Different intensities of glycaemic control for women with gestational diabetes mellitus

Do glycaemic treatment targets affect the perinatal mental health status of women with gestational diabetes? - Data from the TARGET Trial

BACKGROUND

Gestational diabetes mellitus is associated with perinatal mental disorders. Effective management may reduce this risk, but there is little evidence on effects of different glycaemic treatment targets. We assessed whether tight glycaemic treatment targets compared with less-tight targets reduce the risk of poor mental health outcomes in women with gestational diabetes.

METHODS

This was a secondary analysis of data from women who consented to complete perinatal mental health questionnaires as participants in the TARGET Trial, a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial in 10 hospitals in New Zealand. All hospitals initially used less tight glycaemic targets for management of gestational diabetes and were sequentially randomized, in clusters of two at 4-monthly intervals, to using tighter glycaemic targets. Data were collected from 414 participants on anxiety (6-item Spielberger State Anxiety scale), depression (Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale), and health-related quality of life (36-Item Short-Form General Health Survey) at the time of diagnosis (baseline), 36 weeks of gestation, and 6 months postpartum. The primary outcome was composite poor mental health (any of anxiety, vulnerability to depression, or poor mental health-related quality of life). Generalized linear mixed models were used to determine the main treatment effect with 95% confidence intervals using an intention-to-treat approach.

RESULTS

We found no differences between randomised glycaemic target groups in the primary outcome at 36 weeks' (relative risk (RR): 1.07; 95% confidence interval 0.58, 1.95) and 6 months postpartum (RR: 1.03; 0.58, 1.81). There were similarly no differences in the components of the primary outcome at 36 weeks' [anxiety (RR: 0.85; 0.44, 1.62), vulnerability to depression (RR: 1.10; 0.43, 2.83), or poor mental health-related quality of life (RR: 1.05; 0.50, 2.20)] or at 6 months postpartum [anxiety (RR:1.21; 0.59, 2.48), vulnerability to depression (RR:1.41; 0.53, 3.79), poor mental health-related quality of life (RR: 1.11; 0.59, 2.08)].

CONCLUSION

We found no evidence that adoption of tighter glycaemic treatment targets in women with gestational diabetes alters their mental health status at 36 weeks' gestation and at 6 months postpartum.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR). ACTRN12615000282583 (ANZCTR-Registration). Date of registration: 25 March 2015.

Different intensities of glycaemic control for women with gestational diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) has major short- and long-term implications for both the mother and her baby. GDM is defined as a carbohydrate intolerance resulting in hyperglycaemia or any degree of glucose intolerance with onset or first recognition during pregnancy from 24 weeks' gestation onwards and which resolves following the birth of the baby. Rates for GDM can be as high as 25% depending on the population and diagnostic criteria used, and overall rates are increasing globally. There is wide variation internationally in glycaemic treatment target recommendations for women with GDM that are based on consensus rather than high-quality trials.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of different intensities of glycaemic control in pregnant women with GDM on maternal and infant health outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (26 September 2022), and reference lists of the retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs, and quasi-RCTs. Trials were eligible for inclusion if women were diagnosed with GDM during pregnancy and the trial compared tighter and less-tight glycaemic targets during management. We defined tighter glycaemic targets as lower numerical glycaemic concentrations, and less-tight glycaemic targets as higher numerical glycaemic concentrations.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods for carrying out data collection, assessing risk of bias, and analysing results. Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility for inclusion, evaluated risk of bias, and extracted data for the four included studies. We assessed the certainty of evidence for selected outcomes using the GRADE approach. Primary maternal outcomes included hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and subsequent development of type 2 diabetes. Primary infant outcomes included perinatal mortality, large-for-gestational-age, composite of mortality or serious morbidity, and neurosensory disability.

MAIN RESULTS

This was an update of a previous review completed in 2016. We included four RCTs (reporting on 1731 women) that compared a tighter glycaemic control with less-tight glycaemic control in women diagnosed with GDM. Three studies were parallel RCTs, and one study was a stepped-wedged cluster-RCT. The trials took place in Canada, New Zealand, Russia, and the USA. We judged the overall risk of bias to be unclear. Two trials were only published in abstract form. Tight glycaemic targets used in the trials ranged between ≤ 5.0 and 5.1 mmol/L for fasting plasma glucose and ≤ 6.7 and 7.4 mmol/L postprandial. Less-tight targets for glycaemic control used in the included trials ranged between < 5.3 and 5.8 mmol/L for fasting plasma glucose and < 7.8 and 8.0 mmol/L postprandial. For the maternal outcomes, compared with less-tight glycaemic control, the evidence suggests a possible increase in hypertensive disorders of pregnancy with tighter glycaemic control (risk ratio (RR) 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.69, 2 trials, 1491 women; low certainty evidence); however, the 95% CI is compatible with a wide range of effects that encompass both benefit and harm. Tighter glycaemic control likely results in little to no difference in caesarean section rates (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.17, 3 studies, 1662 women; moderate certainty evidence) or induction of labour rates (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.18, 1 study, 1096 women; moderate certainty evidence) compared with less-tight control. No data were reported for the outcomes of subsequent development of type 2 diabetes, perineal trauma, return to pre-pregnancy weight, and postnatal depression. For the infant outcomes, it was difficult to determine if there was a difference in perinatal mortality (RR not estimable, 2 studies, 1499 infants; low certainty evidence), and there was likely no difference in being large-for-gestational-age (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.29, 3 studies, 1556 infants; moderate certainty evidence). The evidence suggests a possible reduction in the composite of mortality or serious morbidity with tighter glycaemic control (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.29, 3 trials, 1559 infants; low certainty evidence); however, the 95% CI is compatible with a wide range of effects that encompass both benefit and harm. There is probably little difference between groups in infant hypoglycaemia (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.18, 3 studies, 1556 infants; moderate certainty evidence). Tighter glycaemic control may not reduce adiposity in infants of women with GDM compared with less-tight control (mean difference -0.62%, 95% CI -3.23 to 1.99, 1 study, 60 infants; low certainty evidence), but the wide CI suggests significant uncertainty. We found no data for the long-term outcomes of diabetes or neurosensory disability. Women assigned to tighter glycaemic control experienced an increase in the use of pharmacological therapy compared with women assigned to less-tight glycaemic control (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.59, 4 trials, 1718 women). Tighter glycaemic control reducedadherence with treatment compared with less-tight glycaemic control (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.51, 1 trial, 395 women). Overall the certainty of evidence assessed using GRADE ranged from low to moderate, downgraded primarily due to risk of bias and imprecision.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review is based on four trials (1731 women) with an overall unclear risk of bias. The trials provided data on most primary outcomes and suggest that tighter glycaemic control may increase the risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. The risk of birth of a large-for-gestational-age infant and perinatal mortality may be similar between groups, and tighter glycaemic targets may result in a possible reduction in composite of death or severe infant morbidity. However, the CIs for these outcomes are wide, suggesting both benefit and harm. There remains limited evidence regarding the benefit of different glycaemic targets for women with GDM to minimise adverse effects on maternal and infant health. Glycaemic target recommendations from international professional organisations vary widely and are currently reliant on consensus given the lack of high-certainty evidence. Further high-quality trials are needed, and these should assess both short- and long-term health outcomes for women and their babies; include women's experiences; and assess health services costs in order to confirm the current findings. Two trials are ongoing.

