Antenatal breast milk expression by women with diabetes for improving infant outcomes

Evaluation of a breastmilk hand expression toolkit: the M.I.L.K survey study

Background

Breastmilk hand expression (BMHE) is recommended to promote lactation, relieve breast engorgement, and collect milk for future infant feedings. Resources to teach this skill are limited and infrequently developed in partnership with the obstetrical population. In collaboration with maternity care experts and individuals with recent breastfeeding experience, we designed a one-page toolkit that describes the process of BMHE and includes step-by-step instructions and images to illustrate the technique. This study aimed to evaluate the readability, clarity of content, layout, and informational value of this BMHE toolkit.

Methods

Individuals who intended to breastfeed, were currently breastfeeding, or had recently breastfed were electronically surveyed and completed a two-part survey that consisted of radio, multi-select, Likert scale, and open-ended questions. Part one captured sociodemographic factors, obstetrical history, and breastfeeding practices. Part two collected feedback on the BMHE toolkit. Participants were recruited electronically through social media and posters were circulated in antenatal and postnatal care settings in Ottawa, Canada between November 2020 and February 2021.

Results

Of the 123 participants, 117 (95.1%) had heard of hand expression prior to reviewing the toolkit and 99 (80.5%) had hand expressed before. Among the 48 participants who were no longer exclusively breastfeeding at the time of the survey, 22 (45.8%) had exclusively breastfed their infant for at least six months and 7 (14.6%) had discontinued exclusive breastfeeding within the first month. When asked about the BMHE toolkit, 118 (95.9%) participants said it was informative, 115 (93.5%) said it was easy to understand, and 114 (92.7%) said it was well laid-out. When asked about information seeking behaviours, participants indicated a preference for online resources (58.5%) and video resources (22.0%).

Conclusions

The BMHE toolkit was well received by participants and the feedback was favourable overall. The survey feedback will be used to create a revised version of the toolkit that has been validated by the obstetrical patient population. Future research should focus on identifying implementation strategies to optimize the use of the toolkit and increase its effectiveness as an educational resource to teach participants correctly BMHE.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13006-021-00448-3.

A Scoping Review of Breastfeeding in Women with Chronic Diseases

Background: Approximately 10-20% of mothers have a chronic disease. Studies on breastfeeding in women with chronic disease span multiple disciplines, and these have not been collated to synthesize knowledge and identify gaps. The objective of this review was to summarize published literature on breastfeeding in women with chronic disease. Methods: We conducted a scoping review of original research and systematic reviews identified in Medline, EMBASE, and CINAHL (1990-2019) and by hand searching on women with chronic diseases reporting on at least one breastfeeding-related topic. Conference abstracts, case-studies, and studies on pregnancy-induced conditions or lactation pharmacology were excluded. Content analysis and narrative synthesis were used to analyze findings. Results: We identified 128 articles that were predominantly quantitative (80.5%), conducted in Europe or North America (65.6%), analyzed sample sizes of <200 (57.0%), and published from 2010 onward (68.8%). Diabetes (42.2%), multiple sclerosis (MS; 19.5%), and epilepsy (13.3%) were the most common diseases studied. Breastfeeding was a primary focus in approximately half (53.1%) of the articles, though definitions were infrequently reported (32.8%). The most-studied topics were breastfeeding duration/exclusivity (55.7%), reasons for feeding behavior (19.1%), and knowledge and attitudes about breastfeeding (18.3%). Less studied topics (<10% of articles each) included milk expression behaviors, breastfeeding difficulties, and feeding supports. Conclusions: Existing literature focuses primarily on diabetes or MS, and breastfeeding behaviors and outcomes. Further research examining a broader range of chronic diseases, with large sample sizes, and sufficient breastfeeding measurement detail can improve our understanding of breastfeeding disparities in this population.

Integrative Review of Antenatal Milk Expression and Mother-Infant Outcomes During the First 2 Weeks After Birth

OBJECTIVE

To explore the practice of antenatal milk expression (AME) and related outcomes for mother-infant dyads during the first 2 weeks after birth.

