Dataset Information

Interconception care for women with a history of gestational diabetes for improving maternal and infant outcomes.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is associated with adverse health outcomes for mothers and their infants both perinatally and long term. Women with a history of GDM are at risk of recurrence in subsequent pregnancies and may benefit from intervention in the interconception period to improve maternal and infant health outcomes.

Objectives

To assess the effects of interconception care for women with a history of GDM on maternal and infant health outcomes.

Search methods

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (7 April 2017) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

Selection criteria

Randomised controlled trials, including quasi-randomised controlled trials and cluster-randomised trials evaluating any protocol of interconception care with standard care or other forms of interconception care for women with a history of GDM on maternal and infant health outcomes.

Data collection and analysis

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility. In future updates of this review, at least two review authors will extract data and assess the risk of bias of included studies; the quality of the evidence will be assessed using the GRADE approach.

Main results

No eligible published trials were identified. We identified a completed randomised controlled trial that was designed to evaluate the effects of a diet and exercise intervention compared with standard care in women with a history of GDM, however to date, it has only published results on women who were pregnant at randomisation (and not women in the interconception period). We also identified an ongoing trial, in obese women with a history of GDM planning a subsequent pregnancy, which is assessing the effects of an intensive lifestyle intervention, supported with liraglutide treatment, compared with usual care. We also identified a trial that was designed to evaluate the effects of a weight loss and exercise intervention compared with lifestyle education also in obese women with a history of GDM planning a subsequent pregnancy, however it has not yet been published. These trials will be re-considered for inclusion in the next review update.

Authors' conclusions

The role of interconception care for women with a history of GDM remains unclear. Randomised controlled trials are required evaluating different forms and protocols of interconception care for these women on perinatal and long-term maternal and infant health outcomes, acceptability of such interventions and cost-effectiveness.

SUBMITTER: Tieu J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6483533 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES: To assess the maternal and fetal complications of pregnancy in mothers with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) compared with non-diabetic patients who delivered in the hospital during the study period. METHODS: The outcome of pregnancy in 220 Saudi patients with GDM identified from the delivery register/hospital database and matched for age, parity and body mass index with 220 non-diabetic controls were studied retrospectively from their case files. Patients with multiple pregnancies and abnormal presentation of the fetus were excluded from the study. RESULTS: The GDM patients were treated with either diet alone or with additional insulin in some patients who required better control of their blood sugar levels. Patients with GDM had a significantly higher incidence of pre-eclampsia (p<0.0001); preterm delivery (p=0.0226); induction of labor (p<0.0001); cesarean section (p=0.0019); higher mean birth weight (p<0.0001) of babies; large for gestational age infants (p=0.0011); macrosomia (p=0.0186); and admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (p=0.0003), compared with the control group. However, the rates of Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes, respiratory distress syndrome, neonatal hypoglycemia, hyperbilirubinemia and the need for phototherapy were similar in both groups of patients. Congenital anomalies and perinatal mortality rates were not significantly different in the two groups. CONCLUSION: GDM is recognized to be associated with increased rates of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes, which are supported by the findings of this study. Even the mild form of GDM seems to have significant consequences for women and their offspring and is recommended to be aggressively treated. Evidence suggests that early diagnosis and strict control of blood sugar levels throughout the pregnancy can significantly reduce maternal and fetal complications. A multicenter, randomized controlled trial, based on universally accepted criteria for GDM screening test, standardized diagnostic OGTT and management of all patients with GDM versus the standard obstetric management of the control is warranted.

