Showing posts with label practice guidelines. Show all posts
Showing posts with label practice guidelines. Show all posts

Monday, September 25, 2017

ACOG issues clinical practice guidelines for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus

Courtesy: YouTube.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has issued clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM).

Although prevalence of GDM is directly proportional to prevalence of type 2 DM in a given population, it is estimated that GDM accounts for 90% of cases diabetes in pregnancy. The prevalence of DM in pregnancy is around 6-9%.

The prevalence of GDM globally is on the rise because of increasing obesity, delayed childbearing and sedentary lifestyle.

The document provides a brief overview of GDM, one of the most common complication of pregnancy, identifies the disease process, its diagnosis and management based on current research and identifies the lacunae for future research.

Screening for GDM is done by various methods and there is still no standardized method. ACOG supports the two-step process most commonly used in USA. It involves first screening with the administration of a 50-g oral glucose solution followed by a 1-hour venous glucose determination. 

Women whose glucose levels meet or exceed an institution’s screening threshold then undergo a 100-g, 3-hour diagnostic OGTT. Gestational diabetes mellitus is most often diagnosed in women who have two or more abnormal values on the 3-hour OGTT.

Other institutions and private practitioners use International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Group (IADPSG) recommended one step, universal 75-g, 2-hour OGTT to diagnose GDM.

The summary of recommendations by ACOG:

Recommendations based on good scientific evidence (Level A):

All women diagnosed with GDM should first be treated with adequate nutritional and exercise counselling, before starting any pharmacological treatment.

If lifestyle modifications fail to control glucose levels, Insulin is the first line of drug for controlling blood sugar in pregnancy.

Recommendations based on limited or inconsistent scientific evidence (Level B):

All pregnant women should be screened for GDM with a laboratory based blood glucose level testing.

Women who refuse to take insulin, or who are unable to safely administer insulin, metformin is a reasonable second-line choice.

Glyburide is not be recommended as a first-line pharmacologic treatment because, in most studies, it does not yield equivalent outcomes to insulin.

All women should be counselled about limitations of safety data regarding oral hypoglycemic agents.

Women should also receive counselling regarding the risks and benefits of a scheduled cesarean delivery when the estimated fetal weight is 4,500 g or more.

Recommendations based primarily on consensus and expert opinion (Level C):

In the absence of clear evidence and comparative trials, no single value of blood glucose can be taken as cutoff over another for 1-hour glucose test nor one set of diagnostic criteria for the 3-hour OGTT can be clearly recommended over the other. Practitioners should select a single set of criteria and use it consistently with their patients.

Women should be advised dietary guidance and 30 minutes of moderate physical activity, 5 days a week or 150 minute/week.  

In women, whose GDM is well controlled by diet and exercise, delivery is not indicated before 39 weeks of gestation, in absence of other obstetric indication. She can be safely managed expectantly up to 40 6/7 weeks of gestation, with antepartum fetal surveillance.

In women, whose GDM is well controlled by medications, delivery is recommended at 39 0/7 to 39 6/7 weeks of gestation.

All women with GDM should be screened at 4–12 weeks postpartum to identify women with diabetes, impaired fasting glucose levels, or impaired glucose tolerance, with an appropriate referral to medical practitioner.

The American Diabetic Association (ADA) and ACOG recommend repeat testing every 1–3 years for women who had a pregnancy affected by GDM and normal postpartum screening test results.


Friday, May 27, 2016

ASCO issues evidence based, global guidelines for managing invasive cervical cancer.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has issued recommendation on managing invasive cervical cancer.  There exist wide disparities in screening, diagnosing and treatment of patient diagnosed with invasive cervical cancer across the globe. Economic disparity and lack of resources make it impossible to adopt the same guidelines universally. 

ASCO has first time published ‘resource stratified’ guidelines that are tailored according to the resources available in a specific region.

The guidelines were published online before print on May 25, 2016, in Journal of Global Oncology.

According to WHO statistics, an estimated one million-plus women worldwide are currently living with cervical cancer of which about 84 per cent occur in less developed countries.

