Exercise for pregnant women with gestational diabetes for improving maternal and fetal outcomes

Exercise in Pregnant Women with Diabetes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Diabetes affects an increasing number of pregnancies. Regular exercise is recommended for pregnant women without diabetes, but whether exercise during pregnancy also benefits women with gestational diabetes (GDM) or preexisting (type 1 or type 2) diabetes or if these women have any specific risks is unclear.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent evidence suggests that low- to moderate-intensity exercise improves blood glucose and may delay insulin initiation for women with GDM. Exercise is also safe, with no reports of increased maternal or neonatal complications. Few studies evaluated exercise as adjunct therapy for pregnant women with preexisting diabetes, precluding a thorough assessment in this population. Low- to moderate-intensity exercise during pregnancy safely improves glycemic control among women with GDM. More studies are needed to evaluate the impact of exercise in pregnant women with preexisting diabetes. Whether a specific type, volume, or timing of activity is most effective is not known.

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.

Exercise for pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes for improving maternal and fetal outcomes

BACKGROUND

Pregnancies with pre-existing diabetes are high risk, with increased risk of poorer fetal, neonatal, and maternal outcomes. Identifying interventions to improving health outcomes for women with diabetes and their infants is a priority, as rates of diabetes continue to increase.Exercise has been shown to have benefits for non-pregnant individuals with pre-existing type 2 diabetes, such as improving glycaemic control, and reducing visceral adipose tissue and plasma triglycerides. For pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes, the effects of exercise interventions on the mother and her baby are unknown.An earlier Cochrane review on 'Exercise for pregnant women with diabetes' considered both pre-existing diabetes and gestational diabetes. That Cochrane review has now been split into two new reviews (following new protocols) - one on gestational diabetes and one on pre-existing diabetes (this review).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of exercise interventions for improving maternal and fetal outcomes in women with pre-existing diabetes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) on 27 June 2017, and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We had planned to include published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCT) or cluster-randomised trials, in full text or abstract format that compared any type of exercise programme, added to standard care, targeted at women with known pre-gestational diabetes (type 1 or type 2 diabetes), at any stage of pregnancy, compared with 1) standard care alone or 2) standard care plus another exercise intervention. Quasi-randomised and cross-over trials were excluded. Conference abstracts were handled in the same way as full-text publications.Women with gestational diabetes mellitus were excluded, as they were covered in a separate Cochrane review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We had planned that two review authors would independently assess all the potential studies we identified as a result of the search strategy. For eligible studies, two review authors would have independently extracted the data using an agreed form. We had planned to resolve discrepancies through discussion, or by consulting a third person. We also had planned to assess the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We did not identify any randomised controlled trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was no evidence from RCTs that evaluated the effects of exercise interventions for improving maternal and fetal outcomes in women with pre-existing diabetes.Good quality, large randomised controlled trials are urgently needed to identify exercise interventions that are safe, and improve health outcomes for women with pre-existing diabetes and their babies. Future studies in this area could utilise the standardised outcomes in this review, in order to improve consistency between trials in this area, and aid future meta-analysis.

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.

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.

Exercise for pregnant women with gestational diabetes for improving maternal and fetal outcomes

BACKGROUND

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is associated with both short- and long-term complications for the mother and her baby. Exercise interventions may be useful in helping with glycaemic control and improve maternal and infant outcomes.The original review on Exercise for diabetic pregnant women has been split into two new review titles reflecting the role of exercise for pregnant women with gestational diabetes and for pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes. Exercise for pregnant women with gestational diabetes for improving maternal and fetal outcomes (this review) Exercise for pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes for improving maternal and fetal outcomes OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of exercise interventions for improving maternal and fetal outcomes in women with GDM.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (27 August 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (18th August 2016), and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing an exercise intervention with standard care or another intervention in pregnant women diagnosed with gestational diabetes. Quasi-randomised and cross-over studies, and studies including women with pre-existing type 1 or type 2 diabetes were not eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All selection of studies, assessment of trial quality and data extraction was conducted independently by two review authors. Data were checked for accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 randomised trials, involving 638 women. The overall risk of bias was judged to be unclear due to lack of methodological detail in the included studies.For the mother, there was no clear evidence of a difference between women in the exercise group and those in the control group for the risk of pre-eclampsia as the measure of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (risk ratio (RR) 0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 7.09; two RCTs, 48 women; low-quality evidence), birth by caesarean section (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.16; five RCTs, 316 women; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence), the risk of induction of labour (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.68; one RCT, 40 women; low-quality evidence) or maternal body mass index at follow-up (postnatal weight retention or return to pre-pregnancy weight) (mean difference (MD) 0.11 kg/m², 95% CI -1.04 to 1.26; three RCTs, 254 women; I² = 0%; high-quality evidence). Development of type 2 diabetes, perineal trauma/tearing and postnatal depression were not reported as outcomes in the included studies.For the infant/child/adult, a single small (n = 19) trial reported no perinatal mortality (stillbirth and neonatal mortality) events in either the exercise intervention or control group (low-quality evidence). There was no clear evidence of a difference between groups for a mortality and morbidity composite (variously defined by trials, e.g. perinatal or infant death, shoulder dystocia, bone fracture or nerve palsy) (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.61; two RCTs, 169 infants; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence) or neonatal hypoglycaemia (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.20 to 20.04; one RCT, 34 infants; low-quality evidence). None of the included trials pre-specified large-for-gestational age, adiposity (neonatal/infant, childhood or adulthood), diabetes (childhood or adulthood) or neurosensory disability (neonatal/infant) as trial outcomes.Other maternal outcomes of interest: exercise interventions were associated with both reduced fasting blood glucose concentrations (average standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.59, 95% CI -1.07 to -0.11; four RCTs, 363 women; I² = 73%; T² = 0.19) and a reduced postprandial blood glucose concentration compared with control interventions (average SMD -0.85, 95% CI -1.15 to -0.55; three RCTs, 344 women; I² = 34%; T² = 0.03).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Short- and long-term outcomes of interest for this review were poorly reported. Current evidence is confounded by the large variety of exercise interventions. There was insufficient high-quality evidence to be able to determine any differences between exercise and control groups for our outcomes of interest. For the woman, both fasting and postprandial blood glucose concentrations were reduced compared with the control groups. There are currently insufficient data for us to determine if there are also benefits for the infant. The quality of the evidence in this review ranged from high to low quality and the main reason for downgrading was for risk of bias and imprecision (wide CIs, low event rates and small sample size). Development of type 2 diabetes, perineal trauma/tearing, postnatal depression, large-for-gestational age, adiposity (neonate/infant, childhood or adulthood), diabetes (childhood or adulthood) or neurosensory disability (neonate/infant) were not reported as outcomes in the included studies.Further research is required comparing different types of exercise interventions with control groups or with another exercise intervention that reports on both the short- and long-term outcomes (for both the mother and infant/child) as listed in this review.

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.