DATA SOURCES

We searched the electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Emcare, Maternity & Infant Care Database, Scopus, and Web of Science for relevant literature. We also conducted backward reference searches on relevant publications and nondatabase searches after review of the full texts.

STUDY SELECTION

Articles were eligible for inclusion if they reported primary studies focused on AME, included samples of mother-infant dyads, and were published in English. We did not impose time or design limitations given the sparse availability of literature on AME. We identified 766 articles. After the removal of duplicates, we screened 588 articles, and of these, we included 15 articles in our review.

DATA EXTRACTION

We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to guide data extraction and reporting. We evaluated the quality of evidence using the Melnyk and Fineout-Overholt rating system and the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools.

DATA SYNTHESIS

We synthesized data from the included articles into four themes: Breastfeeding Self-Efficacy, Milk Supply, Infant Well-Being, and Infant Feeding Methods.

CONCLUSION

AME may support breastfeeding by improving breastfeeding self-efficacy and milk supply and by decreasing early formula use. Synthesized literature on AME shows the safety of the practice and that infants of women who practice AME have a greater likelihood of breastfeeding exclusivity during the short term.

Factors that positively influence in-hospital exclusive breastfeeding among women with gestational diabetes: An integrative review

PROBLEM

Women with gestational diabetes have higher rates of introducing infant formula before leaving hospital.

BACKGROUND

Despite health professional support, less women with gestational diabetes exclusively breastfeed in hospital.

AIM

To find factors that positively influence in-hospital exclusive breastfeeding practices among women with gestational diabetes.

METHODS

An online search was performed in Medline, Scopus, Pubmed, CINAHL and Cochrane databases. Studies containing the keywords gestational diabetes and breastfeeding were retrieved.

FINDINGS

Authors identified 1935 papers from search criteria. Twenty-six papers with no restrictions on research design met inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Factors were divided into personal, antenatal, intrapartum and postnatal factors. The main modifiable factors that were associated with improved in-hospital exclusive breastfeeding rates were having a strong intention to breastfeed, being confident, feeling supported and having continuity of education and support. Women's main reasons to introduce formula were related to baby's hypoglycaemia, delayed lactogenesis II and perceived low milk supply. Skin-to-skin contact after birth combined with frequent breastfeeds were effective ways to improve in-hospital exclusive breastfeeding rates.

CONCLUSION

Influencing factors such as women's breastfeeding intention, confidence and ongoing support are no different to the general population of women. However, promoting skin-to-skin contact after birth combined with frequent feeds are crucial for women with gestational diabetes who are more likely to introduce formula due to delayed lactogenesis II and fear of neonatal hypoglycaemia. There is a need for developing educational and supportive interventions that are tailored specifically for women who have gestational diabetes.

Evaluating antenatal breastmilk expression outcomes: a scoping review

Background

Antenatal breastmilk expression (aBME) is recommended by some healthcare providers to improve lactation, breastfeeding, and newborn outcomes, particularly for women with diabetes as they face unique challenges with breastfeeding. However, there is limited evidence of the potential harms and benefits of this practice. Our objective was to conduct a scoping review to map the literature describing maternal and newborn outcomes of aBME.

Methods

We searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, British Library E-Theses Online Services (EThOS) database, OpenGrey, and Clinical trials.gov from inception to January 2020. Studies in English that reported on the effect of aBME on maternal and newborn outcomes, and the experiences of women who have engaged in the practice were included for screening. Titles, abstracts, and full-text articles were screened by two independent reviewers. A critical appraisal and clinical consultation were conducted. Key findings were extracted and summarized.

Results

We screened 659 studies and 20 met the inclusion criteria. The majority of included studies (n = 11, 55.0%) were published after 2015, and seven (35.0%) originated from Australia. Ten (50.0%) studies provided data on high-risk obstetrical populations, including those with diabetes (n = 8), overweight or obesity (n = 1), and preeclampsia (n = 1). Commonly reported outcomes included breastfeeding status at discharge or follow-up, mode of delivery, newborn blood glucose, and time to establishing full lactation. Maternal experiences were related to challenges with aBME, confidence and mastery, perceived impact, security and altruism, learning and resources, and physical symptoms as a result of aBME. The critical appraisal demonstrated limited high-quality evidence surrounding aBME.