An early prediction model for gestational diabetes mellitus based on metabolomic biomarkers

BACKGROUND

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) represents the main metabolic alteration during pregnancy. The available methods for diagnosing GDM identify women when the disease is established, and pancreatic beta-cell insufficiency has occurred.The present study aimed to generate an early prediction model (under 18 weeks of gestation) to identify those women who will later be diagnosed with GDM.

METHODS

A cohort of 75 pregnant women was followed during gestation, of which 62 underwent normal term pregnancy and 13 were diagnosed with GDM. Targeted metabolomics was used to select serum biomarkers with predictive power to identify women who will later be diagnosed with GDM.

RESULTS

Candidate metabolites were selected to generate an early identification model employing a criterion used when performing Random Forest decision tree analysis. A model composed of two short-chain acylcarnitines was generated: isovalerylcarnitine (C5) and tiglylcarnitine (C5:1). An analysis by ROC curves was performed to determine the classification performance of the acylcarnitines identified in the study, obtaining an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.934 (0.873-0.995, 95% CI). The model correctly classified all cases with GDM, while it misclassified ten controls as in the GDM group. An analysis was also carried out to establish the concentrations of the acylcarnitines for the identification of the GDM group, obtaining concentrations of C5 in a range of 0.015-0.25 μmol/L and of C5:1 with a range of 0.015-0.19 μmol/L.

CONCLUSION

Early pregnancy maternal metabolites can be used to screen and identify pregnant women who will later develop GDM. Regardless of their gestational body mass index, lipid metabolism is impaired even in the early stages of pregnancy in women who develop GDM.

Gestational Diabetes Mellitus—Recent Literature Review

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), which is defined as a state of hyperglycemia that is first recognized during pregnancy, is currently the most common medical complication in pregnancy. GDM affects approximately 15% of pregnancies worldwide, accounting for approximately 18 million births annually. Mothers with GDM are at risk of developing gestational hypertension, pre-eclampsia and termination of pregnancy via Caesarean section. In addition, GDM increases the risk of complications, including cardiovascular disease, obesity and impaired carbohydrate metabolism, leading to the development of type 2 diabetes (T2DM) in both the mother and infant. The increase in the incidence of GDM also leads to a significant economic burden and deserves greater attention and awareness. A deeper understanding of the risk factors and pathogenesis becomes a necessity, with particular emphasis on the influence of SARS-CoV-2 and diagnostics, as well as an effective treatment, which may reduce perinatal and metabolic complications. The primary treatments for GDM are diet and increased exercise. Insulin, glibenclamide and metformin can be used to intensify the treatment. This paper provides an overview of the latest reports on the epidemiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis and treatment of GDM based on the literature.

The Effect of Glucose Metabolism and Breastfeeding on the Intestinal Microbiota of Newborns of Women with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a pregnancy complication in which women without previously diagnosed diabetes develop chronic hyperglycemia during gestation. The diet and lifestyle of the mother during pregnancy as well as lactation have long-term effects on the child's health and development. Detection of early risk markers of adult-age chronic diseases that begin during prenatal life and the application of complex nutritional interventions at the right time may reduce the risk of these diseases. Newborns adapt to the ectopic environment by developing intestinal immune homeostasis. Adequate initial colonization of bacteria is necessary for sufficient development of intestinal immunity. The environmental determinant of adequate colonization is breast milk. Although a developing newborn is capable of producing an immune response, the effector immune component requires bacterial stimulation. Breast milk stimulates the proliferation of a well-balanced and diverse microbiota, which initially influences the switch from an intrauterine TH2 predominant to a TH1/TH2 balanced response and the activation of T-regulatory cells by breast milk-stimulated specific organisms (Bifidobacteria, Lactobacillus, and Bacteroides). Breastfeeding in newborns of mothers with diabetes mellitus regulates the adequate immune response of the newborn and prevents diseases of the neonatal and postnatal period.

Lactobacillus bulgaricus improves antioxidant capacity of black garlic in the prevention of gestational diabetes mellitus: a randomized control trial

Objectives:Lactobacillus bulgaricus may improve antioxidant capacity of black garlic in the prevention of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM).

Methods: Black garlic was prepared with or without L. bulgaricus. Volatile and polysaccharides were analyzed by using LC-MS, Fourier Transform infrared (FTIR) and ¹³C nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR). The study design was parallel randomized controlled trial and 226 GDM patients were randomly assigned into BG (black garlic and L. bulgaricus) and CG (black garlic) groups, and allocation ratio was 1:1. The treatment duration was 40 weeks. Fasting blood glucose (FBG) and 1- and 2-h blood glucose (1hBG and 2hBG) after oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) were detected. Antioxidant function of black garlic was determined by measuring plasma malondialdehyde (MDA), superoxide dismutase (SOD), glutathione peroxidase (GSH-PX) and total antioxidant capacity (T-AOC) in GDM patients. The comparison between two groups was made using two independent samples t test.

Results: The intake of nutrients was similar between two groups (P>0.05). L. bulgaricus promoted the transformation of the glucopyranoside to glucofuranoside. L. bulgaricus increased the abilities of black garlic for scavenging hydroxyl radicals, 2,2′-azino-bis (3-ethylbenzenthiazoline-6-sulfonic) acid (ABTS) and DPPH free radicals. L. bulgaricus reduced the levels of FBG, 1hBG and 2hBG, and incidence of perinatal complications (P<0.01). Plasma MDA level in the BG group was lower than in the CG group, whereas the levels of SOD, GSH-PX and T-AOC in the BG group were higher than in the CG group (P<0.01).

