Wilkie G, Melnik V, Brainard L, Antonioli S, Baltich Nelson B, Leung K, Leftwich H. Continuous glucose monitor use in type 2 diabetes mellitus in pregnancy and perinatal outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM 2023;
5:100969. [PMID:
37061044 DOI:
10.1016/j.ajogmf.2023.100969]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/07/2023] [Revised: 04/03/2023] [Accepted: 04/09/2023] [Indexed: 04/17/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to assess whether continuous glucose monitor use in type 2 diabetes mellitus in pregnancy is associated with improved perinatal outcomes.
DATA SOURCES
We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane library from inception through May 9, 2022.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
We included all studies that compared continuous glucose monitor use with fingerstick glucose monitoring in women with type 2 diabetes mellitus.
METHODS
The initial search yielded 2463 unique citations that were screened in Covidence by 2 independent reviewers. Study types included randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and cross-sectional studies. Our outcomes of interest were macrosomia or large-for-gestational-age infants, hemoglobin A1c, cesarean delivery, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy including preeclampsia, gestational age at delivery, and neonatal hypoglycemia.
RESULTS
Three randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. We performed random-effects meta-analyses of estimates from 2 studies without risk of significant bias and reported summary adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Meta-analysis of 56 women with continuous glucose monitor use and 53 control women without continuous glucose monitor use showed that there was no difference in the incidence of large-for-gestational-age infants between continuous glucose monitor users and standard-of-care controls (odds ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.34-1.78) with an I2 of 0%. In addition, there was no difference in the development of preeclampsia between continuous glucose monitor users and standard-of-care controls (odds ratio, 1.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.34-7.22) with an I2 of 0%.
CONCLUSION
Continuous glucose monitor use was not associated with improved perinatal outcomes as assessed by large-for-gestational-age infants and preeclampsia. This review is limited by the small amount of data available for this population, and further research is needed.
Collapse