Conclusions

Our findings demonstrate increasing interest in the safety, efficacy, and acceptability of aBME. Existing studies are heterogenous with variable research questions, outcomes, study designs, and methodology. The recommendations made in this review can be used to help inform  future studies evaluating aBME.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13006-021-00371-7.

Maternal and newborn outcomes of antenatal breastmilk expression: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Mothers with diabetes face unique challenges associated with breastfeeding initiation and maintenance. Antenatal breastmilk expression (BME) may be suggested to mothers, including mothers with diabetes, to improve breastfeeding, maternal, and infant outcomes postpartum. However, there have been few evaluations of the potential harms and benefits of this practice. The objective of our scoping review will be to broadly examine the literature describing maternal and infant outcomes of antenatal BME.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This scoping review will address the research question: 'Among women who engaged in antenatal BME, what maternal and infant outcomes have been evaluated?' A search of published and unpublished studies available in English will be conducted in February 2020 using the following databases: Medline (OVID), Embase (OVID), CINAHL (EBSCOHost), and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (OVID). A search of the British Library E-Theses Online Services (EThOS) database and OpenGrey will be conducted to identify relevant grey literature. This scoping review will use a five-step framework to guide the selection, extraction, and analysis of eligible studies. Clinical consultation will be included as a sixth step to our methodology. Literature reporting on the effect of antenatal BME on maternal and infant outcomes, breastfeeding initiation and duration, and the experiences of women who have engaged in the practice will be considered. The data will be summarised with attention paid to high-risk obstetrical populations such as women with diabetes. Our results will be reported as outlined by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Research ethics board approval will not be required due to the nature of the study's methodology. The results of this review will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication and presentation at relevant conferences.

TRAIL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Open Science Framework (osf.io/gfp2q).

"It gave me so much confidence": First-time U.S. mothers' experiences with antenatal milk expression

Antenatal milk expression (AME) involves maternal hand-expression, collection, and storage of breast milk during pregnancy for the purposes of reducing the early formula use in breastfed infants. AME is not widely practiced in the United States, despite its growing popularity elsewhere. In this study, we examined the experiences of first-time mothers recruited from a U.S. midwife practice who engaged in AME within the context of a pilot randomized controlled trial. The AME intervention involved demonstration and practice of AME with a lactation consultant beginning at 37 weeks of gestation, reinforcement at weekly study visits until delivery, and daily home practice. Nineteen women participated in a semistructured interview at 1-2 weeks postpartum regarding their study experiences. Major themes included (1) perceived benefits and impact of AME, (b) AME implementation, and (c) use of AME milk. Women perceived multiple benefits of AME, most notably that it increased their confidence that they would be able to make milk and breastfeed successfully postpartum. Women expressed some concern that no/little milk expressed could be indicative of postpartum milk production problems. Regarding implementation, women found that the AME protocol fit well into their daily routine. There was mixed feedback regarding comfort with practicing AME in the presence of partners. Reasons for postpartum use of AME milk varied; barriers to provision included inadequate milk storage options at the birth hospital and unsupportive hospital providers/staff. With few caveats, AME appears to be an acceptable breastfeeding support intervention among a sociodemographically homogeneous group of first-time mothers in the United States.

Treatments for women with gestational diabetes mellitus: an overview of Cochrane systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Successful treatments for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) have the potential to improve health outcomes for women with GDM and their babies.