Conclusions:L. bulgaricus improves antioxidant capacity of black garlic in the prevention of GDM.

The Utility of Lower Glycemic Targets for Treating Gestational Diabetes: A Retrospective Study

OBJECTIVE

In vivo study of glucose homeostasis in pregnancy suggests normal glucose levels are lower than current glycemic targets used in gestational diabetes. After the HAPO study results, our institution began using glycemic targets of fasting 85 mg/dL and 2-hour postprandial of 110 mg/dL. We reviewed our results.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort of GDM patients that delivered at KUMC from January 2007 to May 2017 was reviewed. All patients were diagnosed with the 2-step Carpenter-Coustan thresholds. High targets were compared with low targets. The primary outcome investigated was birthweight > 90% (large for gestational age, LGA).

RESULTS

604 patients were studied, and 34% were treated with low glycemic targets. Our unadjusted results showed that the low-target group had a lower incidence of LGA infants (24.0 vs. 31.8%), higher incidence of neonatal hypoglycemia (20.7 vs. 11.6%), and inductions (39.4 vs. 20.5%). After adjustment for demographic variables, only a higher risk of inductions remained (aOR 2.54 (1.44, 4.49)).

CONCLUSION

Lower glycemic targets did not produce large reductions in fetal overgrowth, but they were associated with a higher rate of inductions. As there were no observed differences in maternal or neonatal outcomes otherwise, aiming for lower glycemic targets in GDM is likely not cost-effective.

Changes in biochemical tests in pregnancy and their clinical significance

Interpretation of laboratory investigations relies on reference intervals. Physiological changes in pregnancy may result in significant changes in normal values for many biochemical assays, and as such results may be misinterpreted as abnormal or mask a pathological state. The aims of this review are as follows: 1. To review the major physiological changes in biochemical tests in normal pregnancy. 2. To outline where these physiological changes are important in interpreting laboratory investigations in pregnancy. 3. To document the most common causes of abnormalities in biochemical tests in pregnancy, as well as important pregnancy-specific causes.

Interventions during pregnancy to prevent preterm birth: an overview of Cochrane systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Preterm birth (PTB) is a major factor contributing to global rates of neonatal death and to longer-term health problems for surviving infants. Both the World Health Organization and the United Nations consider prevention of PTB as central to improving health care for pregnant women and newborn babies. Current preventative clinical strategies show varied efficacy in different populations of pregnant women, frustrating women and health providers alike, while researchers call for better understanding of the underlying mechanisms that lead to PTB.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to summarise all evidence for interventions relevant to the prevention of PTB as reported in Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs). We intended to highlight promising interventions and to identify SRs in need of an update.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2 November 2017) with key words to capture any Cochrane SR that prespecified or reported a PTB outcome. Inclusion criteria focused on pregnant women without signs of preterm labour or ruptured amniotic membranes. We included reviews of interventions for pregnant women irrespective of their risk status. We followed standard Cochrane methods.We applied GRADE criteria to evaluate the quality of SR evidence. We assigned graphic icons to classify the effectiveness of interventions as: clear evidence of benefit; clear evidence of harm; clear evidence of no effect or equivalence; possible benefit; possible harm; or unknown benefit or harm. We defined clear evidence of benefit and clear evidence of harm to be GRADE moderate- or high-quality evidence with a confidence interval (CI) that does not cross the line of no effect. Clear evidence of no effect or equivalence is GRADE moderate- or high-quality evidence with a narrow CI crossing the line of no effect. Possible benefit and possible harm refer to GRADE low-quality evidence with a clear effect (CI does not cross the line of no effect) or GRADE moderate- or high-quality evidence with a wide CI. Unknown harm or benefit refers to GRADE low- or very low-quality evidence with a wide CI.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 83 SRs; 70 had outcome data. Below we highlight key results from a subset of 36 SRs of interventions intended to prevent PTB.

OUTCOME

preterm birthClear evidence of benefitFour SRs reported clear evidence of benefit to prevent specific populations of pregnant women from giving birth early, including midwife-led continuity models of care versus other models of care for all women; screening for lower genital tract infections for pregnant women less than 37 weeks' gestation and without signs of labour, bleeding or infection; and zinc supplementation for pregnant women without systemic illness. Cervical cerclage showed clear benefit for women with singleton pregnancy and high risk of PTB only.Clear evidence of harmNo included SR reported clear evidence of harm.No effect or equivalenceFor pregnant women at high risk of PTB, bedrest for women with singleton pregnancy and antibiotic prophylaxis during the second and third trimester were of no effect or equivalent to a comparator.Possible benefitFour SRs found possible benefit in: group antenatal care for all pregnant women; antibiotics for pregnant women with asymptomatic bacteriuria; pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation for pregnant women who smoke; and vitamin D supplements alone for women without pre-existing conditions such as diabetes.Possible harmOne SR reported possible harm (increased risk of PTB) with intramuscular progesterone, but this finding is only relevant to women with multiple pregnancy and high risk of PTB. Another review found possible harm with vitamin D, calcium and other minerals for pregnant women without pre-existing conditions.

OUTCOME

perinatal deathClear evidence of benefitTwo SRs reported clear evidence of benefit to reduce pregnant women's risk of perinatal death: midwife-led continuity models of care for all pregnant women; and fetal and umbilical Doppler for high-risk pregnant women.Clear evidence of harmNo included SR reported clear evidence of harm.No effect or equivalenceFor pregnant women at high risk of PTB, antibiotic prophylaxis during the second and third trimester was of no effect or equivalent to a comparator.Possible benefitOne SR reported possible benefit with cervical cerclage for women with singleton pregnancy and high risk of PTB.Possible harmOne SR reported possible harm associated with a reduced schedule of antenatal visits for pregnant women at low risk of pregnancy complications; importantly, these women already received antenatal care in settings with limited resources.

