Glycemic control following two regimens of antenatal corticosteroids in mild gestational diabetes: a randomized controlled trial

European guidelines on perinatal care: corticosteroids for women at risk of preterm birth

of recommendationsCorticosteroids should be administered to women at a gestational age between 24⁺⁰ and 33⁺⁶weeks, when preterm birth is anticipated in the next seven days, as these have been consistently shown to reduce neonatal mortality and morbidity. (Strong-quality evidence; strong recommendation). In selected cases, extension of this period up to 34⁺⁶weeks may be considered (Expert opinion). Optimal benefits are found in infants delivered within 7 days of corticosteroid administration. Even a single-dose administration should be given to women with imminent preterm birth, as this is likely to improve neurodevelopmental outcome (Moderate-quality evidence; conditional recommendation).Either betamethasone (12 mg administered intramuscularly twice, 24-hours apart) or dexamethasone (6 mg administered intramuscularly in four doses, 12-hours apart, or 12 mg administered intramuscularly twice, 24-hours apart), may be used (Moderate-quality evidence; Strong recommendation). Administration of two "all" doses is named a "course of corticosteroids".Administration between 22⁺⁰ and 23⁺⁶weeks should be considered when preterm birth is anticipated in the next seven days and active newborn life-support is indicated, taking into account parental wishes. Clear survival benefit has been observed in these cases, but the impact on short-term neurological and respiratory function, as well as long-term neurodevelopmental outcome is still unclear (Low/moderate-quality evidence; Weak recommendation).Administration between 34 + 0 and 34 + 6 weeks should only be offered to a few selected cases (Expert opinion). Administration between 35⁺⁰ and 36⁺⁶weeks should be restricted to prospective randomized trials. Current evidence suggests that although corticosteroids reduce the incidence of transient tachypnea of the newborn, they do not affect the incidence of respiratory distress syndrome, and they increase neonatal hypoglycemia. Long-term safety data are lacking (Moderate quality evidence; Conditional recommendation).Administration in pregnancies beyond 37⁺⁰weeks is not indicated, even for scheduled cesarean delivery, as current evidence does not suggest benefit and the long-term effects remain unknown (Low-quality evidence; Conditional recommendation).Administration should be given in twin pregnancies, with the same indication and doses as for singletons. However, existing evidence suggests that it should be reserved for pregnancies at high-risk of delivering within a 7-day interval (Low-quality evidence; Conditional recommendation). Maternal diabetes mellitus is not a contraindication to the use of antenatal corticosteroids (Moderate quality evidence; Strong recommendation).A single repeat course of corticosteroids can be considered in pregnancies at less than 34⁺⁰weeks gestation, if the previous course was completed more than seven days earlier, and there is a renewed risk of imminent delivery (Low-quality evidence; Conditional recommendation).

Gestational Diabetes Mellitus and Antenatal Corticosteroid Therapy-A Narrative Review of Fetal and Neonatal Outcomes

BACKGROUND

There, we review the pathogenesis of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), its influence on fetal physiology, and neonatal outcomes, as well as the usage of antenatal corticosteroid therapy (ACST) in pregnancies complicated by GDM.

METHODS

MEDLINE and PubMed search was performed for the years 1990-2022, using a combination of keywords on such topics. According to the aim of the investigation, appropriate articles were identified and included in this narrative review.

RESULTS

GDM is a multifactorial disease related to unwanted pregnancy course and outcomes. Although GDM has an influence on the fetal cardiovascular and nervous system, especially in preterm neonates, the usage of ACST in pregnancy must be considered taking into account maternal and fetal characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

GDM has no influence on neonatal outcomes after ACST introduction. The ACST usage must be personalized and considered according to its gestational age-specific effects on the developing fetus.