OBJECTIVES

To provide a comprehensive synthesis of evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews of the benefits and harms associated with interventions for treating GDM on women and their babies.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (5 January 2018) for reviews of treatment/management for women with GDM. Reviews of pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes were excluded.Two overview authors independently assessed reviews for inclusion, quality (AMSTAR; ROBIS), quality of evidence (GRADE), and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 reviews. Of these, 10 provided relevant high-quality and low-risk of bias data (AMSTAR and ROBIS) from 128 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 27 comparisons, 17,984 women, 16,305 babies, and 1441 children. Evidence ranged from high- to very low-quality (GRADE). Only one effective intervention was found for treating women with GDM.EffectiveLifestyle versus usual careLifestyle intervention versus usual care probably reduces large-for-gestational age (risk ratio (RR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 0.71; 6 RCTs, N = 2994; GRADE moderate-quality).PromisingNo evidence for any outcome for any comparison could be classified to this category.Ineffective or possibly harmful Lifestyle versus usual careLifestyle intervention versus usual care probably increases the risk of induction of labour (IOL) suggesting possible harm (average RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.46; 4 RCTs, N = 2699; GRADE moderate-quality).Exercise versus controlExercise intervention versus control for return to pre-pregnancy weight suggested ineffectiveness (body mass index, BMI) MD 0.11 kg/m², 95% CI -1.04 to 1.26; 3 RCTs, N = 254; GRADE moderate-quality).Insulin versus oral therapyInsulin intervention versus oral therapy probably increases the risk of IOL suggesting possible harm (RR 1.3, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.75; 3 RCTs, N = 348; GRADE moderate-quality).Probably ineffective or harmful interventionsInsulin versus oral therapyFor insulin compared to oral therapy there is probably an increased risk of the hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.12; 4 RCTs, N = 1214; GRADE moderate-quality).InconclusiveLifestyle versus usual careThe evidence for childhood adiposity kg/m² (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.11; 3 RCTs, N = 767; GRADE moderate-quality) and hypoglycaemia was inconclusive (average RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.52; 6 RCTs, N = 3000; GRADE moderate-quality).Exercise versus controlThe evidence for caesarean section (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.16; 5 RCTs, N = 316; GRADE moderate quality) and perinatal death or serious morbidity composite was inconclusive (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.61; 2 RCTs, N = 169; GRADE moderate-quality).Insulin versus oral therapyThe evidence for the following outcomes was inconclusive: pre-eclampsia (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.52; 10 RCTs, N = 2060), caesarean section (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.14; 17 RCTs, N = 1988), large-for-gestational age (average RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.35; 13 RCTs, N = 2352), and perinatal death or serious morbidity composite (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.26; 2 RCTs, N = 760). GRADE assessment was moderate-quality for these outcomes.Insulin versus dietThe evidence for perinatal mortality was inconclusive (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.33; 4 RCTs, N = 1137; GRADE moderate-quality).Insulin versus insulinThe evidence for insulin aspart versus lispro for risk of caesarean section was inconclusive (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09; 3 RCTs, N = 410; GRADE moderate quality).No conclusions possibleNo conclusions were possible for: lifestyle versus usual care (perineal trauma, postnatal depression, neonatal adiposity, number of antenatal visits/admissions); diet versus control (pre-eclampsia, caesarean section); myo-inositol versus placebo (hypoglycaemia); metformin versus glibenclamide (hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, pregnancy-induced hypertension, death or serious morbidity composite, insulin versus oral therapy (development of type 2 diabetes); intensive management versus routine care (IOL, large-for-gestational age); post- versus pre-prandial glucose monitoring (large-for-gestational age). The evidence ranged from moderate-, low- and very low-quality.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently there is insufficient high-quality evidence about the effects on health outcomes of relevance for women with GDM and their babies for many of the comparisons in this overview comparing treatment interventions for women with GDM. Lifestyle changes (including as a minimum healthy eating, physical activity and self-monitoring of blood sugar levels) was the only intervention that showed possible health improvements for women and their babies. Lifestyle interventions may result in fewer babies being large. Conversely, in terms of harms, lifestyle interventions may also increase the number of inductions. Taking insulin was also associated with an increase in hypertensive disorders, when compared to oral therapy. There was very limited information on long-term health and health services costs. Further high-quality research is needed.

Women's perspectives on antenatal breast expression: a cross-sectional survey

Background

The practice of antenatal breast expression (ABE) has been proposed as a strategy to promote successful breastfeeding. Although there has been some focus on the evaluation of the effects of ABE in promotion of breastfeeding, little or no evidence exists on women’s experiences of ABE or opinions on ABE, particularly amongst overweight or obese women.