OUTCOMES

preterm birth and perinatal deathUnknown benefit or harmFor pregnant women at high risk of PTB for any reason including multiple pregnancy, home uterine monitoring was of unknown benefit or harm. For pregnant women at high risk due to multiple pregnancy: bedrest, prophylactic oral betamimetics, vaginal progesterone and cervical cerclage were all of unknown benefit or harm.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Implications for practiceThe overview serves as a map and guide to all current evidence relevant to PTB prevention published in the Cochrane Library. Of 70 SRs with outcome data, we identified 36 reviews of interventions with the aim of preventing PTB. Just four of these SRs had evidence of clear benefit to women, with an additional four SRs reporting possible benefit. No SR reported clear harm, which is an important finding for women and health providers alike.The overview summarises no evidence for the clinically important interventions of cervical pessary, cervical length assessment and vaginal progesterone because these Cochrane Reviews were not current. These are active areas for PTB research.The graphic icons we assigned to SR effect estimates do not constitute clinical guidance or an endorsement of specific interventions for pregnant women. It remains critical for pregnant women and their healthcare providers to carefully consider whether specific strategies to prevent PTB will be of benefit for individual women, or for specific populations of women.Implications for researchFormal consensus work is needed to establish standard language for overviews of reviews and to define the limits of their interpretation.Clinicians, researchers and funders must address the lack of evidence for interventions relevant to women at high risk of PTB due to multiple pregnancy.

Glucose Targets and Insulin Choice in Pregnancy: What Has Changed in the Last Decade?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review current glycaemic targets and the potential use of newer insulin formulations in pregnancy.

RECENT FINDINGS

The impact of stricter glycaemic control on perinatal outcomes remains controversial, showing conflicting results. Current ongoing randomised trials investigating the role of tighter glucose targets in pregnancy should help clarify the benefit of tighter glucose control. Optimal timing for self-monitoring blood glucose (SMBG) remains debatable. Data suggest that post-prandial SMBG, particularly at 1 h, offers the best prediction of adverse perinatal outcome. To achieve these targets, insulin is the standard therapy. Novel insulin formulations offer benefits outside of pregnancy. Recent data on the use of new insulins in pregnancy (e.g. insulin degludec and glargine (U 300)) is limited to case reports. Glycaemic targets have remained unchanged in the last decade. Studies using stricter glycaemic targets may improve perinatal outcomes. Newer insulin formulations may offer increased flexibility and glycaemic control. Clinicians caring for women with diabetes striving to minimise adverse perinatal outcomes will find this review of interest.

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.

Pregnancy outcomes in women with an early diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus

AIM

To examine pregnancy outcomes in women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) based on the timing of diagnosis.

METHOD

We compared demographics, blood sugars and outcomes between women diagnosed before (n = 167) or after 24 weeks' gestation (n = 1202) in a single hospital between 2009 and 2012. Because early screening is risk-based we used propensity score modelling and conditional logistic regression to account for systematic differences.

RESULTS

Women diagnosed with GDM before 24 weeks were more likely to be obese and they were less likely to have excess gestational weight gain (35 vs. 45%, p = 0.04). Early diagnosis was associated with more frequent therapy including glyburide (65 vs. 56%, p < 0.001) and insulin (19 vs 6%, p < 0.001). After propensity score modelling and accounting for covariates, early diagnosis was associated with an increased risk for macrosomia (OR 2, 95% 1-4.15, p = 0.0498). Early diagnosis was not associated with other adverse outcomes. In a subgroup analysis comparing women treated with glyburide prior to 24 weeks compared to those diagnosed after 24 weeks, early diagnosis in women treated with glyburide was associated with an increased risk for macrosomia (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.1-5.4, P = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

Women diagnosed with GDM before 24 weeks have unique features, are at risk for adverse outcomes, and require targeted approaches to therapy.

A Randomised, Controlled Study of Different Glycaemic Targets during Gestational Diabetes Treatment: Effect on the Level of Adipokines in Cord Blood and ANGPTL4 Expression in Human Umbilical Vein Endothelial Cells

Our aim was to study the expression of adipokine-encoding genes (leptin, adiponectin, and angiopoietin-like protein 4 (ANGPTL4)) in human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs) and adipokine concentration in cord blood from women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) depending on glycaemic targets. GDM patients were randomised to 2 groups per target glycaemic levels: GDM1 (tight glycaemic targets, fasting blood glucose < 5.1 mmol/L and <7.0 mmol/L postprandial, N = 20) and GDM2 (less tight glycaemic targets, <5.3 mmol/L and < 7.8 mmol/L, respectively, N = 21). The control group included 25 women with normal glucose tolerance. ANGPTL4 expression was decreased in the HUVECs from GDM patients versus the control group (23.11 ± 5.71, 21.47 ± 5.64, and 98.33 ± 20.92, for GDM1, GDM2, and controls; p < 0.001) with no difference between GDM1 and GDM2. The level of adiponectin gene expression was low and did not differ among the groups. Leptin gene expression was undetectable in HUVECs. In cord blood, leptin/adiponectin ratio (LAR) was increased in GDM2 compared to controls and GDM1 (p = 0.038) and did not differ between GDM1 and controls. Tight glycaemic targets were associated with normalisation of increased LAR in the cord blood. ANGPTL4 expression was downregulated in HUVECs of newborns from GDM mothers and was not affected by the intensity of glycaemic control.

Combined diet and exercise interventions for preventing gestational diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is associated with a wide range of adverse health consequences for women and their infants in the short and long term. With an increasing prevalence of GDM worldwide, there is an urgent need to assess strategies for GDM prevention, such as combined diet and exercise interventions. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2015.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of diet interventions in combination with exercise interventions for pregnant women for preventing GDM, and associated adverse health consequences for the mother and her infant/child.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (27 November 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs, comparing combined diet and exercise interventions with no intervention (i.e. standard care), that reported on GDM diagnosis as an outcome. Quasi-RCTs were excluded. Cross-over trials were not eligible for inclusion. We planned to include RCTs comparing two or more different diet/exercise interventions, however none were identified.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias of the included trials and assessed quality of evidence for selected maternal and infant/child outcomes using the GRADE approach. We checked data for accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

