Probiotic treatment for women with gestational diabetes to improve maternal and infant health and well-being

BACKGROUND

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is carbohydrate intolerance first recognised during pregnancy and associated with complications for mothers and babies. Probiotics are naturally occurring micro-organisms, which when ingested in adequate amounts, may confer health benefits. Evidence of the role of probiotics as treatment for GDM is limited.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of probiotics in treating women with GDM on maternal and infant outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (24 July 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the use of probiotics versus placebo/standard care for the treatment of GDM.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

Nine RCTs (695 pregnant women with GDM) comparing probiotics versus placebo were identified. The overall risk of bias in the nine RCTs was low to unclear and the evidence was downgraded for imprecision due to the small numbers of women participating in the trials. The trials were carried out in hospitals and universities in Iran (seven trials), Thailand (one trial) and Ireland (one trial). All trials compared probiotics with placebo. Maternal outcomes We are uncertain if probiotics have any effect compared with placebo on hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, (risk ratio (RR) 1.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64 to 3.53; participants = 256; studies = 3; low-certainty evidence) and mode of birth as caesareans (average RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.35; participants = 267; studies = 3; low-certainty evidence) because the certainty of evidence is low and the 95% CIs span possible benefit and possible harm. No trials reported primary outcomes of: mode of birth as vaginal/assisted and subsequent development of type 2 diabetes. We are uncertain if probiotics have any effect compared with placebo on induction of labour (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.74 to 2.37; participants = 127; studies = 1; very low-certainty evidence). For other secondary maternal outcomes, we are uncertain if there are differences between probiotics and placebo for: postpartum haemorrhage; weight gain during pregnancy intervention and total gestational weight gain; fasting plasma glucose and need for extra pharmacotherapy (insulin). Probiotics may be associated with a slight reduction in triglycerides and total cholesterol. In probiotics compared with placebo, there was evidence of reduction in markers for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) and HOMA-B; and insulin secretion. There was also an increase in quantitative insulin sensitivity check index (QUICKI). Probiotics were associated with minor benefits in relevant bio-markers with evidence of a reduction in inflammatory markers high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), interleukin 6 (IL-6), and marker of oxidative stress malondialdehyde; and an increase in antioxidant total glutathione, but we are uncertain if there is any difference in total antioxidant capacity. No trials reported secondary outcomes: perineal trauma, postnatal weight retention or return to pre-pregnancy weight and postnatal depression. Infant/child/adult outcomes We are uncertain if probiotics have any effect, compared with placebo, on the risk of large-for-gestational-age babies (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.52; participants = 174; studies = 2; low-certainty evidence) or infant hypoglycaemia (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.84; participants = 177; studies = 3; low-certainty evidence) because the certainty of evidence is low and the 95% CIs span possible benefit and possible harm. No trials reported primary outcomes of: perinatal (fetal/neonatal) mortality; or neurosensory disability. For other secondary outcomes, we are uncertain if there is any difference between probiotics and placebo in gestational age at birth, preterm birth, macrosomia, birthweight, head circumference, length, infant hypoglycaemia, and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admissions. There was evidence of a reduction in infant hyperbilirubinaemia with probiotics compared with placebo. No trials reported secondary outcomes: infant adiposity, and later childhood adiposity. There were no adverse events reported by any of the trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low-certainty evidence means we are not certain if there is any difference between probiotic and placebo groups in maternal hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, caesareans; and large-for-gestational-age babies. There were no adverse events reported by the trials. Due to the variability of probiotics used and small sample sizes of trials, evidence from this review has limited ability to inform practice. Well-designed adequately-powered trials are needed to identify whether probiotics may improve maternal blood glucose levels and/or infant/child/adult outcomes; and whether they can be used to treat GDM.

Prevention of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM) and Probiotics: Mechanism of Action: A Review

BACKGROUND

Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM) is a health problem that is increasing around the world.

INTRODUCTION

Prevention of GDM, rather than treatment, could have several benefits in terms of both health and economic cost. Even a slight reduction in maternal glucose in non-diabetic women, particularly in women at high risk for GDM, may have significant benefits for pregnancy results and the future health of off-springs. Probiotics are a relatively new intervention, which are assessed by mothers' metabolism, and can reduce blood sugar levels, prevent gestational diabetes and reduce the maternal and fetal complications resulting from it. The aim of this study was to review the studies on the prevention of gestational diabetes and assess the potential beneficial effects of probiotics on gestational diabetes and their possible mechanism of action.

METHODS

Articles compiled through clinical trials indexed in PubMed, Science Direct, Cochran, and Medlib between 2000 and 2017, with the keywords probiotics, prevention, and gestational diabetes mellitus were selected.

RESULTS

Considering the potential of probiotics in the modulation of gut microbiota, naturalization increases intestinal permeability, regulation of pro-inflammatory mediators' secretion and thereby controlling local and systemic inflammation results in decreasing intestinal permeability, enhancing the immune system. It likely has the ability to prevent or control diabetes during pregnancy although confirmatory studies are still needed.

CONCLUSION

Experimental and clinical evidence support the supposition that the modulation of the gut microbiota via probiotic microorganisms could be effective in the prevention of gestational diabetes mellitus.

Shaping Microbiota During the First 1000 Days of Life

The data obtained in prior studies suggest that early microbial exposition begins prior to conception and gestation. Given that the host-microbe interaction is shaped by the immune system response, it is important to understand the key immune system-microbiota relationship during the period from conception to the first years of life. The present work summarizes the available evidence concerning early microbiota exposure within the male and the female reproductive tracts at the point of conception and during gestation, focusing on the potential impact on infant development during the first 1000 days of life. Furthermore, we conclude that some dietary strategies including specific probiotics could become potentially valuable tools to modulate the gut microbiota during this early critical window of opportunity for targeted health outcomes throughout the entire lifespan.

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.