Methods

This study aimed to explore women’s knowledge, practices and opinions of ABE, and any differences within the overweight and obese subgroups. A cross-sectional survey was undertaken using an online questionnaire distributed by a maternity user group representative via social media. Quantitative data were analysed using Chi-square and Fisher’s exact tests in SPSS. Simple thematic analysis was used for the qualitative data.

Results

A total of 688 responses were analysed; the sample represented a group of breastfeeding mothers, of whom 64.5% had heard of ABE, 8.2% had been advised to do ABE, and 14.2% had undertaken ABE. Of the women who had been advised to do ABE, 67.9% had complied. Most participants (58.6%) were unsure if ABE was a good idea; however 80.9% would consider doing ABE if it was found to be helpful to prepare for breastfeeding. Women in the overweight or obese subgroups were significantly more likely to have heard of ABE (p < 0.001), and positive opinion of ABE also increased with higher BMI groups. The qualitative data demonstrated participants felt ABE may be beneficial when mother or baby have medical problems, and in preparation for breastfeeding, but highlighted their concerns that it may interfere with nature and be harmful, and that they wanted more information and knowledge about ABE.

Conclusions

Amongst women who have breastfed, many have heard of ABE, compliance with advice to undertake ABE is relatively high, and ABE is considered an acceptable practice. Further investigation into the benefits and safety of ABE is warranted, to address the needs of childbearing women for evidence-based information about this practice. If the evidence base is established, overweight and obese pregnant women could be an important target group for this intervention.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12978-018-0497-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Different insulin types and regimens for pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes

BACKGROUND

Insulin requirements may change during pregnancy, and the optimal treatment for pre-existing diabetes is unclear. There are several insulin regimens (e.g. via syringe, pen) and types of insulin (e.g. fast-acting insulin, human insulin).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different insulin types and different insulin regimens in pregnant women with pre-existing type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 October 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov (17 October 2016), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP; 17 October 2016), and the reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared different insulin types and regimens in pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes.We had planned to include cluster-RCTs, but none were identified. We excluded quasi-randomised controlled trials and cross-over trials. We included studies published in abstract form and contacted the authors for further details when applicable. Conference abstracts were superseded by full publications.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, conducted data extraction, assessed risk of bias, and checked for accuracy. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

