Perinatal Outcomes in Mexican Women with Untreated Mild Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Diagnosed by the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups Criteria

Neonatal outcomes according to different glucose threshold values in gestational diabetes: a register-based study

BACKGROUND

Mild hyperglycaemia is associated with increased birth weight but association with other neonatal outcomes is controversial. We aimed to study neonatal outcomes in untreated mild hyperglycaemia using different oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) thresholds.

METHODS

This register-based study included all (n = 4,939) singleton pregnant women participating a 75 g 2-h OGTT in six delivery hospitals in Finland in 2009. Finnish diagnostic cut-offs for GDM were fasting ≥ 5.3, 1 h ≥ 10.0 or 2-h glucose ≥ 8.6 mmol/L. Women who did not meet these criteria but met the International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria (fasting 5.1-5.2 mmol/L and/or 2-h glucose 8.5 mmol/L, n = 509) or the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) criteria (2-h glucose 7.8-8.5 mmol/L, n = 166) were considered as mild untreated hyperglycaemia. Women who met both the Finnish criteria and the IADPSG or the NICE criteria were considered as treated GDM groups (n = 1292 and n = 612, respectively). Controls were normoglycaemic according to all criteria (fasting glucose < 5.1 mmol/L, 1-h glucose < 10.0 mmol/L and 2-h glucose < 8.5 mmol/L, n = 3031). Untreated mild hyperglycemia groups were compared to controls and treated GDM groups. The primary outcome - a composite of adverse neonatal outcomes, including neonatal hypoglycaemia, hyperbilirubinaemia, birth trauma or perinatal mortality - was analysed using multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

The risk for the adverse neonatal outcome in untreated mild hyperglycemia was not increased compared to controls (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.71-1.44, using the IADPSG criteria; aOR: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.60-1.85, using the NICE criteria). The risk was lower compared to the treated IADPSG (aOR 0.38, 95% CI 0.27-0.53) or the treated NICE group (aOR 0.32, 95% CI 0.18-0.57).

DISCUSSION

The risk of adverse neonatal outcomes was not increased in mild untreated hyperglycaemia compared to normoglycaemic controls and was lower than in the treated GDM groups. The OGTT cut-offs of 5.3 mmol/L at fasting and 8.6 mmol/L at 2 h seem to sufficiently identify clinically relevant GDM, without excluding neonates with a risk of adverse outcomes.

Glucose metabolism in gestational diabetes and their relationship with fat mass / muscle mass index

Introduction

During pregnancy, women experience metabolic changes that may induce insulin resistance, which can be traced to the blood glucose levels A number of factors may intervene in the metabolism of glucose in pregnant women; one of them is body composition. This factor is useful for studying metabolic diseases, for which the identification of the fat mass/muscle mass index (FMMMI) considered an especially relevant factor. Owing to their nature, techniques such as bioimpedance have been sparsely used for analysis during pregnancy.

Aim

This study aimed to identify the relationship between fat mass / muscle mass index and glucose metabolism in pregnant women.

Methods

This descriptive cross-sectional study included 231 women between the ages of 18 and 35 years and 24-28 weeks of gestation, who attended a state hospital for regular check-ups and exhibited risk factors for the development of gestational diabetes (GD) according to the Current Practice Guidelines in Primary Care. The participants underwent a physical examination, anthropometric measurements bio impedance were obtained, and oral glucose tolerance curves were constructed. FMMMI was calculated.

Results

The prevalence of gestational diabetes was observed to be 13.4%. Women with a GD diagnosis had a significantly higher FMMMI than in those with no GD (0.746 ± 0.168 vs 0.567 ± 0.167;p < 0.005). The assessment of the FMMMI tertiles revealed that GD prevalence was higher in tertile 3 than in tertiles 1 and 2 (tertile 1: 2.6%; tertile 2: 9.1%; tertile 3: 24%).

Conclusion

FMMMI is associated with glucose tolerance test response in pregnant women and a higher prevalence of GD.

Gestational diabetes mellitus and adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes in twin and singleton pregnancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the risk of adverse maternal and perinatal complications between twin and singleton pregnancies affected by gestational diabetes mellitus and the respective group without gestational diabetes mellitus (controls).

DATA SOURCES

A literature search was performed using MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane from January 1980 to May 2023.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Observational studies reporting maternal and perinatal outcomes in singleton and/or twin pregnancies with gestational diabetes mellitus vs controls were included.

METHODS

This was a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pooled estimate risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals were generated to determine the likelihood of adverse pregnancy outcomes between twin and singleton pregnancies with and without gestational diabetes mellitus. Heterogeneity among studies was evaluated in the model and expressed using the I2 statistic. A P value of <.05 was considered statistically significant. The meta-analyses were performed using Review Manager (RevMan Web). Version 5.4. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2020. Meta-regression was used to compare relative risks between singleton and twin pregnancies. The addition of multiple covariates into the models was used to address the lack of adjustments.