Different corticosteroids and regimens for accelerating fetal lung maturation for babies at risk of preterm birth

BACKGROUND

Despite the widespread use of antenatal corticosteroids to prevent respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) in preterm infants, there is currently no consensus as to the type of corticosteroid to use, dose, frequency, timing of use or the route of administration.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects on fetal and neonatal morbidity and mortality, on maternal morbidity and mortality, and on the child and adult in later life, of administering different types of corticosteroids (dexamethasone or betamethasone), or different corticosteroid dose regimens, including timing, frequency and mode of administration.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (9 May 2022) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all identified published and unpublished randomised controlled trials or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing any two corticosteroids (dexamethasone or betamethasone or any other corticosteroid that can cross the placenta), comparing different dose regimens (including frequency and timing of administration) in women at risk of preterm birth. We planned to exclude cross-over trials and cluster-randomised trials. We planned to include studies published as abstracts only along with studies published as full-text manuscripts.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Data were checked for accuracy. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 trials (2494 women and 2762 infants) in this update, all of which recruited women who were at increased risk of preterm birth or had a medical indication for preterm birth. All trials were conducted in high-income countries. Dexamethasone versus betamethasone Nine trials (2096 women and 2319 infants) compared dexamethasone versus betamethasone. All trials administered both drugs intramuscularly, and the total dose in the course was consistent (22.8 mg or 24 mg), but the regimen varied. We assessed one new study to have no serious risk of bias concerns for most outcomes, but other studies were at moderate (six trials) or high (two trials) risk of bias due to selection, detection and attrition bias. Our GRADE assessments ranged between high- and low-certainty, with downgrades due to risk of bias and imprecision.  Maternal outcomes The only maternal primary outcome reported was chorioamnionitis (death and puerperal sepsis were not reported). Although the rate of chorioamnionitis was lower with dexamethasone, we did not find conclusive evidence of a difference between the two drugs (risk ratio (RR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48 to 1.06; 1 trial, 1346 women; moderate-certainty evidence). The proportion of women experiencing maternal adverse effects of therapy was lower with dexamethasone; however, there was not conclusive evidence of a difference between interventions (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.13; 2 trials, 1705 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Infant outcomes We are unsure whether the choice of drug makes a difference to the risk of any known death after randomisation, because the 95% CI was compatible with both appreciable benefit and harm with dexamethasone (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.63; 5 trials, 2105 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). The choice of drug may make little or no difference to the risk of RDS (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.22; 5 trials, 2105 infants; high-certainty evidence). While there may be little or no difference in the risk of intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH), there was substantial unexplained statistical heterogeneity in this result (average (a) RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.81; 4 trials, 1902 infants; I² = 62%; low-certainty evidence). We found no evidence of a difference between the two drugs for chronic lung disease (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.34; 1 trial, 1509 infants; moderate-certainty evidence), and we are unsure of the effects on necrotising enterocolitis, because there were few events in the studies reporting this outcome (RR 5.08, 95% CI 0.25 to 105.15; 2 studies, 441 infants; low-certainty evidence). Longer-term child outcomes Only one trial consistently followed up children longer term, reporting  at two years' adjusted age. There is probably little or no difference between dexamethasone and betamethasone in the risk of neurodevelopmental disability at follow-up (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.22; 2 trials, 1151 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). It is unclear whether the choice of drug makes a difference to the risk of visual impairment (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.15; 1 trial, 1227 children; low-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference between the drugs for hearing impairment (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.16; 1 trial, 1227 children; moderate-certainty evidence), motor developmental delay (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.20; 1 trial, 1166 children; moderate-certainty evidence) or intellectual impairment (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.20; 1 trial, 1161 children; moderate-certainty evidence). However, the effect estimate for cerebral palsy is compatible with both an important increase in risk with dexamethasone, and no difference between interventions (RR 2.50, 95% CI 0.97 to 6.39; 1 trial, 1223 children; low-certainty evidence). No trials followed the children beyond early childhood. Comparisons of different preparations and regimens of corticosteroids We found three studies that included a comparison of a different regimen or preparation of either dexamethasone or betamethasone (oral dexamethasone 32 mg versus intramuscular dexamethasone 24 mg; betamethasone acetate plus phosphate versus betamethasone phosphate; 12-hourly betamethasone versus 24-hourly betamethasone). The certainty of the evidence for the main outcomes from all three studies was very low, due to  small sample size and  risk of bias. Therefore, we were limited in our ability to draw conclusions from any of these studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, it remains unclear whether there are important differences between dexamethasone and betamethasone, or between one regimen and another.  Most trials compared dexamethasone versus betamethasone. While for most infant and early childhood outcomes there may be no difference between these drugs, for several important outcomes for the mother, infant and child the evidence was inconclusive and did not rule out significant benefits or harms. The evidence on different antenatal corticosteroid regimens was sparse, and does not support the use of one particular corticosteroid regimen over another.