The findings in this review were based on very low-quality evidence, from single, small sample sized trial estimates, with wide confidence intervals (CI), some of which crossed the line of no effect; many of the prespecified outcomes were not reported. Therefore, they should be interpreted with caution. We included five trials that included 554 women and babies (four open-label, multi-centre, two-arm trials; one single centre, four-arm RCT). All five trials were at a high or unclear risk of bias due to lack of blinding, unclear methods of randomisation, and selective reporting of outcomes. Pooling of data from the trials was not possible, as each trial looked at a different comparison.1. One trial (N = 33 women) compared Lispro insulin with regular insulin and provided very low-quality evidence for the outcomes. There were seven episodes of pre-eclampsia in the Lispro group and nine in the regular insulin group, with no clear difference between the two groups (risk ratio (RR) 0.68, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.30). There were five caesarean sections in the Lispro group and nine in the regular insulin group, with no clear difference between the two groups (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.39). There were no cases of fetal anomaly in the Lispro group and one in the regular insulin group, with no clear difference between the groups (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.02 to 8.08). Macrosomia, perinatal deaths, episodes of birth trauma including shoulder dystocia, nerve palsy, and fracture, and the composite outcome measure of neonatal morbidity were not reported.2. One trial (N = 42 women) compared human insulin to animal insulin, and provided very low-quality evidence for the outcomes. There were no cases of macrosomia in the human insulin group and two in the animal insulin group, with no clear difference between the groups (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.30). Perinatal death, pre-eclampsia, caesarean section, fetal anomaly, birth trauma including shoulder dystocia, nerve palsy and fracture and the composite outcome measure of neonatal morbidity were not reported.3. One trial (N = 93 women) compared pre-mixed insulin (70 NPH/30 REG) to self-mixed, split-dose insulin and provided very low-quality evidence to support the outcomes. Two cases of macrosomia were reported in the pre-mixed insulin group and four in the self-mixed insulin group, with no clear difference between the two groups (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.54). There were seven cases of caesarean section (for cephalo-pelvic disproportion) in the pre-mixed insulin group and 12 in the self-mixed insulin group, with no clear difference between groups (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.32). Perinatal death, pre-eclampsia, fetal anomaly, birth trauma including shoulder dystocia, nerve palsy, or fracture and the composite outcome measure of neonatal morbidity were not reported.4. In the same trial (N = 93 women), insulin injected with a Novolin pen was compared to insulin injected with a conventional needle (syringe), which provided very low-quality evidence to support the outcomes. There was one case of macrosomia in the pen group and five in the needle group, with no clear difference between the different insulin regimens (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.76). There were five deliveries by caesarean section in the pen group compared with 14 in the needle group; women were less likely to deliver via caesarean section when insulin was injected with a pen compared to a conventional needle (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.97). Perinatal death, pre-eclampsia, fetal anomaly, birth trauma including shoulder dystocia, nerve palsy, or fracture, and the composite outcome measure of neonatal morbidity were not reported.5. One trial (N = 223 women) comparing insulin Aspart with human insulin reported none of the review's primary outcomes: macrosomia, perinatal death, pre-eclampsia, caesarean section, fetal anomaly, birth trauma including shoulder dystocia. nerve palsy, or fracture, or the composite outcome measure of neonatal morbidity.6. One trial (N = 162 women) compared insulin Detemir with NPH insulin, and supported the outcomes with very low-quality evidence. There were three cases of major fetal anomalies in the insulin Detemir group and one in the NPH insulin group, with no clear difference between the groups (RR 3.15, 95% CI 0.33 to 29.67). Macrosomia, perinatal death, pre-eclampsia, caesarean section, birth trauma including shoulder dystocia, nerve palsy, or fracture and the composite outcome of neonatal morbidity were not reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

With limited evidence and no meta-analyses, as each trial looked at a different comparison, no firm conclusions could be made about different insulin types and regimens in pregnant women with pre-existing type 1 or 2 diabetes. Further research is warranted to determine who has an increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcome. This would include larger trials, incorporating adequate randomisation and blinding, and key outcomes that include macrosomia, pregnancy loss, pre-eclampsia, caesarean section, fetal anomalies, and birth trauma.

Safety and efficacy of antenatal milk expressing for women with diabetes in pregnancy: protocol for a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Many maternity providers recommend that women with diabetes in pregnancy express and store breast milk in late pregnancy so breast milk is available after birth, given (1) infants of these women are at increased risk of hypoglycaemia in the first 24 h of life; and (2) the delay in lactogenesis II compared with women without diabetes that increases their infant's risk of receiving infant formula. The Diabetes and Antenatal Milk Expressing (DAME) trial will establish whether advising women with diabetes in pregnancy (pre-existing or gestational) to express breast milk from 36 weeks gestation increases the proportion of infants who require admission to special or neonatal intensive care units (SCN/NICU) compared with infants of women receiving standard care. Secondary outcomes include birth gestation, breastfeeding outcomes and economic impact.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Women will be recruited from 34 weeks gestation to a multicentre, two arm, unblinded randomised controlled trial. The intervention starts at 36 weeks. Randomisation will be stratified by site, parity and diabetes type. Women allocated to the intervention will be taught expressing and encouraged to hand express twice daily for 10 min and keep an expressing diary. The sample size of 658 (329 per group) will detect a 10% difference in proportion of babies admitted to SCN/NICU (85% power, α 0.05). Data are collected at recruitment (structured questionnaire), after birth (abstracted from medical record blinded to group), and 2 and 12 weeks postpartum (telephone interview).

DATA ANALYSIS

the intervention group will be compared with the standard care group by intention to treat analysis, and the primary outcome compared using χ(2) and ORs.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Research ethics approval will be obtained from participating sites. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented to clinicians, policymakers and study participants.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Australian Controlled Trials Register ACTRN12611000217909.