Predictors and risk factors of short-term and long-term outcomes among women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and their offspring: Moving toward precision prognosis?

As part of the American Diabetes Association Precision Medicine in Diabetes Initiative (PMDI) - a partnership with the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) - this systematic review is part of a comprehensive evidence evaluation in support of the 2 International Consensus Report on Precision Diabetes Medicine. Here, we sought to synthesize evidence from empirical research papers published through September 1 , 2021 to evaluate and identify prognostic conditions, risk factors, and biomarkers among women and children affected by gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), focusing on clinical endpoints of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and type 2 diabetes (T2D) among women with a history of GDM; and adiposity and cardiometabolic profile among offspring exposed to GDM We identified a total of 107 observational studies and 12 randomized controlled trials testing the effect of pharmaceutical and/or lifestyle interventions. Broadly, current literature indicates that greater GDM severity, higher maternal body mass index, belonging to racial/ethnic minority group; and unhealthy lifestyle behaviors would predict a woman's risk of incident T2D and CVD, and an unfavorable cardiometabolic profile among offspring. However, the level of evidence is low (Level 4 according to the Diabetes Canada 2018 Clinical Practice Guidelines for diabetes prognosis) largely because most studies leveraged retrospective data from large registries that are vulnerable to residual confounding and reverse causation bias; and prospective cohort studies that may suffer selection and attrition bias. Moreover, for the offspring outcomes, we identified a relatively small body of literature on prognostic factors indicative of future adiposity and cardiometabolic risk. Future high-quality prospective cohort studies in diverse populations with granular data collection on prognostic factors, clinical and subclinical outcomes, high fidelity of follow-up, and appropriate analytical approaches to deal with structural biases are warranted.