilenko-Dixon DR, Van Winter JT, Nelson RL, Ogburn PL Jr. Universal versus selective
- Page 29 of 37 -
gestational diabetes screening: application of 1997 American Diabetes Association

recommendations. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 181:798.
43. Guo XY, Shu J, Fu XH, et al. Improving the effectiveness of lifestyle interventions for
gestational diabetes prevention: a meta-analysis and meta-regression. BJOG 2019;
126:311.
44. Burke AE, Bennett WL, Jamshidi RM, et al. Reduced incidence of gestational diabetes with
bariatric surgery. J Am Coll Surg 2010; 211:169.
45. Magro-Malosso ER, Saccone G, Di Mascio D, et al. Exercise during pregnancy and risk of
preterm birth in overweight and obese women: a systematic review and meta-analysis of
randomized controlled trials. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2017; 96:263.
46. Russo LM, Nobles C, Ertel KA, et al. Physical activity interventions in pregnancy and risk of
gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol
2015; 125:576.
47. Sanabria-Martínez G, García-Hermoso A, Poyatos-León R, et al. Effectiveness of physical

activity interventions on preventing gestational diabetes mellitus and excessive maternal
weight gain: a meta-analysis. BJOG 2015; 122:1167.
48. Martínez-Vizcaíno V, Sanabria-Martínez G, Fernández-Rodríguez R, et al. Exercise during

pregnancy for preventing gestational diabetes mellitus and hypertensive disorders: An
umbrella review of randomised controlled trials and an updated meta-analysis. BJOG
2023; 130:264.
49. Rogozińska E, Chamillard M, Hitman GA, et al. Nutritional manipulation for the primary
prevention of gestational diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis of randomised studies. PLoS
One 2015; 10:e0115526.
50. Schoenaker DA, Mishra GD, Callaway LK, Soedamah-Muthu SS. The Role of Energy,
Nutrients, Foods, and Dietary Patterns in the Development of Gestational Diabetes
Mellitus: A Systematic Review of Observational Studies. Diabetes Care 2016; 39:16.
51. Tieu J, Shepherd E, Middleton P, Crowther CA. Dietary advice interventions in pregnancy
for preventing gestational diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;
1:CD006674.
52. Terry PD, Weiderpass E, Ostenson CG, Cnattingius S. Cigarette smoking and the risk of
- Page 30 of 37 -
gestational and pregestational diabetes in two consecutive pregnancies. Diabetes Care

2003; 26:2994.
53. Aroda VR, Christophi CA, Edelstein SL, et al. The effect of lifestyle intervention and
metformin on preventing or delaying diabetes among women with and without
gestational diabetes: the Diabetes Prevention Program outcomes study 10-year follow-
up. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2015; 100:1646.
54. Glueck CJ, Wang P, Kobayashi S, et al. Metformin therapy throughout pregnancy reduces
the development of gestational diabetes in women with polycystic ovary syndrome. Fertil
Steril 2002; 77:520.
55. Glueck CJ, Pranikoff J, Aregawi D, Wang P. Prevention of gestational diabetes by

metformin plus diet in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome. Fertil Steril 2008; 89:625.
56. Vanky E, Stridsklev S, Heimstad R, et al. Metformin versus placebo from first trimester to
delivery in polycystic ovary syndrome: a randomized, controlled multicenter study. J Clin
Endocrinol Metab 2010; 95:E448.
57. Syngelaki A, Nicolaides KH, Balani J, et al. Metformin versus Placebo in Obese Pregnant
Women without Diabetes Mellitus. N Engl J Med 2016; 374:434.
58. Chiswick C, Reynolds RM, Denison F, et al. Effect of metformin on maternal and fetal
outcomes in obese pregnant women (EMPOWaR): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-
controlled trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2015; 3:778.
59. Davidson SJ, Barrett HL, Price SA, et al. Probiotics for preventing gestational diabetes.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 4:CD009951.
60. Motuhifonua SK, Lin L, Alsweiler J, et al. Antenatal dietary supplementation with myo-
inositol for preventing gestational diabetes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2023;
2:CD011507.
61. US Preventive Services Task Force, Davidson KW, Barry MJ, et al. Screening for Gestational
Diabetes: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA 2021;
326:531.
62. Pillay J, Donovan L, Guitard S, et al. Screening for Gestational Diabetes: Updated Evidence
Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA 2021;
326:539.
- Page 31 of 37 -
63. Hivert MF, Allard C, Menard J, et al. Impact of the creation of a specialized clinic for
prenatal blood sampling and follow-up care in pregnant women. J Obstet Gynaecol Can
2012; 34:236.
64. Stacey T, Tennant P, McCowan L, et al. Gestational diabetes and the risk of late stillbirth: a
case-control study from England, UK. BJOG 2019; 126:973.
65. Lohse N, Marseille E, Kahn JG. Development of a model to assess the cost-effectiveness
of gestational diabetes mellitus screening and lifestyle change for the prevention of type
2 diabetes mellitus. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2011; 115 Suppl 1:S20.
66. Farrar D, Simmonds M, Griffin S, et al. The identification and treatment of women with
hyperglycaemia in pregnancy: an analysis of individual participant data, systematic
reviews, meta-analyses and an economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2016; 20:1.
67. Beilby H, Yang F, Gannon B, McIntyre HD. Cost-effectiveness of gestational diabetes