RESULTS

Overall, 85 studies in singleton pregnancies and 27 in twin pregnancies were included. In singleton pregnancies with gestational diabetes mellitus, compared with controls, there were increased risks of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (relative risk, 1.85; 95% confidence interval, 1.69-2.01), induction of labor (relative risk, 1.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.77), cesarean delivery (relative risk, 1.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-1.38), large-for-gestational-age neonate (relative risk, 1.61; 95% confidence interval, 1.46-1.77), preterm birth (relative risk, 1.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.46), and admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (relative risk, 1.43; 95% confidence interval, 1.38-1.49). In twin pregnancies with gestational diabetes mellitus, compared with controls, there were increased risks of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (relative risk, 1.69; 95% confidence interval, 1.51-1.90), cesarean delivery (relative risk, 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.13), large-for-gestational-age neonate (relative risk, 1.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.60), preterm birth (relative risk, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.32), and admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (relative risk, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.32) and reduced risks of small-for-gestational-age neonate (relative risk, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.81-0.97) and neonatal death (relative risk, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.39-0.65). When comparing relative risks in singleton vs twin pregnancies, there was sufficient evidence to suggest that twin pregnancies have a lower relative risk of cesarean delivery (P=.003), have sufficient adjustment for confounders, and have lower relative risks of admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (P=.005), stillbirths (P=.002), and neonatal death (P=.001) than singleton pregnancies.

CONCLUSION

In both singleton and twin pregnancies, gestational diabetes mellitus was associated with an increased risk of adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes. In twin pregnancies, gestational diabetes mellitus may have a milder effect on some adverse perinatal outcomes and may be associated with a lower risk of neonatal death.

Intensive Medical Nutrition Therapy Alone or with Added Metformin to Prevent Gestational Diabetes Mellitus among High-Risk Mexican Women: A Randomized Clinical Trial

The aim of this study was to examine the efficacy of intensive medical nutrition therapy (MNT) plus metformin in preventing gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) among high-risk Mexican women. An open-label randomized clinical trial was conducted. Inclusion criteria were pregnant women with three or more GDM risk factors: Latino ethnic group, maternal age >35 years, body mass index >25 kg/m2, insulin resistance, and a history of previous GDM, prediabetes, a macrosomic neonate, polycystic ovarian syndrome, or a first-degree relative with type 2 diabetes. Women before 15 weeks of gestation were assigned to group 1 (n = 45): intensive MNT-plus metformin (850 mg twice/day) or group 2 (n = 45): intensive MNT without metformin. Intensive MNT included individual dietary counseling, with ≤50% of total energy from high carbohydrates. The primary outcome was the GDM incidence according to the International Association of Diabetes Pregnancy Study Groups criteria. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics and adverse perinatal outcomes between the groups. The GDM incidence was n = 11 (24.4%) in the MNT plus metformin group versus n = 7 (15.5%) in the MNT without metformin group: p = 0.42 (RR: 1.57 [95% CI: 0.67–3.68]). There is no benefit in adding metformin to intensive MNT to prevent GDM among high-risk Mexican women. Clinical trials registration: NCT01675310.

Perinatal outcomes associated with the diagnosis of gestational diabetes: Systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare perinatal outcomes in pregnant women diagnosed with gestational diabetes using the one-step and the two-step test.

METHODS

Meta-analysis of observational studies pregnancies women with gestational diabetes from January 2014 to February 2019. The outcomes studied were induction of labor and delivery, preterm delivery, fetal macrosomia, neonatal hypoglycemia, hyperbilirubinemia, low birth weight, and admission to the neonatal intensive care unit.

RESULTS

Eight studies were included with a population of 108,609 pregnancies. Statistical differences were obtained for fetal macrosomia RR0.9 (95%CI0.85-0.97; I²0%) and neonatal hypoglycemia RR1.1 (95%CI1.01-1.40; I²48.5%).

CONCLUSION

Neonatal macrosomia appears to be less present when the one-step diagnostic test is used and neonatal hypoglycemia was lower with the two-step test. Register PROSPERO CRD42020215062.