In this update, we included 23 RCTs (involving 8918 women and 8709 infants) that compared combined diet and exercise interventions with no intervention (standard care). The studies varied in the diet and exercise programs evaluated and health outcomes reported. None reported receiving funding from a drug manufacturer or agency with interests in the results. Overall risk of bias was judged to be unclear due to the lack of methodological detail reported. Most studies were undertaken in high-income countries.For our primary review outcomes, there was a possible reduced risk of GDM in the diet and exercise intervention group compared with the standard care group (average risk ratio (RR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 1.01; 6633 women; 19 RCTs; Tau² = 0.05; I² = 42%; P = 0.07; moderate-quality evidence). There was also a possible reduced risk of caesarean section (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.02; 6089 women; 14 RCTs; moderate-quality evidence). No clear differences were seen between groups for pre-eclampsia (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.22; 5366 participants; 8 RCTs; low-quality evidence), pregnancy-induced hypertension and/or hypertension (average RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.27; 3073 participants; 6 RCTs; Tau² = 0.19; I² = 62%; very low-quality evidence), perinatal mortality (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.63; 3757 participants; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence) or large-for-gestational age (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.07; 5353 participants; 11 RCTs; low-quality evidence). No data were reported for infant mortality or morbidity composite.Subgroup analyses (based on trial design, maternal body mass index (BMI) and ethnicity) revealed no clear differential treatment effects. We were unable to assess the impact of maternal age, parity and specific features of the diet and exercise interventions. Findings from sensitivity analyses (based on RCT quality) generally supported those observed in the main analyses. We were not able to perform subgroup analyses based on maternal age, parity or nature of the exercise/dietary interventions due to the paucity of information/data on these characteristics and the inability to meaningfully group intervention characteristics.For most of the secondary review outcomes assessed using GRADE, there were no clear differences between groups, including for perineal trauma (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.05; 2733 participants; 2 RCTs; moderate-quality evidence), neonatal hypoglycaemia (average RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.98; 3653 participants; 2 RCTs; Tau² = 0.23; I² = 77%; low quality evidence); and childhood adiposity (BMI z score) (MD 0.05, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.40; 794 participants; 2 RCTs; Tau² = 0.04; I² = 59%; low-quality evidence). However, there was evidence of less gestational weight gain in the diet and exercise intervention group compared with the control group (mean difference (MD) -0.89 kg, 95% CI -1.39 to -0.40; 5052 women; 16 RCTs; Tau² = 0.37; I² = 43%;moderate-quality evidence). No data were reported for maternal postnatal depression or type 2 diabetes; childhood/adulthood type 2 diabetes, or neurosensory disability.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-quality evidence suggests reduced risks of GDM and caesarean section with combined diet and exercise interventions during pregnancy as well as reductions in gestational weight gain, compared with standard care. There were no clear differences in hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, perinatal mortality, large-for-gestational age, perineal trauma, neonatal hypoglycaemia, and childhood adiposity (moderate- tovery low-quality evidence).Using GRADE methodology, the evidence was assessed as moderate to very low quality. Downgrading decisions were predominantly due to design limitations (risk of bias), and imprecision (uncertain effect estimates, and at times, small sample sizes and low event rates), however two outcomes (pregnancy-induced hypertension/hypertension and neonatal hypoglycaemia), were also downgraded for unexplained inconsistency (statistical heterogeneity).Due to the variability of the diet and exercise components tested in the included studies, the evidence in this review has limited ability to inform practice. Future studies could describe the interventions used in more detail, if and how these influenced behaviour change and ideally be standardised between studies. Studies could also consider using existing core outcome sets to facilitate more standardised reporting.

Different methods and settings for glucose monitoring for gestational diabetes during pregnancy

BACKGROUND

Incidence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is increasing worldwide. Blood glucose monitoring plays a crucial part in maintaining glycaemic control in women with GDM and is generally recommended by healthcare professionals. There are several different methods for monitoring blood glucose which can be carried out in different settings (e.g. at home versus in hospital).

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review is to compare the effects of different methods and settings for glucose monitoring for women with GDM on maternal and fetal, neonatal, child and adult outcomes, and use and costs of health care.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Trials Register (30 September 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-randomised controlled trials (qRCTs) comparing different methods (such as timings and frequencies) or settings, or both, for blood glucose monitoring for women with GDM.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed study eligibility, risk of bias, and extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy.We assessed the quality of the evidence for the main comparisons using GRADE, for:- primary outcomes for mothers: that is, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy; caesarean section; type 2 diabetes; and- primary outcomes for children: that is, large-for-gestational age; perinatal mortality; death or serious morbidity composite; childhood/adulthood neurosensory disability;- secondary outcomes for mothers: that is, induction of labour; perineal trauma; postnatal depression; postnatal weight retention or return to pre-pregnancy weight; and- secondary outcomes for children: that is, neonatal hypoglycaemia; childhood/adulthood adiposity; childhood/adulthood type 2 diabetes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 RCTs (10 RCTs; one qRCT) that randomised 1272 women with GDM in upper-middle or high-income countries; we considered these to be at a moderate to high risk of bias. We assessed the RCTs under five comparisons. For outcomes assessed using GRADE, we downgraded for study design limitations, imprecision and inconsistency. Three trials received some support from commercial partners who provided glucose meters or financial support, or both. Main comparisons Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring (five RCTs): we observed no clear differences between the telemedicine and standard care groups for the mother, for:- pre-eclampsia or pregnancy-induced hypertension (risk ratio (RR) 1.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 3.20; 275 participants; four RCTs; very low quality evidence);- caesarean section (average RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.53; 478 participants; 5 RCTs; very low quality evidence); and- induction of labour (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.77; 47 participants; 1 RCT; very low quality evidence);or for the child, for:- large-for-gestational age (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.64; 228 participants; 3 RCTs; very low quality evidence);- death or serious morbidity composite (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.66; 57 participants; 1 RCT; very low quality evidence); and- neonatal hypoglycaemia (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.72; 198 participants; 3 RCTs; very low quality evidence).There were no perinatal deaths in two RCTs (131 participants; very low quality evidence). Self-monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring (two RCTs): we observed no clear differences between the self-monitoring and periodic glucose monitoring groups for the mother, for:- pre-eclampsia (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.49; 58 participants; 1 RCT; very low quality evidence); and- caesarean section (average RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.61 to 2.27; 400 participants; 2 RCTs; low quality evidence);or for the child, for:- perinatal mortality (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.21 to 11.24; 400 participants; 2 RCTs; very low quality evidence);- large-for-gestational age (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.37; 400 participants; 2 RCTs; low quality evidence); and- neonatal hypoglycaemia (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.06; 391 participants; 2 RCTs; low quality evidence). Continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS) versus self-monitoring of glucose (two RCTs): we observed no clear differences between the CGMS and self-monitoring groups for the mother, for:- caesarean section (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.20; 179 participants; 2 RCTs; very low quality evidence);or for the child, for:- large-for-gestational age (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.05; 106 participants; 1 RCT; very low quality evidence) and- neonatal hypoglycaemia (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.78; 179 participants; 2 RCTs; very low quality evidence).There were no perinatal deaths in the two RCTs (179 participants; very low quality evidence). Other comparisons Modem versus telephone transmission for glucose monitoring (one RCT): none of the review's primary outcomes were reported in this trial Postprandial versus preprandial glucose monitoring (one RCT): we observed no clear differences between the postprandial and preprandial glucose monitoring groups for the mother, for:- pre-eclampsia (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.15 to 6.68; 66 participants; 1 RCT);- caesarean section (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.29; 66 participants; 1 RCT); and- perineal trauma (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.29; 66 participants; 1 RCT);or for the child, for:- neonatal hypoglycaemia (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.10; 66 participants; 1 RCT).There were fewer large-for-gestational-age infants born to mothers in the postprandial compared with the preprandial glucose monitoring group (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.78; 66 participants; 1 RCT).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence from 11 RCTs assessing different methods or settings for glucose monitoring for GDM suggests no clear differences for the primary outcomes or other secondary outcomes assessed in this review.However, current evidence is limited by the small number of RCTs for the comparisons assessed, small sample sizes, and the variable methodological quality of the RCTs. More evidence is needed to assess the effects of different methods and settings for glucose monitoring for GDM on outcomes for mothers and their children, including use and costs of health care. Future RCTs may consider collecting and reporting on the standard outcomes suggested in this review.