screening including prevention of type 2 diabetes: application of the GeDiForCE model in
Australia. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2022; 35:8286.
68. Cowie CC, Rust KF, Byrd-Holt DD, et al. Prevalence of diabetes and high risk for diabetes
using A1C criteria in the U.S. population in 1988-2006. Diabetes Care 2010; 33:562.
69. McIntyre HD. Discovery, Knowledge, and Action-Diabetes in Pregnancy Across the
Translational Spectrum: The 2016 Norbert Freinkel Award Lecture. Diabetes Care 2018;
41:227.
70. Schaefer UM, Songster G, Xiang A, et al. Congenital malformations in offspring of women
with hyperglycemia first detected during pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997;
177:1165.
71. Omori Y, Jovanovic L. Proposal for the reconsideration of the definition of gestational
diabetes. Diabetes Care 2005; 28:2592.
72. Sheffield JS, Butler-Koster EL, Casey BM, et al. Maternal diabetes mellitus and infant
malformations. Obstet Gynecol 2002; 100:925.
73. McLaren RA Jr, Ruymann KR, Ramos GA, et al. Early screening for gestational diabetes
mellitus: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM 2022;
4:100737.
74. Radder JK, van Roosmalen J. HbA1c in healthy, pregnant women. Neth J Med 2005;
- Page 32 of 37 -
63:256.
75. Fong A, Serra AE, Gabby L, et al. Use of hemoglobin A1c as an early predictor of
gestational diabetes mellitus. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 211:641.e1.
76. Simmons D, Immanuel J, Hague WM, et al. Treatment of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus
Diagnosed Early in Pregnancy. N Engl J Med 2023; 388:2132.
77. Harper LM, Jauk V, Longo S, et al. Early gestational diabetes screening in obese women:
a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2020; 222:495.e1.
78. Bhattacharya SM. Glucose screening test results in first and early third trimester of
pregnancy: is there any correlation? J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2002; 28:304.
79. Nahum GG, Huffaker BJ. Correlation between first- and early third-trimester glucose
screening test results. Obstet Gynecol 1990; 76:709.
80. Avalos GE, Owens LA, Dunne F, ATLANTIC DIP Collaborators. Applying current screening
tools for gestational diabetes mellitus to a European population: is it time for change?
81. Chevalier N, Fénichel P, Giaume V, et al. Universal two-step screening strategy for
gestational diabetes has weak relevance in French Mediterranean women: should we
simplify the screening strategy for gestational diabetes in France? Diabetes Metab 2011;
37:419.
82. Farrar D, Simmonds M, Bryant M, et al. Risk factor screening to identify women requiring
oral glucose tolerance testing to diagnose gestational diabetes: A systematic review and
meta-analysis and analysis of two pregnancy cohorts. PLoS One 2017; 12:e0175288.
83. Temming LA, Tuuli MG, Stout MJ, et al. Diagnostic ability of elevated 1-h glucose
challenge test. J Perinatol 2016; 36:342.
84. Thompson D, Berger H, Feig D, et al. Diabetes and pregnancy. Can J Diabetes 2013; 37:S1.
85. Marchetti D, Carrozzino D, Fraticelli F, et al. Quality of Life in Women with Gestational
Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review. J Diabetes Res 2017; 2017:7058082.
86. Craig L, Sims R, Glasziou P, Thomas R. Women's experiences of a diagnosis of gestational

