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.

Lifestyle interventions for the treatment of women with gestational diabetes

BACKGROUND

Gestational diabetes (GDM) is glucose intolerance, first recognised in pregnancy and usually resolving after birth. GDM is associated with both short- and long-term adverse effects for the mother and her infant. Lifestyle interventions are the primary therapeutic strategy for many women with GDM.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of combined lifestyle interventions with or without pharmacotherapy in treating women with gestational diabetes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (14 May 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (14th May 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised controlled trials comparing a lifestyle intervention with usual care or another intervention for the treatment of pregnant women with GDM. Quasi-randomised trials were excluded. Cross-over trials were not eligible for inclusion. Women with pre-existing type 1 or type 2 diabetes were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration. All selection of studies, data extraction was conducted independently by two review authors.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifteen trials (in 45 reports) are included in this review (4501 women, 3768 infants). None of the trials were funded by a conditional grant from a pharmaceutical company. The lifestyle interventions included a wide variety of components such as education, diet, exercise and self-monitoring of blood glucose. The control group included usual antenatal care or diet alone. Using GRADE methodology, the quality of the evidence ranged from high to very low quality. The main reasons for downgrading evidence were inconsistency and risk of bias. We summarised the following data from the important outcomes of this review. Lifestyle intervention versus control groupFor the mother:There was no clear evidence of a difference between lifestyle intervention and control groups for the risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (pre-eclampsia) (average risk ratio (RR) 0.70; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 1.22; four trials, 2796 women; I² = 79%, Tau² = 0.23; low-quality evidence); caesarean section (average RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.05; 10 trials, 3545 women; I² = 48%, Tau² = 0.02; low-quality evidence); development of type 2 diabetes (up to a maximum of 10 years follow-up) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.76; two trials, 486 women; I² = 16%; low-quality evidence); perineal trauma/tearing (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.18; one trial, n = 1000 women; moderate-quality evidence) or induction of labour (average RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.46; four trials, n = 2699 women; I² = 37%; high-quality evidence).More women in the lifestyle intervention group had met postpartum weight goals one year after birth than in the control group (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.90; 156 women; one trial, low-quality evidence). Lifestyle interventions were associated with a decrease in the risk of postnatal depression compared with the control group (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.78; one trial, n = 573 women; low-quality evidence).For the infant/child/adult:Lifestyle interventions were associated with a reduction in the risk of being born large-for-gestational age (LGA) (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.71; six trials, 2994 infants; I² = 4%; moderate-quality evidence). Birthweight and the incidence of macrosomia were lower in the lifestyle intervention group.Exposure to the lifestyle intervention was associated with decreased neonatal fat mass compared with the control group (mean difference (MD) -37.30 g, 95% CI -63.97 to -10.63; one trial, 958 infants; low-quality evidence). In childhood, there was no clear evidence of a difference between groups for body mass index (BMI) ≥ 85th percentile (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.11; three trials, 767 children; I² = 4%; moderate-quality evidence).There was no clear evidence of a difference between lifestyle intervention and control groups for the risk of perinatal death (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.70; two trials, 1988 infants; low-quality evidence). Of 1988 infants, only five events were reported in total in the control group and there were no events in the lifestyle group. There was no clear evidence of a difference between lifestyle intervention and control groups for a composite of serious infant outcome/s (average RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.55; two trials, 1930 infants; I² = 82%, Tau² = 0.44; very low-quality evidence) or neonatal hypoglycaemia (average RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.52; six trials, 3000 infants; I² = 48%, Tau² = 0.12; moderate-quality evidence). Diabetes and adiposity in adulthood and neurosensory disability in later childhoodwere not prespecified or reported as outcomes for any of the trials included in this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Lifestyle interventions are the primary therapeutic strategy for women with GDM. Women receiving lifestyle interventions were less likely to have postnatal depression and were more likely to achieve postpartum weight goals. Exposure to lifestyle interventions was associated with a decreased risk of the baby being born LGA and decreased neonatal adiposity. Long-term maternal and childhood/adulthood outcomes were poorly reported.The value of lifestyle interventions in low-and middle-income countries or for different ethnicities remains unclear. The longer-term benefits or harms of lifestyle interventions remains unclear due to limited reporting.The contribution of individual components of lifestyle interventions could not be assessed. Ten per cent of participants also received some form of pharmacological therapy. Lifestyle interventions are useful as the primary therapeutic strategy and most commonly include healthy eating, physical activity and self-monitoring of blood glucose concentrations.Future research could focus on which specific interventions are most useful (as the sole intervention without pharmacological treatment), which health professionals should give them and the optimal format for providing the information. Evaluation of long-term outcomes for the mother and her child should be a priority when planning future trials. There has been no in-depth exploration of the costs 'saved' from reduction in risk of LGA/macrosomia and potential longer-term risks for the infants.

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.