Oral anti-diabetic agents for women with established diabetes/impaired glucose tolerance or previous gestational diabetes planning pregnancy, or pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes

BACKGROUND

While most guidance recommends the use of insulin in women whose pregnancies are affected by pre-existing diabetes, oral anti-diabetic agents may be more acceptable to women. The effects of these oral anti-diabetic agents on maternal and infant health outcomes need to be established in pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes or impaired glucose tolerance, as well as in women with previous gestational diabetes mellitus preconceptionally or during a subsequent pregnancy. This review is an update of a review that was first published in 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effects of oral anti-diabetic agents in women with established diabetes, impaired glucose tolerance or previous gestational diabetes who are planning a pregnancy, or pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes, on maternal and infant health. The use of oral anti-diabetic agents for the management of gestational diabetes in a current pregnancy is evaluated in a separate Cochrane Review.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 October 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs assessing the effects of oral anti-diabetic agents in women with established diabetes, impaired glucose tolerance or previous gestational diabetes who were planning a pregnancy, or pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes. Cluster-RCTs were eligible for inclusion, but none were identified.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included RCTs. Review authors checked the data for accuracy, and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified six RCTs (707 women), eligible for inclusion in this updated review, however, three RCTs had mixed populations (that is, they included pregnant women with gestational diabetes) and did not report data separately for the relevant subset of women for this review. Therefore we have only included outcome data from three RCTs; data were available for 241 women and their infants. The three RCTs all compared an oral anti-diabetic agent (metformin) with insulin. The women in the RCTs that contributed data had type 2 diabetes diagnosed before or during their pregnancy. Overall, the RCTs were judged to be at varying risk of bias. We assessed the quality of the evidence for selected important outcomes using GRADE; the evidence was low- or very low-quality, due to downgrading because of design limitations (risk of bias) and imprecise effect estimates (for many outcomes only one or two RCTs contributed data).For our primary outcomes there was no clear difference between metformin and insulin groups for pre-eclampsia (risk ratio (RR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 1.20; RCTs = 2; participants = 227; very low-quality evidence) although in one RCT women receiving metformin were less likely to have pregnancy-induced hypertension (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.91; RCTs = 1; participants = 206; low-quality evidence). Women receiving metformin were less likely to have a caesarean section compared with those receiving insulin (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.88; RCTs = 3; participants = 241; low-quality evidence). In one RCT there was no clear difference between groups for large-for-gestational-age infants (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.72; RCTs = 1; participants = 206; very low-quality evidence). There were no perinatal deaths in two RCTs (very low-quality evidence). Neonatal mortality or morbidity composite outcome and childhood/adulthood neurosensory disability were not reported.For other secondary outcomes we assessed using GRADE, there were no clear differences between metformin and insulin groups for induction of labour (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.62 to 3.28; RCTs = 2; participants = 35; very low-quality evidence), though infant hypoglycaemia was reduced in the metformin group (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.62; RCTs = 3; infants = 241; very low-quality evidence). Perineal trauma, maternal postnatal depression and postnatal weight retention, and childhood/adulthood adiposity and diabetes were not reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are insufficient RCT data to evaluate the use of oral anti-diabetic agents in women with established diabetes, impaired glucose tolerance or previous gestational diabetes who are planning a pregnancy, or in pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes. Low to very low-quality evidence suggests possible reductions in pregnancy-induced hypertension, caesarean section birth and neonatal hypoglycaemia with metformin compared with insulin for women with type 2 diabetes diagnosed before or during their pregnancy, and no clear differences in pre-eclampsia, induction of labour and babies that are large-for-gestational age. Further high-quality RCTs that compare any combination of oral anti-diabetic agent, insulin and dietary and lifestyle advice for these women are needed. Future RCTs could be powered to evaluate effects on short- and long-term clinical outcomes; such RCTs could attempt to collect and report on the standard outcomes suggested in this review. We have identified three ongoing studies and four are awaiting classification. We will consider these when this review is updated.

Interconception care for women with a history of gestational diabetes for improving maternal and infant outcomes

BACKGROUND

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is associated with adverse health outcomes for mothers and their infants both perinatally and long term. Women with a history of GDM are at risk of recurrence in subsequent pregnancies and may benefit from intervention in the interconception period to improve maternal and infant health outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interconception care for women with a history of GDM on maternal and infant health outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (7 April 2017) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials, including quasi-randomised controlled trials and cluster-randomised trials evaluating any protocol of interconception care with standard care or other forms of interconception care for women with a history of GDM on maternal and infant health outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility. In future updates of this review, at least two review authors will extract data and assess the risk of bias of included studies; the quality of the evidence will be assessed using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

No eligible published trials were identified. We identified a completed randomised controlled trial that was designed to evaluate the effects of a diet and exercise intervention compared with standard care in women with a history of GDM, however to date, it has only published results on women who were pregnant at randomisation (and not women in the interconception period). We also identified an ongoing trial, in obese women with a history of GDM planning a subsequent pregnancy, which is assessing the effects of an intensive lifestyle intervention, supported with liraglutide treatment, compared with usual care. We also identified a trial that was designed to evaluate the effects of a weight loss and exercise intervention compared with lifestyle education also in obese women with a history of GDM planning a subsequent pregnancy, however it has not yet been published. These trials will be re-considered for inclusion in the next review update.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The role of interconception care for women with a history of GDM remains unclear. Randomised controlled trials are required evaluating different forms and protocols of interconception care for these women on perinatal and long-term maternal and infant health outcomes, acceptability of such interventions and cost-effectiveness.