Project description:BackgroundGestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a form of diabetes that occurs in pregnancy. Although GDM usually resolves following birth, it is associated with significant morbidities for mother and baby both perinatally and in the long term. There is strong evidence to support treatment for GDM. However, there is little consensus on whether or not screening for GDM will improve maternal and infant health and if so, the most appropriate protocol to follow.ObjectivesTo assess the effects of different methods of screening for gestational diabetes mellitus and maternal and infant outcomes.Search strategyWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (April 2010).Selection criteriaRandomised and quasi-randomised trials evaluating the effects of different methods of screening for gestational diabetes mellitus.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently conducted data extraction and quality assessment. We resolved disagreements through discussion or through a third author.Main resultsWe included four trials involving 3972 women were included in the review. One quasi-randomised trial compared risk factor screening with universal or routine screening by 50 g oral glucose challenge testing. Women in the universal screening group were more likely to be diagnosed with GDM (one trial, 3152 women, risk ratio (RR) 0.44 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 0.75). Infants of mothers in the risk factor screening group were born marginally earlier than infants of mothers in the routine screening group (one trial, 3152 women, mean difference -0.15 weeks, 95% CI -0.27 to -0.53).The remaining three trials evaluated different methods of administering a 50 g glucose load. Two small trials compared glucose monomer with glucose polymer testing, with one of these trials including a candy bar group. One trial compared a glucose solution with food. No differences in diagnosis of GDM were found between each comparison. Overall, women drinking the glucose monomer experienced fewer side effects from testing than women drinking the glucose polymer (two trials, 151 women, RR 2.80, 95% CI 1.10 to 7.13). However, we observed high heterogeneity between the trials for this result (I(2) = 61%).Authors' conclusionsThere was insufficient evidence to determine if screening for gestational diabetes, or what types of screening, can improve maternal and infant health outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundInfants born to mothers with pre-existing type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus are at greater risk of congenital anomalies, perinatal mortality and significant morbidity in the short and long term. Pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes are at greater risk of perinatal morbidity and diabetic complications. The relationship between glycaemic control and health outcomes for both mothers and infants indicates the potential for preconception care for these women to be of benefit. This is an update of the original review, which was first published in 2010.ObjectivesTo assess the effects of preconception care in women with diabetes on health outcomes for mothers and their infants.Search methodsWe searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (31 January 2017) and reference lists of retrieved articles.Selection criteriaRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of preconception care for diabetic women. Cluster-RCTs and quasi-RCTs were eligible for inclusion but none were identified.Data collection and analysisTwo reviewers independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. We checked data for accuracy and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.Main resultsWe included three trials involving 254 adolescent girls with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, with an overall unclear to high risk of bias. The three trials were conducted at diabetes clinics in the USA, and assessed the READY-Girls (Reproductive-health Education and Awareness of Diabetes in Youth for Girls) programme versus standard care.Considering primary outcomes, one trial reported no pregnancies in the trial period (12 months) (very low-quality evidence, with downgrading based on study limitations (risk of bias) and imprecision); in the other two trials, pregnancy was an exclusion criterion, or was not clearly reported on. None of the trials reported on the other primary maternal outcomes, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and caesarean section; or primary infant outcomes, large-for-gestational age, perinatal mortality, death or morbidity composite, or congenital malformations. Similarly, none of the trials reported on the secondary outcomes, for which we had planned to assess the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach (maternal: induction of labour; perineal trauma; gestational weight gain; long-term cardiovascular health; infant: adiposity; type 1 or 2 diabetes; neurosensory disability).The majority of secondary maternal and infant outcomes, and outcomes relating to the use and costs of health services were not reported by the three included trials. Regarding behaviour changes associated with the intervention, in one trial, participants in the preconception care group had a slightly higher score for the actual initiation of discussion regarding preconception care with healthcare providers at follow-up (nine months), compared with those in the standard care group (mean difference 0.40, 95% confidence interval -0.02 to 0.82 (on a scale of 0 to 4 points); participants = 87) (a summation of four dichotomous items; possible range 0 to 4, with 0 being no discussion).Authors' conclusionsThere are insufficient RCT data available to assess the effects of preconception care for diabetic women on health outcomes for mothers and their infants.More high-quality evidence is needed to determine the effects of different protocols of preconception care for diabetic women. Future trials should be powered to evaluate effects on short- and long-term maternal and infant outcomes, and outcomes relating to the use and costs of health services. We have identified three ongoing studies that we will consider in the next review update.