diabetes mellitus: a systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2020; 20:76.
87. Ludgin J, Werner E. More Is Not Always Better. Obstet Gynecol 2022; 140:710.
- Page 33 of 37 -
88. Coustan DR, Dyer AR, Metzger BE. One-step or 2-step testing for gestational
diabetes: which is better? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2021; 225:634.
89. O'Sullivan JB, Mahan CM, Charles D, Dandrow RV. Screening criteria for high-risk
gestational diabetic patients. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1973; 116:895.
90. Screening for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review to Update the 2014 U.S.
Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation, Pillay J, Donovan L, Guitard S, Zakher B,
Korownyk C, Gates M, Gates A, Vandermeer B, Bougatsos C, Chou R, Hartling L. (Eds), Age
ncy for Healthcare Research and Quality (US), Rockville (MD) 2021.
91. Lanni S, Barrett D. The predictive value of the 1-h 50-g glucose screen for diagnosing
gestational diabetes mellitus in a high-risk population. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med
2004; 15:375.
92. Cheng YW, Esakoff TF, Block-Kurbisch I, et al. Screening or diagnostic: markedly elevated
glucose loading test and perinatal outcomes. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2006; 19:729.
93. Conn JW. Interpretation of the glucose tolerance test: Necessity of standard preparatory
diet. Am J Med Sci 1940; 199:555.
94. Crowe SM, Mastrobattista JM, Monga M. Oral glucose tolerance test and the preparatory
diet. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000; 182:1052.
95. Entrekin K, Work B, Owen J. Does a high carbohydrate preparatory diet affect the 3-hour
oral glucose tolerance test in pregnancy? J Matern Fetal Med 1998; 7:68.
96. Harlass FE, McClure GB, Read JA, Brady K. Use of a standard preparatory diet for the oral
glucose tolerance test. Is it necessary? J Reprod Med 1991; 36:147.
97. Riccardi G, Vaccaro O, Rivellese A, et al. Reproducibility of the new diagnostic criteria for
impaired glucose tolerance. Am J Epidemiol 1985; 121:422.
98. Harlass FE, Brady K, Read JA. Reproducibility of the oral glucose tolerance test in
pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991; 164:564.
99. Potter JM, Hickman PE, Oakman C, et al. Strict Preanalytical Oral Glucose Tolerance Test
Blood Sample Handling Is Essential for Diagnosing Gestational Diabetes Mellitus.
100. Agarwal MM, Punnose J, Dhatt GS. Gestational diabetes: problems associated with the
- Page 34 of 37 -
oral glucose tolerance test. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2004; 63:73.
101. Fachnie JD, Whitehouse FW, McGrath Z. Vomiting during OGTT in third trimester of
pregnancy. Diabetes Care 1988; 11:818.
102. Schwartz JG, Phillips WT, Blumhardt MR, Langer O. Use of a more physiologic oral glucose
solution during screening for gestational diabetes mellitus. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994;
171:685.
103. Powe CE, Locascio JJ, Gordesky LH, et al. Oral Glucose Tolerance Test-based Measures of
Insulin Secretory Response in Pregnancy. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2022; 107:e1871.
104. Guelinckx I, Devlieger R, Vansant G. Reproductive outcome after bariatric surgery: a