Screening for gestational diabetes mellitus based on different risk profiles and settings for improving maternal and infant health

BACKGROUND

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a form of diabetes that occurs in pregnancy. Although GDM usually resolves following birth, it is associated with significant morbidities for mothers and their infants in the short and long term. There is strong evidence to support treatment for GDM. However, there is uncertainty as to whether or not screening all pregnant women for GDM will improve maternal and infant health and if so, the most appropriate setting for screening. This review updates a Cochrane Review, first published in 2010, and subsequently updated in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of screening for gestational diabetes mellitus based on different risk profiles and settings on maternal and infant outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (31 January 2017), ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (14 June 2017), and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised trials evaluating the effects of different protocols, guidelines or programmes for screening for GDM based on different risk profiles and settings, compared with the absence of screening, or compared with other protocols, guidelines or programmes for screening. We planned to include trials published as abstracts only and cluster-randomised trials, but we did not identify any. Cross-over trials are not eligible for inclusion in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included trials. We resolved disagreements through discussion or through consulting a third reviewer.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two trials that randomised 4523 women and their infants. Both trials were conducted in Ireland. One trial (which quasi-randomised 3742 women, and analysed 3152 women) compared universal screening versus risk factor-based screening, and one trial (which randomised 781 women, and analysed 690 women) compared primary care screening versus secondary care screening. We were not able to perform meta-analyses due to the different interventions and comparisons assessed.Overall, there was moderate to high risk of bias due to one trial being quasi-randomised, inadequate blinding, and incomplete outcome data in both trials. We used GRADEpro GDT software to assess the quality of the evidence for selected outcomes for the mother and her child. Evidence was downgraded for study design limitations and imprecision of effect estimates. Universal screening versus risk-factor screening (one trial) MotherMore women were diagnosed with GDM in the universal screening group than in the risk-factor screening group (risk ratio (RR) 1.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12 to 3.04; participants = 3152; low-quality evidence). There were no data reported under this comparison for other maternal outcomes including hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, caesarean birth, perineal trauma, gestational weight gain, postnatal depression, and type 2 diabetes. ChildNeonatal outcomes: large-for-gestational age, perinatal mortality, mortality or morbidity composite, hypoglycaemia; and childhood/adulthood outcomes: adiposity, type 2 diabetes, and neurosensory disability, were not reported under this comparison. Primary care screening versus secondary care screening (one trial) MotherThere was no clear difference between the primary care and secondary care screening groups for GDM (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.66; participants = 690; low-quality evidence), hypertension (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.59; participants = 690; low-quality evidence), pre-eclampsia (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.78; participants = 690;low-quality evidence), or caesarean section birth (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.27; participants = 690; low-quality evidence). There were no data reported for perineal trauma, gestational weight gain, postnatal depression, or type 2 diabetes. ChildThere was no clear difference between the primary care and secondary care screening groups for large-for-gestational age (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.96; participants = 690; low-quality evidence), neonatal complications: composite outcome, including: hypoglycaemia, respiratory distress, need for phototherapy, birth trauma, shoulder dystocia, five minute Apgar less than seven at one or five minutes, prematurity (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.71; participants = 690; low-quality evidence), or neonatal hypoglycaemia (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.28 to 4.38; participants = 690; very low-quality evidence). There was one perinatal death in the primary care screening group and two in the secondary care screening group (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.10 to 12.12; participants = 690; very low-quality evidence). There were no data for neurosensory disability, or childhood/adulthood adiposity or type 2 diabetes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are insufficient randomised controlled trial data evaluating the effects of screening for GDM based on different risk profiles and settings on maternal and infant outcomes. Low-quality evidence suggests universal screening compared with risk factor-based screening leads to more women being diagnosed with GDM. Low to very low-quality evidence suggests no clear differences between primary care and secondary care screening, for outcomes: GDM, hypertension, pre-eclampsia, caesarean birth, large-for-gestational age, neonatal complications composite, and hypoglycaemia.Further, high-quality randomised controlled trials are needed to assess the value of screening for GDM, which may compare different protocols, guidelines or programmes for screening (based on different risk profiles and settings), with the absence of screening, or with other protocols, guidelines or programmes. There is a need for future trials to be sufficiently powered to detect important differences in short- and long-term maternal and infant outcomes, such as those important outcomes pre-specified in this review. As only a proportion of women will be diagnosed with GDM in these trials, large sample sizes may be required.

Perspectives in obesity and pregnancy

Obesity is currently recognized as a health epidemic worldwide. Its prevalence has doubled in the last three decades. Obesity is a complex clinical picture associated with physical, physiologic, hormonal, genetic, cultural, socioeconomic and environmental factors. The rate of obesity is also increasing in the pregnant women population. Maternal obesity is associated with less than optimal obstetrical, fetal and neonatal outcomes. It is also associated with significant adverse long-term effects on both obese parturients and the infants born from obese women. A number of guidelines have been published to educate health care workers and the general population in an attempt to develop effective interventions on a large scale to prevent obesity. These guidelines are multiple, confusing and inconsistent. There are no standard recommendations regarding gestational weight gaining goals, nutrients and additional elements necessary for certain obese women who have been treated with bariatric surgical procedures, screening for metabolic diseases such as diabetes, additional preventive health care services indicated for obese women in the pregnancy planning stages, during prenatal care, in the immediate post-partum period and as a long-term approach for health preservation. In 2013, the American Medical Association supported by several US national medical specialty organizations published Resolution 420 (A-13) recognizing obesity as a disease state with multiple pathophysiological aspects requiring a range of interventions to improve its prevention and treatment. The goal of this decision was to encourage a broader spectrum of health care benefits insurance coverage for the prevention and treatment of obesity. There are a number of myths and misconceptions associated with obesity. These perspectives present our views and clinical experience with a partial review of recent bibliography addressing the associations between obese reproductive age women and their risks during pregnancy.

Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus multiple daily injections of insulin for pregnant women with diabetes

BACKGROUND

Diabetes results in a rise in blood glucose above normal physiological levels; if untreated this may cause damage to many systems including the cardiovascular and renal systems. Pregnancy increases resistance to insulin action; for those women who have pre-gestational diabetes, this results in an increasing insulin requirement. There are several methods of administering insulin. Conventionally, insulin has been administered subcutaneously, formally referred to as intensive conventional treatment, but now more usually referred to as multiple daily injections (MDI). An alternative method of insulin administration is the continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion pump (CSII).

