H. David McIntyre

Bio: H. David McIntyre is an academic researcher from University of Queensland. The author has contributed to research in topics: Gestational diabetes & Pregnancy. The author has an hindex of 34, co-authored 128 publications receiving 7872 citations. Previous affiliations of H. David McIntyre include Mater Health Services & Rigshospitalet.

International association of diabetes and pregnancy study groups recommendations on the diagnosis and classification of hyperglycemia in pregnancy.

Abstract: In the accompanying comment letter (1), Weinert summarizes published data from the Brazilian Gestational Diabetes Study (2) and comments on applying International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) Consensus Panel recommendations (3) for the diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) to that cohort The Brazilian study provided evidence that adverse perinatal outcomes are associated with levels of maternal glycemia below those diagnostic of GDM by American Diabetes Association or World Health Organization criteria However, the results were potentially confounded by the treatment of GDM It did find that women with GDM were at increased risk for some …

The Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome Study: Associations of GDM and obesity with pregnancy outcomes

Abstract: OBJECTIVE To determine associations of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and obesity with adverse pregnancy outcomes in the Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (HAPO) Study. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Participants underwent a 75-g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) between 24 and 32 weeks. GDM was diagnosed post hoc using International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups criteria. Neonatal anthropometrics and cord serum C-peptide were measured. Adverse pregnancy outcomes included birth weight, newborn percent body fat, and cord C-peptide >90th percentiles, primary cesarean delivery, preeclampsia, and shoulder dystocia/birth injury. BMI was determined at the OGTT. Multiple logistic regression was used to examine associations of GDM and obesity with outcomes. RESULTS Mean maternal BMI was 27.7, 13.7% were obese (BMI ≥33.0 kg/m 2 ), and GDM was diagnosed in 16.1%. Relative to non-GDM and nonobese women, odds ratio for birth weight >90th percentile for GDM alone was 2.19 (1.93, 2.47), for obesity alone 1.73 (1.50, 2.00), and for both GDM and obesity 3.62 (3.04, 4.32). Results for primary cesarean delivery and preeclampsia and for cord C-peptide and newborn percent body fat >90th percentiles were similar. Odds for birth weight >90th percentile were progressively greater with both higher OGTT glucose and higher maternal BMI. There was a 339-g difference in birth weight for babies of obese GDM women, compared with babies of normal/underweight women (64.2% of all women) with normal glucose based on a composite OGTT measure of fasting plasma glucose and 1- and 2-h plasma glucose values (61.8% of all women). CONCLUSIONS Both maternal GDM and obesity are independently associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes. Their combination has a greater impact than either one alone.

Gestational diabetes mellitus.

Abstract: Hyperglycaemia that develops during pregnancy and resolves after birth has been recognized for over 50 years, but uniform worldwide consensus is lacking about threshold hyperglycaemic levels that merit a diagnosis of ‘gestational diabetes mellitus’ (GDM) and thus treatment during pregnancy. GDM is currently the most common medical complication of pregnancy, and prevalence of undiagnosed hyperglycaemia and even overt diabetes in young women is increasing. Maternal overweight and obesity, later age at childbearing, previous history of GDM, family history of type 2 diabetes mellitus and ethnicity are major GDM risk factors. Diagnosis is usually performed using an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), although a non-fasting, glucose challenge test (GCT) is used in some parts of the world to screen women for those requiring a full OGTT. Dietary modification and increased physical activity are the primary treatments for GDM, but pharmacotherapy, usually insulin, is used when normoglycaemia is not achieved. Oral hypoglycaemic agents, principally metformin and glibenclamide (glyburide), are also used in some countries. Treatment improves immediate pregnancy outcomes, reducing excess fetal growth and adiposity and pregnancy-related hypertensive disorders. GDM increases the risk of long-term complications, including obesity, impaired glucose metabolism and cardiovascular disease, in both the mother and infant. Optimal management of mother and infant during long-term follow-up remains challenging, with very limited implementation of preventive strategies in most parts of the world. Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is the most common complication in pregnancy and has short-term and long-term effects in both mother and offspring. This Primer discusses the definitions of GDM, diagnosis and management of the disease and areas requiring further research.

The prevalence and impact of overweight and obesity in an Australian obstetric population.

Abstract: Objective: To assess the prevalence and impact of overweight and obesity in an Australian obstetric population. Design, setting and participants: The Mater Mother's Hospital (MMH), South Brisbane, is an urban tertiary referral maternity hospital. We reviewed data for the 18401 women who were booked for antenatal care at the MMH, delivered between January 1998 and December 2002, and had a singleton pregnancy. Of those women, 14 230 had an estimated pre-pregnancy body mass index (BMI) noted in their record; 2978 women with BMI 40 kg/m(2)). Main outcome measures: Prevalence of overweight and obesity in an obstetric population; maternal, peripartum and neonatal outcomes associated with raised BMI. Results: Of the 14230 women, 6443 (45%) were of normal weight, and 4809 (34%) were overweight, obese or morbidly obese. Overweight, obese and morbidly obese women were at increased risk of adverse outcomes (figures represent adjusted odds ratio [AOR] [95% Cl]): hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (overweight 1.74 [1.45-2.15], obese 3.00 [2.40-3.74], morbidly obese 4.87 [3.27-7.24]); gestational diabetes (overweight 1.78 [1.25-2.52], obese 2.95 [2.05-4.25], morbidly obese 7.44 [4.42-12.54]); hospital admission longer than 5 days (overweight 1.36 [1.13-1.63], obese 1.49 [1.21-1.86], morbidly obese 3.18 [2.19-4.61]); and caesarean section (overweight 1.50 [1.36-1.66], obese 2.02 [1.79-2.29], morbidly obese 2.54 [1.94-3.321). Neonates born to obese and morbidly obese women had an increased risk of birth defects (obese 1.58 (1.02-2.46], morbidly obese 3.41 [1.67-6.94]); and hypoglycaemia (obese 2.57 [1.39-4.78], morbidly obese 7.14 [3.04-16.74]). Neonates born to morbidly obese women were at increased risk of admission to intensive care (2.77 [1.81-4.25]); premature delivery (< 34 weeks' gestation) (2.13 [1.13-4.01]); and jaundice (1.44 [1.09-1.89]). Conclusions: Overweight and obesity are common in pregnant women. Increasing BMI is associated with maternal and neonatal outcomes that may increase the costs of obstetric care. To assist in planning health service delivery, we believe that BMI should be routinely recorded on perinatal data collection sheets