critical review. Hum Reprod Update 2009; 15:189.
105. Lamar ME, Kuehl TJ, Cooney AT, et al. Jelly beans as an alternative to a fifty-gram glucose
beverage for gestational diabetes screening. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 181:1154.
106. Murphy NJ, Meyer BA, O'Kell RT, Hogard ME. Carbohydrate sources for gestational
diabetes mellitus screening. A comparison. J Reprod Med 1994; 39:977.
107. Court DJ, Mann SL, Stone PR, et al. Comparison of glucose polymer and glucose for
screening and tolerance tests in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 1985; 66:491.
108. Bergus GR, Murphy NJ. Screening for gestational diabetes mellitus: comparison of a
glucose polymer and a glucose monomer test beverage. J Am Board Fam Pract 1992;
5:241.
109. Reece EA, Holford T, Tuck S, et al. Screening for gestational diabetes: one-hour
carbohydrate tolerance test performed by a virtually tasteless polymer of glucose. Am J
Obstet Gynecol 1987; 156:132.
110. Racusin DA, Antony K, Showalter L, et al. Candy twists as an alternative to the glucola
beverage in gestational diabetes mellitus screening. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015;
212:522.e1.
111. Zhu WW, Fan L, Yang HX, et al. Fasting plasma glucose at 24-28 weeks to screen for
gestational diabetes mellitus: new evidence from China. Diabetes Care 2013; 36:2038.
112. Sacks DA, Hadden DR, Maresh M, et al. Frequency of gestational diabetes mellitus at
collaborating centers based on IADPSG consensus panel-recommended criteria: the
- Page 35 of 37 -
Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (HAPO) Study. Diabetes Care 2012;
35:526.
113. Buhling KJ, Elze L, Henrich W, et al. The usefulness of glycosuria and the influence of
maternal blood pressure in screening for gestational diabetes. Eur J Obstet Gynecol
Reprod Biol 2004; 113:145.
114. Watson WJ. Screening for glycosuria during pregnancy. South Med J 1990; 83:156.
115. Gribble RK, Meier PR, Berg RL. The value of urine screening for glucose at each prenatal
visit. Obstet Gynecol 1995; 86:405.
116. O'SULLIVAN JB, MAHAN CM. CRITERIA FOR THE ORAL GLUCOSE TOLERANCE TEST IN
PREGNANCY. Diabetes 1964; 13:278.
117. Crowther CA, Hiller JE, Moss JR, et al. Effect of treatment of gestational diabetes mellitus
on pregnancy outcomes. N Engl J Med 2005; 352:2477.
118. Roeckner JT, Sanchez-Ramos L, Jijon-Knupp R, Kaunitz AM. Single abnormal value on 3-
hour oral glucose tolerance test during pregnancy is associated with adverse maternal
and neonatal outcomes: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol
2016; 215:287.
119. Selen DJ, Thaweethai T, Schulte CCM, et al. Gestational Glucose Intolerance and Risk of
Future Diabetes. Diabetes Care 2023; 46:83.
120. Caissutti C, Khalifeh A, Saccone G, Berghella V. Are women positive for the One Step but
negative for the Two Step screening tests for gestational diabetes at higher risk for
adverse outcomes? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2018; 97:122.
121. Noctor E, Crowe C, Carmody LA, et al. ATLANTIC-DIP: prevalence of metabolic syndrome
and insulin resistance in women with previous gestational diabetes mellitus by
International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Groups criteria. Acta Diabetol
2015; 52:153.
122. Lowe WL Jr, Scholtens DM, Lowe LP, et al. Association of Gestational Diabetes With
Maternal Disorders of Glucose Metabolism and Childhood Adiposity. JAMA 2018;
320:1005.
123. Crowther CA, Samuel D, McCowan LME, et al. Lower versus Higher Glycemic Criteria for
Diagnosis of Gestational Diabetes. N Engl J Med 2022; 387:587.
- Page 36 of 37 -
124. de Wit L, Bos DM, van Rossum AP, et al. Repeated oral glucose tolerance tests in women
at risk for gestational diabetes mellitus. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2019; 242:79.
125. Kurtbas H, Keskin HL, Avsar AF. Effectiveness of screening for gestational diabetes during
the late gestational period among pregnant Turkish women. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2011;
37:520.
126. Boriboonhirunsarn D, Sunsaneevithayakul P. Abnormal results on a second testing and

risk of gestational diabetes in women with normal baseline glucose levels. Int J Gynaecol
Obstet 2008; 100:147.
127. Seshiah V, Balaji V, Balaji MS, et al. Gestational diabetes mellitus manifests in all
trimesters of pregnancy. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2007; 77:482.
128. Farrar D, Duley L, Medley N, Lawlor DA. Different strategies for diagnosing gestational
diabetes to improve maternal and infant health. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;
1:CD007122.
129. World Health Organization. Diagnostic criteria and classification of hyperglycaemia first d
etected in pregnancy, 2013. http://www.who.int/diabetes/publications/Hyperglycaemia_I
n_Pregnancy/en/index.html (Accessed on August 26, 2013).
130. Hod M, Pretty M, Mahmood T, FIGO, EAPM and EBCOG. Joint position statement on
universal screening for GDM in Europe by FIGO, EBCOG and EAPM. Eur J Obstet Gynecol
Reprod Biol 2018; 228:329.
Topic 6797 Version 146.0
© 2024 UpToDate, Inc. All rights reserved.
- Page 37 of 37 -

Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Screening, Diagnosis, and Prevention

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Screening, Diagnosis, and Prevention

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gestational diabetes mellitus: Screening, diagnosis, and prevention

Official reprint from UpToDate® www.uptodate.com

Gestational diabetes mellitus: Screening, diagnosis, and

There is no universally accepted standard regarding screening for or diagnosis of GDM.

● Gestational diabetes traditionally referred to any pregnant person in whom abnormal

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) continues to define

• Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (preeclampsia, gestational hypertension)

adverse obstetric outcome [19-22].

The small increase in congenital anomalies observed in some population-based studies

• Maternal – Development of diabetes mellitus (primarily type 2), metabolic syndrome,

• Adolescent and adult offspring – Obesity, abnormal glucose tolerance, hypertension,

• GDM in a previous pregnancy (associated with a 40 percent risk of recurrence [40])

Investigational risk reduction measures of uncertain benefit

BENEFITS AND HARMS OF SCREENING

If GDM is diagnosed, management involves medical nutrition therapy; an increased

SCREENING FOR OVERT DIABETES IN EARLY PREGNANCY

Rationale — An increasing proportion of pregnant patients have unrecognized type 2

Unrecognized, untreated hyperglycemia in early pregnancy is important because it is

Other approaches to early pregnancy screening

Targeted screening of individuals at high risk — The International Association of Diabetes

• First-degree relative with diabetes.

• History of cardiovascular disease.

• Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS).

Management of patients after an early pregnancy GTT

SCREENING FOR GDM AT 24 TO 28 WEEKS

One- and two-step approaches — Screening is performed at 24 to 28 weeks of gestation

One-step test — The one-step approach simplifies screening by performing only a

without a clear benefit in outcome.

Procedures and laboratory issues

Diagnostic testing: 75- and 100-gram GTT

Pretest preparation — Fasting for 8 to 10 hours is required before the test.

The GTT is an imprecise test with poor reproducibility [97].

• A1C – In a USPSTF systematic review, no threshold for glycated hemoglobin (A1C) in

However, in low-resource settings where universal screening with a GTT is not

in children of mothers without GDM, OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.24-2.01).

SHOULD TESTING BE REPEATED LATER IN PREGNANCY?

RECOMMENDATIONS OF NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL

Although pregnancy-related maternal insulin resistance returns to prepregnancy levels within

SOCIETY GUIDELINE LINKS

INFORMATION FOR PATIENTS

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

● Terminology and significance – Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) typically refers to

• Overall approach – An overall approach to screening for diabetes in pregnancy and

• Early pregnancy screening for previously undiagnosed type 2 diabetes – There is

• Screening for GDM at 24 to 28 weeks – We suggest screening for GDM at 24 to 28

• One- and two-step testing approaches – We use a two-step approach for

1. Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop-Conference on Gestational Diabetes

2. American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee. 2. Diagnosis and

7. International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups Consensus Panel,

8. Guariguata L, Linnenkamp U, Beagley J, et al. Global estimates of the prevalence of

gestational diabetes screening: application of 1997 American Diabetes Association

47. Sanabria-Martínez G, García-Hermoso A, Poyatos-León R, et al. Effectiveness of physical

48. Martínez-Vizcaíno V, Sanabria-Martínez G, Fernández-Rodríguez R, et al. Exercise during

gestational and pregestational diabetes in two consecutive pregnancies. Diabetes Care

55. Glueck CJ, Pranikoff J, Aregawi D, Wang P. Prevention of gestational diabetes by

67. Beilby H, Yang F, Gannon B, McIntyre HD. Cost-effectiveness of gestational diabetes

86. Craig L, Sims R, Glasziou P, Thomas R. Women's experiences of a diagnosis of gestational

104. Guelinckx I, Devlieger R, Vansant G. Reproductive outcome after bariatric surgery: a

126. Boriboonhirunsarn D, Sunsaneevithayakul P. Abnormal results on a second testing and

Topic 6797 Version 146.0

© 2024 UpToDate, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like