OBJECTIVES

To compare CSII with MDI of insulin for pregnant women with pre-existing and gestational diabetes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 March 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing CSII with MDI for pregnant women with diabetes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently assessed studies and two review authors extracted data. Disagreements were resolved through discussion with the third author. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five single-centre trials (undertaken in Italy) with 153 women and 154 pregnancies in this review.There were no clear differences in the primary outcomes reported between CSII and MDI in the included trials: caesarean section (risk ratio (RR) 1.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 1.77; three trials, 71 women, evidence graded very low), large-for-gestational age (RR 4.15, 95% CI 0.49 to 34.95; three trials, 73 infants; evidence graded very low), and perinatal mortality (RR 2.33, 95% CI 0.38 to 14.32; four trials, 83 infants, evidence graded very low). Other primary outcomes were not reported in these trials (hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, development of type 2 diabetes, composite outcome of serious neonatal outcomes, and neurosensory disability).There was no clear evidence of differences in the maternal secondary outcomes: maternal weight gain during pregnancy, 24 hour mean blood glucose in each trimester, mean maternal HbA1c in each trimester, maternal hypoglycaemia, and maternal hyperglycaemia. The included studies did not report several GRADE outcomes: perineal trauma, return to pre-pregnancy weight, postnatal depression, induction of labour. Many maternal secondary outcomes were also not reported.In two trials, including a total of 61 infants, CSII was associated with an increase in mean birthweight compared with MDI (mean difference (MD) 220.56 g, 95% CI -2.09 g to 443.20 g; P = 0.05). However, the large CI including anything from a small reduction to an increase in mean birthweight and the lack of a difference in macrosomia rate (RR 3.20, CI 0.14 to 72.62; two trials, 61 infants) suggests uncertainty. Large-for-gestational age (see above), andsmall-for-gestational age also suggests uncertainty of effect. No significant differences were found in: gestation at delivery, preterm birth < 37 weeks' gestation, preterm birth < 32 weeks' gestation, neonatal hypoglycaemia (evidence graded very low), respiratory distress syndrome, neonatal hyperbilirubinaemia, and fetal anomaly. There were no data reported on many important infant outcomes, including the GRADE outcomes adiposity and diabetes. There was no follow-up of infants in childhood or adulthood, so longer-term outcomes were not reported.The only outcome reported for use of health service resources wasmaternal days hospitalised, which did not show a difference between groups in the small number of women included (MD 9.40, CI -6.04 to 24.84; one trial, 10 women).The methods used by the trials were poorly reported, for example although blinding of participants and clinicians regarding intervention allocation is impossible, it is possible to blind assessors and this along with other aspects of trial methods was not reported, which means that the trials are at an unclear or high risk of bias. We do not know if the women who participated were representative, and therefore if the results can be generalised. Most GRADE outcomes were not reported. For the GRADE outcomes that were reported, our assessment was that the evidence is very low quality (caesarean section, large-for-gestational age, perinatal mortality, andneonatal hypoglycaemia). This was due to design limitations in the included trials, small sample sizes in the trials contributing data, wide CIs crossing both the line of no effect and the line of appreciable benefit and/or harm, and often few events. We are therefore uncertain whether CSII or MDI improves outcomes for pregnant women with diabetes and their infants, and the results of further studies may differ substantially from those presented in this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence to support the use of one particular form of insulin administration over another for pregnant women with diabetes. There are only a small number of trials appropriate for meta-analysis, a small number of women included and questionable generalisability of the trial population.Pump technology has progressed since these trials were undertaken. Well-designed randomised trials are required to evaluate comparisons such as patch pumps against MDI and more conventional CSII against MDI. These trials should be adequately powered to assess the effect of interventions, and report the core set of outcomes used in Cochrane reviews of diabetes in pregnancy. Trials to assess the effects of pumps on birthweight and macrosomia rates are needed. It would be beneficial for future trials to undertake longer-term follow-up of participants and their infants, assess women's preferences, and conduct an economic evaluation.

Comparative safety and effectiveness of long-acting inhaled agents for treating chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the safety and effectiveness of long-acting β-antagonists (LABA), long-acting antimuscarinic agents (LAMA) and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) for managing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

SETTING

Systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA).

PARTICIPANTS

208 randomised clinical trials (RCTs) including 134,692 adults with COPD.

INTERVENTIONS

LABA, LAMA and/or ICS, alone or in combination, versus each other or placebo.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES

The proportion of patients with moderate-to-severe exacerbations. The number of patients experiencing mortality, pneumonia, serious arrhythmia and cardiovascular-related mortality (CVM) were secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

NMA was conducted including 20 RCTs for moderate-to-severe exacerbations for 26,141 patients with an exacerbation in the past year. 32 treatments were effective versus placebo including: tiotropium, budesonide/formoterol, salmeterol, indacaterol, fluticasone/salmeterol, indacaterol/glycopyrronium, tiotropium/fluticasone/salmeterol and tiotropium/budesonide/formoterol. Tiotropium/budesonide/formoterol was most effective (99.2% probability of being the most effective according to the Surface Under the Cumulative RAnking (SUCRA) curve). NMA was conducted on mortality (88 RCTs, 97 526 patients); fluticasone/salmeterol was more effective in reducing mortality than placebo, formoterol and fluticasone alone, and was the most effective (SUCRA=71%). NMA was conducted on CVM (37 RCTs, 55,156 patients) and the following were safest: salmeterol versus each OF placebo, tiotropium and tiotropium (Soft Mist Inhaler (SMR)); fluticasone versus tiotropium (SMR); and salmeterol/fluticasone versus tiotropium and tiotropium (SMR). Triamcinolone acetonide was the most harmful (SUCRA=81%). NMA was conducted on pneumonia occurrence (54 RCTs, 61 551 patients). 24 treatments were more harmful, including 2 that increased risk of pneumonia versus placebo; fluticasone and fluticasone/salmeterol. The most harmful agent was fluticasone/salmeterol (SUCRA=89%). NMA was conducted for arrhythmia; no statistically significant differences between agents were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Many inhaled agents are available for COPD, some are safer and more effective than others. Our results can be used by patients and physicians to tailor administration of these agents.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO # CRD42013006725.