Dr. Linus Chuang, MD, MS, professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive science at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, who is cochair of the ASCO expert panel that developed the guideline said "In those regions, access to pathology services, skilled surgeons, radiation machines, brachytherapy, chemotherapy, and palliative care may all be constrained." 

Dr. Jonathan S. Berek, MD, MMS, professor and chair of obstetrics, gynecology, and gynecologic oncology at the Stanford University School of Medicine in California, and who is also cochair of the ASCO expert panel opined that At least two-thirds of the women who die from cervical cancer have not had regular screening, "If we improved screening and HPV vaccination around the world, we might be able to substantially decrease the mortality from cervical cancer." 

ASCO called upon a multidisciplinary, multinational panel of cancer specialist, medical and radiation oncology, health economic, obstetric and gynecologic, and palliative care experts to develop   guidelines that encompasses resource tiered settings.  A systemic review of literature from the year 1966 to 2015 could not yield sufficiently strong evidence to develop tailored guidelines across the different region globally, so a formal strategy of developing consensus based guidelines was adopted.

Five sets of guidelines from different bodies and societies were reviewed in current context and recommendations were formed into 4 tier that is basic, limited, enhanced, and maximal. For surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy treatment combinations and modalities available were formed according to the 4 tier.

  1. Surgery: In basic tier Simple (extrafascial) hysterectomy or more extensive hysterectomy can be performed while in maximal  tier facilities Radical hysterectomy, radical trachelectomy, pelvic and paraaortic LN sampling, sentinel node biopsy, and pelvic exenteration; radiation therapy, chemotherapy, interventional radiology, palliative care service, and bevacizumab are all available.
  2. Chemotherapy:  In basic tier availability of chemotherapy drugs were unpredictable, while in maximal capacity Chemotherapy available; bevacizumab is also available.
  3. Radiotherapy: In basic tier no radiation therapy available while RT including external beam and brachytherapy and interventional radiology available in maximal capacity.


The societies were the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) in the United States, and the World Health Organization (WHO), Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) in Canada, the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO), the Japan Society of Gynecologic Oncology (JSGO).

Workup, Optimal therapy, follow up and post treatment surveillance and palliative care were earmarked for each of these tiers and stage of cancer.

ASCO emphasized that health care providers and health care administrators should be guided by the recommendations from the highest stratum of resource available to provide women with the best evidence based treatment modality and palliative care.

Some of the key recommendations in treatment for invasive cervical cancer are:

  • In Basic setting where radio therapy is not available, extrafascial hysterectomy, either alone or after chemotherapy, can be an option for women with stage IA1 to IVA cervical cancer.
  •  In Enhanced and Maximal settings, concurrent radiotherapy and chemotherapy is the standard of care for women with stage IB to IVA disease.
  • Adding  Low dose chemotherapy to Radiotherapy is  ideal, but if chemotherapy is not available the radiotherapy should not be delayed for it.
  • In limited resource settings where brachytherapy is not available, extrafascial hysterectomy or its modification in patients who still have residual tumor of 2-3 months after concurrent radio and chemotherapy.
  • Those patients with stage IV or recurrent cervical cancer in basic settings can be treated with single agent chemotherapy using carboplatin or cisplatin.
  • In patients who have disseminated disease and cannot be cured should be given palliative radiotherapy to relieve pain and bleeding.
  • In areas with very poor resources, multiple short courses of radiotherapy can be used for retreatment of recurrent or residual diseases.
  • In settings where good follow up care can be provided, cone biopsy in basic resources settings and cone biopsy and lymphadenectomy in limited resource setting is the treatment of choice for 1A2 disease. 
  • For patients in enhanced and maximal settings, to preserve the fertility in reproductive age group of women radical trachelectomy is recommended for those with stage IB1 disease with tumor size up to 2 cm.
  • ASCO also noted that the current guidelines are intended to complement the existing guidelines and not necessary replace it.
  • ASCO also provided future directions and stressed the need for prospective comparative research. Radical versus simple hysterectomy (the feasibility and safety of performing cone biopsy or simple hysterectomy) is an active area of investigation in limited resource settings, with stage IA2 versus 1B1 disease.


References:
http://jgo.ascopubs.org/content/early/2016/05/21/JGO.2016.003954.full