Mild Gestational Diabetes and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background and Objectives: Mild gestational diabetes (GDM) refers to the gestational hyperglycemia, which does not fulfill the diagnostic criteria for GDM. The results of studies on adverse pregnancy outcomes among women with mild GDM are controversial. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the impact of mild GDM on the risk of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. Methods: A thorough literature search was performed to retrieve articles that investigated adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes in women with mild GDM in comparison with non-GDM counterparts. All populations were classified to three groups based on their diagnostic criteria for mild GDM. Heterogeneous and non-heterogeneous results were analyzed using the fixed/random effects models. Publication bias was assessed using the Harbord test. DerSimonian and Laird, and inverse variance methods were used to calculate the pooled relative risk of events. Subgroup analysis was performed based on mild GDM diagnostic criteria. Quality and risk of bias assessment were performed using standard questionnaires. Results: Seventeen studies involving 11,623 pregnant women with mild GDM and 53,057 non-GDM counterparts contributed to the meta-analysis. For adverse maternal outcomes, the results of meta-analysis showed that the women with mild GDM had a significantly higher risk of cesarean section (pooled RR: 1.3, 95% CI 1.2-1.5), pregnancy-induced hypertension (pooled RR: 1.4, 95% CI 1.1-1.7), preeclampsia (pooled RR: 1.3, 95% CI 1.1-1.5) and shoulder dystocia (pooled RR: 2.7, 95% CI 1.5-5.1) in comparison with the non-GDM population. For adverse neonatal outcomes, the pooled relative risk of macrosomia (pooled RR = 0.4, 95% CI: 1.1-1.7), large for gestational age (pooled RR = 1.7, 95% CI: 1.3-2.3), hypoglycemia (pooled RR = 1.6, 95% CI: 1.1-2.3), hyperbilirubinemia (pooled RR = 1.1, 95% CI: 1-1.3), 5 min Apgar <7 (pooled RR = 1.6, 95% CI: 1.1-2.4), admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (pooled RR = 1.5, 95% CI: 1.1-2.1), respiratory distress syndrome (pooled RR = 3.2, 95% CI: 1.8-5.5), and preterm birth (pooled RR = 1.4, 95% CI: 1.1-1.7) was significantly increased in the mild GDM women as compared with the non-GDM population. However, the adverse events of small for gestational age and neonatal death were not significantly different between the groups. Analysis of composite maternal and neonatal outcomes revealed that the risk of those adverse outcomes in the women with mild GDM in all classifications were significantly higher than the non-GDM population. Also, the meta-regression showed that the magnitude of those increased risks in both composite maternal and neonatal outcomes was similar. Conclusion: The risks of sever adverse neonatal outcomes including small for gestational age and neonatal mortality are not increased with mild GDM. However, the increased risks of most adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes are observed. The risks have similar magnitudes for all mild GDM diagnostic classifications.

The Effect of Mild Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Treatment on Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

It is uncertain whether the treatment of mild gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) improves pregnancy outcomes. The aim of this systemic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the effect of mild GDM treatment on adverse pregnancy outcomes.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted on the databases of PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar to retrieve studies that compared interventions for the treatment of mild GDM with usual antenatal care. The fixed/random effects models were used for the analysis of heterogeneous and non-heterogeneous results. Publication bias was assessed using the Harbord test. Also, the DerSimonian and Laird, and inverse variance methods were used to calculate the pooled odds ratio of events. The quality assessment of the included studies was performed using the Modified Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment scale and the CONSORT checklist. In addition, the risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias.

RESULTS

The systematic review and meta-analysis involved ten studies consisting of 3317 pregnant women who received treatment for mild GDM and 4407 untreated counterparts. Accordingly, the treatment of mild GDM significantly reduced the risk of macrosomia (OR = 0.3; 95%CI = 0.3-0.4), large for gestational age (OR = 0.4; 95%CI = 0.3-0.5), shoulder dystocia (OR = 0.3; 95%CI = 0.2-0.6), caesarean-section (OR = 0.8; 95%CI = 0.7-0.9), preeclampsia (OR = 0.4; 95%CI = 0.3-0.6), elevated cord C-peptide (OR = 0.7; 95%CI = 0.6-0.9), and respiratory distress syndrome (OR = 0.7; 95%CI = 0.5-0.9) compared to untreated counterparts. Moreover, the risk of induced labor significantly increased in the treated group compared to the untreated group (OR = 1.3; 95%CI = 1.0-1.6). However, no statistically significant difference was observed between the groups in terms of small for gestational age, hypoglycemia, hyperbilirubinemia, birth trauma, admission to the neonatal intensive care unit, and preterm birth. Sensitivity analysis based on the exclusion of secondary analysis data was all highly consistent with the main data analysis.

CONCLUSION

Treatment of mild GDM reduced the risk of selected important maternal outcomes including preeclampsia, macrosomia, large for gestational age, cesarean section, and shoulder dystocia without increasing the risk of small for gestational age. Nevertheless, the treatment could not reduce the risk of neonatal metabolic abnormalities or several complications in newborn.