Project description:BackgroundWomen with gestational diabetes mellitus have higher rates of perinatal depressive symptoms, compared to healthy pregnant women. In the general population, maternal depressive symptoms have been associated with infant sleep difficulties during the first year postpartum. However, there is lack of data on infants of mothers with gestational diabetes mellitus.MethodsThis study assessed the prospective associations between maternal perinatal depressive symptoms and infant sleep outcomes. The study population consisted of 95 Swiss women with gestational diabetes mellitus and their infants, enrolled in the control group of the MySweetheart trial (NCT02890693). Perinatal depressive symptoms were assessed with the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale at the first gestational diabetes mellitus visit during pregnancy, at 6-8 weeks postpartum, and 1 year postpartum. The Brief Infant Sleep Questionnaire was used to assess infant sleep (i.e., nocturnal sleep duration, number of night waking, and maternal perception of infant sleep) at 1 year postpartum. Relevant maternal and infant measurements (e.g., infant sex or maternal age or social support) were collected or extracted from medical records as covariates.ResultsAntenatal maternal depressive symptoms at the first gestational diabetes mellitus visit were inversely associated with infant nocturnal sleep duration at 1 year postpartum (β = -5.9, p = 0.046). This association became marginally significant when covariates were added (β = -5.3, p = 0.057). Maternal depressive symptoms at 6-8 weeks postpartum were negatively and prospectively associated with infant nocturnal sleep duration (β = -9.35, p = 0.016), even when controlling for covariates (β = -7.32, p = 0.042). The association between maternal depressive symptoms and maternal perception of infant sleep as not a problem at all was significant at 1 year postpartum (β = -0.05, p = 0.006), although it became non-significant when controlling for appropriate covariates. No other significant associations were found.LimitationsThis study solely included measures derived from self-report validated questionnaires.ConclusionOur findings suggest it is of utmost importance to support women with gestational diabetes mellitus as a means to reduce the detrimental impact of maternal perinatal depressive symptoms on infant sleep, given its predictive role on infant metabolic health.

Project description:IntroductionA network meta-analysis was conducted to compare and rank the effects of different glucose-lowering measures on maternal and infant outcomes in pregnant women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM).MethodsWe searched the PubMed, CNKI, Embase, Cochrane Library, Wanfang, and Weipu databases for relevant studies published between database establishment and June 2021. Study retrieval involved subject-heading and keyword searches. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with different glucose-lowering treatments for GDM patients were included. The Cochrane tool was used to assess bias risk. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were used to compare and rank the effects of different hypoglycemic measures on maternal and infant outcomes in pregnant women with GDM.ResultsWe included 41 RCTs involving 6245 pregnant women with GDM. Patients treated with insulin had a higher incidence of neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) occupancy (1.3, 95% CI 1.0-1.7) than those treated with metformin. The insulin (1.5, 95% CI 1.1-2.1 and 1.8, 95% CI 1.0-3.3) and glyburide (2.0, 95% CI 1.2-3.2 and 2.5, 95% CI 1.1-8.4) groups exhibited higher incidences of neonatal hypoglycemia and large for gestational age (LGA) newborns than the metformin group. The glyburide group exhibited a lower probability of cesarean section than the metformin (0.76, 95% CI 0.55-1.0) and insulin (0.71, 95% CI 0.52-0.96) groups. Preeclampsia incidence in the diet and exercise groups was significantly lower than in the metformin (0.19, 95% CI 0.043-0.72) and insulin (0.15, 95% CI 0.032-0.52) groups. No intervention significantly reduced the incidences of macrosomia, preterm birth, gestational hypertension, or respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). The ranking results showed that the metformin group had the lowest rates of neonatal hypoglycemia, macrosomia, LGA, and NICU occupancy. The glyburide group had the lowest NICU occupancy and cesarean section rates and the highest neonatal hypoglycemia, LGA, preeclampsia, and gestational hypertension rates. The diet and exercise group had the lowest preterm delivery and preeclampsia rates and the highest NICU occupancy rate.ConclusionMetformin is a potentially superior choice for GDM treatment because it is associated with minimal incidences of multiple adverse pregnancy outcome indicators and does not lead to high values of certain adverse outcome indices. Other hypoglycemic agent or diet groups exhibit high incidences of certain adverse outcomes. Therefore, when selecting a GDM treatment strategy, the efficacies and risks of different treatment programs should be evaluated according to the scenario in hand.