Increased Systolic and Diastolic Blood Pressure Is Associated With Altered Gut Microbiota Composition and Butyrate Production in Early Pregnancy.

Abstract: The risk of developing pregnancy-induced hypertension and preeclampsia is higher in obese pregnant women. In obesity, the composition of the gut microbiota is altered. Obesity is also associated with low-grade inflammation. Metabolites from the gut microbiota may contribute to both hypertension and inflammation. The aim of this study is to investigate whether the composition of the gut microbiota in overweight and obese pregnant women is associated with blood pressure and levels of plasminogen activator inhibitor-1. The composition of the gut microbiota was determined with 16S ribosomal RNA sequencing in 205 women at 16 weeks gestation from the SPRING study (the Study of Probiotics in Gestational Diabetes). Expression of butyrate-producing genes in the gut microbiota was assessed by real-time polymerase chain reaction. Plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 levels were measured in fasting serum of a subset of 70 women. Blood pressure was slightly but significantly higher in obese compared with overweight women. The abundance of the butyrate-producing genus Odoribacter was inversely correlated with systolic blood pressure. Butyrate production capacity was decreased, but plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 concentrations increased in obese pregnant women. Plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 levels were inversely correlated with expression of butyrate kinase and Odoribacter abundance. This study shows that in overweight and obese pregnant women at 16 weeks gestation, the abundance of butyrate-producing bacteria and butyrate production in the gut microbiota is significantly negatively associated with blood pressure and with plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 levels. Increasing butyrate-producing capacity may contribute to maintenance of normal blood pressure in obese pregnant women.

Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes

Abstract: XI. STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING DIABETES CARE D iabetes is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care and patient self-management education to prevent acute complications and to reduce the risk of long-term complications. Diabetes care is complex and requires that many issues, beyond glycemic control, be addressed. A large body of evidence exists that supports a range of interventions to improve diabetes outcomes. These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payors, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care. While individual preferences, comorbidities, and other patient factors may require modification of goals, targets that are desirable for most patients with diabetes are provided. These standards are not intended to preclude more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed. For more detailed information, refer to Bode (Ed.): Medical Management of Type 1 Diabetes (1), Burant (Ed): Medical Management of Type 2 Diabetes (2), and Klingensmith (Ed): Intensive Diabetes Management (3). The recommendations included are diagnostic and therapeutic actions that are known or believed to favorably affect health outcomes of patients with diabetes. A grading system (Table 1), developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and modeled after existing methods, was utilized to clarify and codify the evidence that forms the basis for the recommendations. The level of evidence that supports each recommendation is listed after each recommendation using the letters A, B, C, or E.

Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2012

Abstract: D iabetes mellitus is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care and ongoing patient self-management education and support to prevent acute complications and to reduce the risk of long-term complications. Diabetes care is complex and requires that many issues, beyond glycemic control, be addressed. A large body of evidence exists that supports a range of interventions to improve diabetes outcomes. These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payers, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care. While individual preferences, comorbidities, and other patient factors may require modification of goals, targets that are desirable for most patients with diabetes are provided. Specifically titled sections of the standards address children with diabetes, pregnant women, and people with prediabetes. These standards are not intended to preclude clinical judgment or more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed. For more detailed information about management of diabetes, refer to references 1–3. The recommendations included are screening, diagnostic, and therapeutic actions that are known or believed to favorably affect health outcomes of patients with diabetes. A large number of these interventions have been shown to be cost-effective (4). A grading system (Table 1), developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) andmodeled after existingmethods, was utilized to clarify and codify the evidence that forms the basis for the recommendations. The level of evidence that supports each recommendation is listed after each recommendation using the letters A, B, C, or E. These standards of care are revised annually by the ADA’s multidisciplinary Professional Practice Committee, incorporating new evidence. For the current revision, committee members systematically searched Medline for human studies related to each subsection and published since 1 January 2010. Recommendations (bulleted at the beginning of each subsection and also listed in the “Executive Summary: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetesd2012”) were revised based on new evidence or, in some cases, to clarify the prior recommendation or match the strength of the wording to the strength of the evidence. A table linking the changes in recommendations to new evidence can be reviewed at http:// professional.diabetes.org/CPR_Search. aspx. Subsequently, as is the case for all Position Statements, the standards of care were reviewed and approved by the ExecutiveCommittee of ADA’s Board ofDirectors, which includes health care professionals, scientists, and lay people. Feedback from the larger clinical community was valuable for the 2012 revision of the standards. Readers who wish to comment on the “Standards of Medical Care in Diabetesd2012” are invited to do so at http://professional.diabetes.org/ CPR_Search.aspx. Members of the Professional Practice Committee disclose all potential financial conflicts of interest with industry. These disclosures were discussed at the onset of the standards revisionmeeting. Members of the committee, their employer, and their disclosed conflicts of interest are listed in the “Professional PracticeCommitteeMembers” table (see pg. S109). The AmericanDiabetes Association funds development of the standards and all its position statements out of its general revenues and does not utilize industry support for these purposes.