Intensive glycemic control in gestational diabetes mellitus: a randomized controlled clinical feasibility trial

An Update on the Interdisciplinary Dental Care Approach for Geriatric Diabetic Patients

Diabetes mellitus is a prevalent health issue escalating worldwide that gives rise to numerous problems. Periodontal disorders are recognized as the sixth consequence associated with diabetes mellitus. Research shows that dental health affects overall health, and this knowledge is changing the dental field. The correct choice of glucose goal levels and the optimal selection of glucose-lowering medications are determined by a comprehensive geriatric assessment, an estimate of life expectancy, and a rationale for therapy at regular intervals in elderly diabetics. This article provides an overview of the correlation between diabetes and oral health, with a specific emphasis on xerostomia, periodontal disease, and dental caries. Thus, dentists play a significant role within the allied health profession by contributing to the provision of oral care for those diagnosed with diabetes, with a special focus on geriatric patients.

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.

Tighter or less tight glycaemic targets for women with gestational diabetes mellitus for reducing maternal and perinatal morbidity: A stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Treatment for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) aims to reduce maternal hyperglycaemia. The TARGET Trial assessed whether tighter compared with less tight glycaemic control reduced maternal and perinatal morbidity.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

In this stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised trial, identification number ACTRN12615000282583, 10 hospitals in New Zealand were randomised to 1 of 5 implementation dates. The trial was registered before the first participant was enrolled. All hospitals initially used less tight targets (fasting plasma glucose (FPG) <5.5 mmol/L (<99 mg/dL), 1-hour <8.0 mmol/L (<144 mg/dL), 2 hour postprandial <7.0 mmol/L (<126 mg/dL)) and every 4 months, 2 hospitals moved to use tighter targets (FPG ≤5.0 mmol/L (≤90 mg/dL), 1-hour ≤7.4 mmol/L (≤133 mg/dL), 2 hour postprandial ≤6.7 mmol/L) (≤121 mg/dL). Women with GDM, blinded to the targets in use, were eligible. The primary outcome was large for gestational age. Secondary outcomes assessed maternal and infant health. Analyses were by intention to treat. Between May 2015 and November 2017, data were collected from 1,100 women with GDM (1,108 infants); 598 women (602 infants) used the tighter targets and 502 women (506 infants) used the less tight targets. The rate of large for gestational age was similar between the treatment target groups (88/599, 14.7% versus 76/502, 15.1%; adjusted relative risk [adjRR] 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66 to 1.40, P = 0.839). The composite serious health outcome for the infant of perinatal death, birth trauma, or shoulder dystocia was apparently reduced in the tighter group when adjusted for gestational age at diagnosis of GDM, BMI, ethnicity, and history of GDM compared with the less tight group (8/599, 1.3% versus 13/505, 2.6%, adjRR 0.23, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.88, P = 0.032). No differences were seen for the other infant secondary outcomes apart from a shorter stay in intensive care (P = 0.041). Secondary outcomes for the woman showed an apparent increase for the composite serious health outcome that included major haemorrhage, coagulopathy, embolism, and obstetric complications in the tighter group (35/595, 5.9% versus 15/501, 3.0%, adjRR 2.29, 95% CI 1.14 to 4.59, P = 0.020). There were no differences between the target groups in the risk for pre-eclampsia, induction of labour, or cesarean birth, but more women using tighter targets required pharmacological treatment (404/595, 67.9% versus 293/501, 58.5%, adjRR 1.20, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.44, P = 0.047). The main study limitation is that the treatment targets used may vary to those in use in some countries.

CONCLUSIONS

Tighter glycaemic targets in women with GDM compared to less tight targets did not reduce the risk of a large for gestational age infant, but did reduce serious infant morbidity, although serious maternal morbidity was increased. These findings can be used to aid decisions on the glycaemic targets women with GDM should use.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR). ACTRN12615000282583.

Number and quality of randomized controlled trials in obstetrics published in the top general medical and obstetrics and gynecology journals

BACKGROUND

There has been an increasing number of randomized controlled trials published in obstetrics and maternal-fetal medicine to reduce biases of treatment effect and to provide insights on the cause-effect of the relationship between treatment and outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to identify obstetrical randomized controlled trials published in top weekly general medical journals and monthly obstetrics and gynecology journals, to assess their quality in reporting and identify factors associated with publication in different journals.

STUDY DESIGN

The 4 weekly medical journals with the highest 2019 impact factor (New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, The Journal of the American Medical Association, and British Medical Journal), the top 4 monthly obstetrics and gynecology journals with obstetrics-related research (American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology, Obstetrics & Gynecology, and the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology), and the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology Maternal-Fetal Medicine were searched for obstetrical randomized controlled trials in the years 2018 to 2020. The primary outcome was the number of obstetrical randomized controlled trials published in the obstetrics and gynecology journals vs the weekly medical journals and the percentage of trials published, overall and per journal. The secondary outcomes included the proportion of positive vs negative trials overall and per journal and the assessment of the study characteristics of published trials, including quality assessment criteria.

RESULTS

Of the 4024 original research articles published in the 9 journals during the 3-year study period, 1221 (30.3%) were randomized controlled trials, with 137 (11.2%) randomized controlled trials being in obstetrics (46 in 2018, 47 in 2019, and 44 studies in 2020). Furthermore, 33 (24.1%) were published in weekly medical journals, and 104 (75.9%) were published in obstetrics and gynecology journals. The percentage of obstetrical randomized controlled trials published ranged from 1.5% to 9.6% per journal. Overall, 34.3% of obstetrical trials were statistically significant or "positive" for the primary outcome. Notably, 24.8% of the trials were retrospectively registered after the enrollment of the first study patient. Trials published in the 4 weekly medical journals enrolled significantly more patients (1801 vs 180; P<.001), received more often funding from the federal government (78.8% vs 35.6%; P<.001), and were more likely to be multicenter (90.9% vs 42.3%; P<.001), non-United States based (69.7% vs 49.0%; P=.03), and double blinded (45.5% vs 18.3%; P=.003) than trials published in the obstetrics and gynecology journals. There was no difference in study type (noninferiority vs superiority) and trial quality characteristics, including pretrial registration, ethics approval statement, informed consent statement, and adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines statement between studies published in weekly medical journals and studies published in obstetrics and gynecology journals.

CONCLUSION

Approximately 45 trials in obstetrics are being published every year in the highest impact journals, with one-fourth being in the weekly medical journals and the remainder in the obstetrics and gynecology journals. Only about a third of published obstetrical trials are positive. Trials published in weekly medical journals are larger, more likely to be funded by the government, multicenter, international, and double blinded. Quality metrics are similar between weekly medical journals and obstetrics and gynecology journals.