Project description:AimsThe global COVID-19 pandemic has required a drastic transformation of prenatal care services. Whether the reformulation of the antenatal care systems affects maternal and infant outcomes remains unknown. Particularly, women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) are among those who bear the greatest brunt. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 lockdown during late pregnancy on maternal and infant outcomes in women stratified by the GDM status in China.Study designThe participants were women who experienced the COVID-19 lockdown during late pregnancy (3185 in the 2020 cohort) or not (2540 in the 2019 cohort) that were derived from the Beijing Birth Cohort Study. Maternal metabolic indicators, neonatal outcomes, and infant anthropometrics at 12 months of age were compared between the two cohorts, stratified by the GDM status.ResultsParticipants who experienced COVID-19 lockdown in late pregnancy showed lower gestational weight gain than those in the control cohort. Nevertheless, they displayed a worse metabolic profile. COVID-19 lockdown during pregnancy was associated with higher glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) (β= 0.11, 95% CI = 0.05-0.16, q-value = 0.002) and lower high density lipoprotein cholesterol level (HDL-C) level (β=-0.09, 95% CI = -0.14 to -0.04, q-value = 0.004) in women with GDM, adjusted for potential confounders. In normoglycemic women, COVID-19 lockdown in late pregnancy was associated with higher fasting glucose level (β= 0.10, 95% CI = 0.08-0.12, q-value <0.0001), lower HDL-C level (β=-0.07, 95% CI = -0.08 to -0.04, q-value <0.0001), and increased risk of pregnancy-induced hypertension (adjusted OR=1.80, 95%CI=1.30-2.50, q-value=0.001). The fasting glucose level decreased less from early to late pregnancy in women who experienced COVID-19 lockdown than in the controls, regardless of the GDM status. The HDL-C has risen less with COVID-19 lockdown in the normoglycemic subgroup. In contrast, no significant differences regarding neonatal outcomes or infant weight were found between the two cohorts.ConclusionExperiencing the COVID-19 lockdown in pregnancy was associated with worse maternal metabolic status but similar neonatal outcomes and infant weight.

Project description:Maternal vitamin D status has been associated with both gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and fetal growth restriction, however, the evidence is inconsistent. In Finland, maternal vitamin D status has improved considerably due to national health policies. Our objective was to compare maternal 25-hydroxy vitamin D concentrations [25(OH)D] between mothers with and without GDM, and to investigate if an association existed between maternal vitamin D concentration and infant birth size.This cross-sectional study included 723 mother-child pairs. Mothers were of Caucasian origin, and infants were born at term with normal birth weight. GDM diagnosis and birth size were obtained from medical records. Maternal 25(OH)D was determined on average at 11 weeks of gestation in pregnancy and in umbilical cord blood (UCB) at birth.GDM was observed in 81 of the 723 women (11%). Of the study population, 97% were vitamin D sufficient [25(OH)D???50 nmol/L]. There was no difference in pregnancy 25(OH)D concentration between GDM and non-GDM mothers (82 vs 82 nmol/L, P?=?0.99). Regression analysis confirmed no association between oral glucose tolerance test results and maternal 25(OH)D (P?>?0.53). Regarding the birth size, mothers with optimal pregnancy 25(OH)D (? 80 nmol/L) had heavier newborns than those with suboptimal pregnancy 25(OH)D (P?=?0.010). However, mothers with optimal UCB 25(OH)D had newborns with smaller head circumference than those with suboptimal 25(OH)D (P?=?0.003), which was further confirmed as a linear association (P?=?0.024).Maternal vitamin D concentration was similar in mothers with and without GDM in a mostly vitamin D sufficient population. Associations between maternal vitamin D status and birth size were inconsistent. A sufficient maternal vitamin D status, specified as 25(OH)D above 50 nmol/L, may be a threshold above which the physiological requirements of pregnancy are achieved.The project protocol is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov in November 8, 2012 ( NCT01723852 ).