Quality of patient-reported outcome reporting in trials of diabetes in pregnancy: A systematic review

AIMS

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are reports of the patient's health status that come directly from the patient without interpretation by the clinician or anyone else. They are increasingly used in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). In this systematic review we identified RCTs conducted in women with diabetes in pregnancy which included PROs in their primary or secondary outcomes. We then evaluated the quality of PRO reporting against an internationally accepted reporting framework (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT-PRO) guidelines).

METHODS

We searched online databases for studies published 2013-2021 using a combination of keywords. Two authors reviewed all abstracts independently. Data on study characteristics and the quality of PRO reporting were extracted from relevant studies. We conducted a multiple regression analysis to identify factors associated with high quality reporting.

RESULTS

We identified 7122 citations. Thirty-five articles were included for review. Only 17% of RCTs included a PRO as a primary or secondary outcome. Out of a maximum score of 100 the median score was 46, indicating sub-optimal reporting. A multiple regression analysis did not reveal any factors associated with high quality reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

Researchers should be mindful of the importance of PRO inclusion and reporting and include reliable PROs in trials.

SARS-CoV-2 and the Immune Response in Pregnancy with Delta Variant Considerations

As of September 2021, there has been a total of 123,633 confirmed cases of pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection in the US according to the CDC, with maternal death being 2.85 times more likely, pre-eclampsia 1.33 times more likely, preterm birth 1.47 times more likely, still birth 2.84 times more likely, and NICU admission 4.89 times more likely when compared to pregnant women without COVID-19 infection. In our literature review, we have identified eight key changes in the immunological functioning of the pregnant body that may predispose the pregnant patient to both a greater susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2, as well as a more severe disease course. Factors that may impede immune clearance of SARS-CoV-2 include decreased levels of natural killer (NK) cells, Th1 CD4+ T cells, plasmacytoid dendritic cells (pDC), a decreased phagocytic index of neutrophil granulocytes and monocytes, as well as the immunomodulatory properties of progesterone, which is elevated in pregnancy. Factors that may exacerbate SARS-CoV-2 morbidity through hyperinflammatory states include increases in the complement system, which are linked to greater lung injury, as well as increases in TLR-1 and TLR-7, which are known to bind to the virus, leading to increased proinflammatory cytokines such as IL-6 and TNF-α, which are already elevated in normal pregnant physiology. Other considerations include an increase in angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) in the maternal circulation, leading to increased viral binding on the host cell, as well as increased IL-6 and decreased regulatory T cells in pre-eclampsia. We also focus on how the Delta variant has had a concerning impact on SARS-CoV-2 cases in pregnancy, with an increased case volume and proportion of ICU admissions among the infected expecting mothers. We propose that the effects of the Delta variant are due to a combination of (1) the Delta variant itself being more transmissible, contagious, and efficient at infecting host cells, (2) initial evidence pointing to the Delta variant causing a significantly greater viral load that accumulates more rapidly in the respiratory system, (3) the pregnancy state being more susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection, as discussed in-depth, and (4) the lower rates of vaccination in pregnant women compared to the general population. In the face of continually evolving strains and the relatively low awareness of COVID-19 vaccination for pregnant women, it is imperative that we continue to push for global vaccine equity.